The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of March 18, 2014.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Councilman Pucciarelli, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Joel, Mr. Hurley, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Mr. Reilly was absent at this time but arrived at the meeting later.
Oath of Office – Michele Peters was sworn in as a Class IV Board member.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Correspondence received by the Board – Ms. Wondergem said the Board received correspondence from Elizabeth Clothier dated April 2, 2014 regarding the Valley Hospital H-zone amendment application.
Scherrer Enterprises, LLC, 160-166 S. Broad Street, Block 3905, Lots 4 & 5 – Amended Site Plan application to enclose open porch and relocate entrance door – Charles Collins, attorney representing the applicant, asked Joseph Donato, architect, to describe the changes from the original approved plans. Mr. Donato referred to the revised plans, sheets A-1, A-2 and A-3. Mr. Donato described the building revisions which included a partial basement for mechanical space only, removing two windows from the front of the building and adding one to the rear of the building, removing a door from the reception area, closing in the outdoor vestibule due to security concerns, adding a railings to the front facade of the building, and an additional air conditioner. Mr. Donato said that sound attenuation could be used if necessary.
Board members were concerned regarding work that was done before coming before the Board with an amended site plan application. Mr. Donato told the Board which of the changes were already completed, which included the removal of the front windows, the added window on the south side of the window, the door on the west side of the building, the basement and the window rails. Mr. Brancheau explained that they had been working with the applicant and advised them to get approval for the changes. Mr. Brancheau said that some of the changes had been approved by the Construction Official who felt the basement was not usable floor area and interior modifications would not need site plan approval.
Mr. Reilly arrived at the meeting at 7:57 p.m.
Ms. Price marked the plans prepared by Joseph Donato, dated 9/18/13 and revised to 11/5/13, as Exhibit A-1.
Board members asked if there was an alternative to the fake windows. Mr. Donato said the faux windows on the front of the building match the faux windows on the side of the building.
Several Board member expressed concern over the changes from what was approved.
Mr. Brancheau asked about the utility service to the building. Mr. Donato said that the service is currently overhead to the north side of the building into the main panel in the basement. Mr. Brancheau said that Village code requires underground service. Mr. Donato said that public service did not permit underground from the pole to the building. Mr. Brancheau asked if the generator was powered by natural gas and where the lines for that run and if that could be shown on the plan. Mr. Donato said the lines run underground and it could be shown on the plans. Mr. Brancheau said the generator does not appear to be located where shown on the plan and that the current location would interfere with where the dumpster should be located. Mr. Brancheau asked if bollards are proposed to protect the generator from the dumpster. Mr. Donato said they could provide that.
Robert Weissman, engineer for the applicant, was sworn by Ms. Price. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Weissman to address the concerns regarding the generator and dumpster in the same enclosure. Mr. Weissman stated that the modifications to the site were primarily field changes which would be shown on an as-built plan upon completion. Mr. Weissman described the changes to the site plan, including the dumpster and the generator which would be accommodated in the same enclosure. Mr. Weissman said the bollards could be included to protect the generator. Mr. Weissman addressed the overhead utilities, paving and striping, and the landscaping plan which will be installed as approved.
The Board members asked for clarification regarding the landscaping, dumpster and generator.
Mr. Rutishauser said the landscaping plan was not done by a licensed professional and asked if the plantings would interfere with the generator. Mr. Weissman said they make sure it would not.
There was discussion regarding the landscape plan. Mr. Brancheau said a landscaping plan that reflects what has been done. Mr. Collins said that the applicant will do what was approved and if they want to make changes they will come back to the Board or get approval from Mr. Brancheau if he is designated by the Board.
Mr. Brancheau had questions regarding the change regarding the employee signs, the flared driveway, the height of the light fixtures and the shade tree. Mr. Weissman said they revised the plans to show what has been done.
Ms. Price went through the conditions of the original resolutions with Mr. Weissman.
The Board members made comments regarding their disappointment with the applicant’s failure to adhere to the approved plan, the lack of communication between the Planning Board and the Building Department in the issuance of permits, and how that could be prevented in the future. Mr. Collins explained that there are often field changes made during construction and that this was taken to the extreme in this particular situation.
Ms. Price marked Mr. Weissman’s plan sheet, revised February 24, 2014 as Exhibit A-2, Mr. Brancheau’s report dated April 11, 2014 as Exhibit B-1 and Mr. Rutishauser’s report dated April 15, 2014 as Exhibit B-2.
After Board deliberation a motion was made to approve the application with conditions and all Board members voted yes to approve.
9:09 p.m. – Mr. & Mrs. George Halwagy, 313 West Glen Ave., Block 1607, Lot 3 – Minor Subdivision  application (Underlying Remand Proceeding) – Charles Sarlo, attorney for the applicant, introduced the application, described the existing conditions on the lot and explained what is being proposed. Mr. Sarlo explained the history of the application, the 2006 application which was denied and the appeal of the denial and the remand on the issue of non-conforming use. The applicant asked the Board not to adopt the resolution of denial.
Mr. Brancheau and Mr. Rutishauser were sworn by Ms. Price.
Anthony Kuros, engineer, was sworn by Ms. Price and his credentials as an expert were accepted by the Board. Mr. Kuros submitted a plan consisting of 10 sheets which was marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Kuros went through the plan describing the proposed subdivision and compared the current proposal with the prior application and the changes in the variance requests. The proposed subdivision line was modified.
The Board members had questions regarding the house on Lot 3.01 and the side yard setback which looks like it should be the back yard. Mr. Kuros explained that the property has an irregular shape. Mr. Brancheau read the definition of the rear yard lot line.
Mr. Rutishauser asked if there was a reason for a turn around which was almost double which is usually provided on Lot 3.02. Mr. Kuros said that enough room was provided for a vehicle to turn around because Glen Avenue is a busy road. Mr. Rutishauser asked if they considered having Lot 3.01 connect into the sanitary sewer off of Morningside Road. Mr. Kuros said that due to the slope of the property it made more sense to connect into Glen Avenue sanitary sewer.
Mr. Brancheau asked about the lot depth variances and the calculations and asked for clarification of some of the variance requests.
Ms. Price asked Mr. Kuros to reaffirm the existing non-conformities that would be eliminated for Lot 3.02.
Linda Del Nobile Menze, architect, was sworn by Ms. Price and her credentials as an expert were accepted by the Board. Ms. Del Nobile Menze submitted architectural drawings dated 8/6/12 (pages A-1, A-2, A-3) and 6/25/12 (page A-4), which were marked as Exhibit A-2. Ms. Del Nobile Menze described the addition to the existing house on Lot 3.02 which would consist of a two-car garage, mudroom, and master bedroom suite over the garage.
Mr. Brancheau asked about the depth of the two-car garage. Ms. Menze explained that it was for aesthetic purposes.
Ms. Menze described the new dwelling proposed on Lot 3.01 facing Morningside Road.
Board members asked about putting windows on the side of the garage. Ms. Menze said that could be done.
Mr. Brancheau asked if Ms. Menze could confirm that the basement level meets Ridgewood code definition of basement. Ms. Menze said she will confirm that is the case. Mr. Brancheau asked about the size of the deck and if there was any other options without triggering a variance. Ms. Menze said they could consider a patio.
Mr. Sarlo submitted Sanborn maps which were marked as Exhibit A-3 and explained that the existing carriage house on the property existed as early as 1916. Mr. Sarlo handed out a series of three documents, consisting of property tax records and a copy of Ridgewood Ordinance #1107 from 1954, which were marked as Exhibit A-4. These documents show that the carriage house existed prior to the zoning ordinance in place.
Mr. Brancheau said the first zoning ordinance was in 1923 and that at that time a caretaker’s cottage was allowed. Ms. Price said that Judge Harris remanded the case for the Board’s consideration of the removal of the pre-existing non-conforming structure.
Kathryn Gregory, planner, was sworn by Ms. Price and her credentials as an expert were accepted by the Board. Ms. Gregory submitted a photo exhibit entitled ‘Existing Conditions and Surrounding Neighborhood Characteristics, 313-319 W. Glen Avenue’ which was marked as Exhibit A-5. Ms. Gregory explained the photographs of homes in the area and described the irregular shape of the applicant’s property.
Ms. Gregory referred to the site plan explains the variances and exceptions to design standards for each lot. Ms. Gregory said the hardship, C(1), variances would be the irregularly shaped lot, the topography and the legally existing structures. The C(2) variance, because the benefits will outweigh the detriments. Ms. Gregory sited the 1988 Kaufmann vs. Warren Township Case. Ms. Gregory said that what is proposed will better fit into the neighborhood, by eliminating the existing non-conforming structure they are promoting public safety and increasing light, air and space, they are eliminating the through lot, there is no increase in density, they comply with the lot area and there will be no substantial impairment to the zoning plan and land laws.
The hearing was carried to April 30 at 7:00 p.m., beginning with questions for Ms. Gregory.
11:03 p.m. – Other Business – There was discussion regarding scheduling special dates and venues for the H-zone hearing.
Mr. Brancheau asked the Board for guidance regarding a class of applications that come to the Site Plan Exemption Committee (SPEC) with applications for façade changes. Mr. Brancheau said that although the applications are eligible to be reviewed by SPEC, the committee is sometimes not comfortable making a decision to approve or deny because they are not happy with the design. There was Board discussion regarding the issue and it was decided that if the committee is not comfortable with a particular application they can refer them to the full Board.
The Board discussed security issues for controversial cases. Mayor Aronsohn suggested meeting with the Chief of Police and the Village Manager.
11:27 p.m. – Approval of Minutes – The minutes from October 22, 2013 were adopted as drafted.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: April7, 1015

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of April 30, 2014. For more detailed information, interested parties may request a CD recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Councilman Pucciarelli, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Joel, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Ms. Bigos and Mr. Hurley were absent.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Correspondence received by the Board – There was no correspondence to report.
Approval of Minutes – The October 29, 2013 minutes were adopted as drafted.
Discussion re: COAH Rule Update – Mr. Brancheau and Ms. Price explained that COAH released a set of procedural and substantive rules and there will be a public hearing held on the rules in July. Mr. Brancheau said some of the changes included were that the default set aside was established at 10%, and the period of the obligation was extended from 2018 to 2024, an economic feasibility study required as part of the housing plan, adjustments to the obligation allowed for lack of developable land and other significant changes. Mr. Brancheau said action will be required by the Village to address the plan. There will need to be further discussion.
7:13 p.m. – Mr.  & Mrs. George Halwagy, 313 West Glen Ave., Block 1607, Lot 3 – Minor Subdivision application – Kathryn Gregory, Professional Planner for the applicant, addressed Mr. Brancheau’s amended report dated April 30, 2015. Mr. Brancheau had added comments regarding the retaining wall and the minimum combined side yards violation. Ms. Gregory explained that the combined side yard violation is due to the irregular shape of the lot
Ms. Price marked the correspondence from Charles Sarlo, Esq., dated April 16, 2014, as Exhibit A-6. The memorandum from Mr. Brancheau providing amended analysis, dated April 30, 2014, was marked as Exhibit B-3.
Councilman Pucciarelli asked for a “no build zone” along the 10’ side yard for Lot 3.02. Mr. Sarlo said the applicant would agree and stipulated that it would be a condition of approval.
The Board members asked for clarification of the major changes from the prior application. The Board members asked if the deck on the house on lot 3.02 would be removed. The applicant said it would be. The Board members asked if the shed would remain on Lot 3.02. Mr. Sarlo said the applicant would remove or relocate the shed, whichever the Board says is appropriate. The Board members asked if a sidewalk would be provided, or if it should be required, on Morningside. Mr. Brancheau said the Board could require that a sidewalk be provided. The Board members asked if the size of the proposed dwellings were consistent with the neighborhood. Ms. Gregory said they were.
Mr. Rutishauser arrived at the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Price asked Mr. Rutishauser regarding the need for a sidewalk on Morningside. Mr. Rutishauser said the sidewalk would be problematic in that location due to the location and that there are no other sidewalks in that area. There was Board discussion regarding the sidewalks.
Mr. Brancheau asked if the applicant is stipulating that the homes are to be built in accordance with the plans submitted. The applicant said he would agree to that condition.
Chairman Nalbantian asked about the shed. Mr. Brancheau said the ordinance has different setback standards for a shed than for a dwelling, but a shed needs to be separated by the dwelling by a certain distance and what the applicant is proposing requires a variance.
The Board opened the meeting to the public for questions.
Michael Tumarinson asked about the height of the proposed new dwelling. Mr. Sarlo said the site plan shows the height to be 30 feet and that complies with the ordinance.
The meeting was closed to the public.
Mr. Rutishauser said, regarding his report, that he would want concrete curbs along the Morningside Road frontage and that the applicant needs to replace and restore the sidewalks on the Glen Avenue frontage. Mr. Brancheau said the code requires a locking manhole cover, Mr. Kuros, the engineer, said they would comply. Mr. Sarlo said they would stipulate with all of Mr. Rutishauser’s comments from his report dated April 15, 2014 except that they want to keep the sewer lateral location on Glen Avenue and they will agree to accept the maintenance responsibility for that sewer lateral. Mr. Rutishauser and Mr. Brancheau asked that the applicant reduce the turnout width of the driveway from 30 feet and set back further from West Glen Avenue. Mr. Sarlo said the applicant would reduce the driveway to 15 feet if the Board recommends that. Mr. Kuros said the turnout needs to close to West Glen. The County Planning Board will also review the plan.
After Board deliberation a motion was made to approve the subdivision with conditions. The conditions included but were not limited to: the addition of two windows on the north wall of the garage on Lot 3.01; no encroachment within the 10 foot side yard setback on Lot 3.02; removal of the shed and existing deck on Lot 3.02; relocate the retaining wall on Lot 3.01; revise the driveway design for Lot 3.02 to change the size of the turnaround to 10-12 feet only and move the turnaround area further from Glen Avenue; reconstruct curb and sidewalk along Glen Avenue and include a concrete curb along Morningside Road; no construction on either lot to commence until demolition of the existing second dwelling. The Board voted in favor of the motion with 5 aye votes and 2 nay votes.
8:41 p.m. – Scherrer Enterprises, LLC, 160-166 S. Broad St., Block 3905, Lots 4 & 5 – Ms. Price gave an overview of the resolution and conditions of approval. Ms. Price said that Dr. Scherrer is asking that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.) be issued. Charles Collins, attorney for the applicant, explained that Dr. Scherrer’s lease was ending in his current location on May 12, 2014. Mr. Collins said they are asking for recognition that the applicant has submitted plans that are consistent with what the Board had discussed. Mr. Collins said they are asking the Board to grant a T.C.O. that would extend for an appropriate period of time to allow them to complete the required conditions and allow Dr. Scherrer to move his practice into the building. Ms. Price explained the typical process and how that is different from what is being requested. Ms. Price said the Board does not issue the T.C.O., the Board would recognize that a T.C.O. with limitations could be issued by the Building Department. Ms. Price said the provisions would be that no T.C.O. could be issued until the Construction Official was satisfied that the space is acceptable, and that the pavement, striping, signage and lighting is installed, the Engineering Department is satisfied that the site can function without jeopardizing any issues of public health, welfare and safety, and that the time period for finalization of all conditions is 60 days.
Ms. Price went over the modifications to the resolution and the Board had some discussion regarding landscaping issues and the T.C.O. provisions.
The resolution of approval for Scherrer Enterprises, LLC, amended site plan, was memorialized with the discussed revisions.
9:12 p.m. – Chairman Nalbantian announced the resignation of Morgan Hurley effective immediately. Mr. Hurley had been a Board member for 25 years.
9:15 p.m. – Discussion re: Referral of Ordinance #3411 – Amendments to the redevelopment plan for the North Walnut Street Redevelopment Area – Mr. Brancheau said the Council had asked the Board for comments and to submit a redevelopment plan. Mr. Brancheau said the North Walnut Street Redevelopment Plan has been introduced in ordinance form and the public hearing would be held on May 14. Mr. Brancheau asked the Board to review the plan and discuss any issues they may have.
Mayor Aronsohn and Councilman Pucciarelli expressed that this is a great opportunity to get a parking garage downtown and to improve the Franklin Avenue corridor.
Some Board members had concern regarding the 60 foot height being permitted and there was a suggestion that the RFP should provide an incentive or preference to proposals which conform to the existing height limitations. Some Board members had concerns  regarding drive-in banks or drive-in pharmacies as permitted uses and allowing an assisted living facility in the area. Some Board members did not want the parking garage to be available to commuters.
Mr. Brancheau explained that some of the reasons to allow a height of 60 feetare that when using a parking deck to address the need for parking, some space is lost due to ramps, walls, stairs and elevators. Parking is lost when there is retail on the ground floor and that parking spaces would be needed for the Oak Street buildings which use the existing parking lot.
Board members asked if assisted living would have to be above retail, or that mixed use would be required. Mr. Brancheau said that assisted living should not be on ground level, but that entrance lobbies and other amenities could be on ground floor. There was discussion on other uses, besides retail, which could be permitted on the ground floor.
Ms. Price said, regarding the height concern, was that the only way the building could get to 60 feet is if parking is included.
After further discussion the Board authorized Mr. Brancheau to draft a summary of the issues discussed by the Board in a letter to the Council.
Other Business: There was Board discussion regarding scheduling, venues and extra meetings for May and June.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: May 19, 2015

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of May 6, 2014. For more detailed information, interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Joel, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Councilman Pucciarelli is recused from the hearing regarding the H – Hospital zone and the Master Plan amendment for the AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C-zone districts and was absent from the meeting.
Chairman Nalbantian announced the resignation of Morgan Hurley from the Planning Board after many years of service.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Correspondence Received by the Board - Ms. Wondergem said there was none.
7:39 p.m. - Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H – Hospital Zone, The Valley Hospital, 223 N. Van Dien Avenue, Block 3301, Lot 51 – Continuation of Board expert presentations - Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's begin with public hearing on the Amendment of the Land Use Plan Element for the H Hospital Zone, the Valley Hospital, 223 North Van Dien Avenue, Block 3301, Lot 51.  This is the continuation of the Board's expert presentation. At the last meeting we were in the process of hearing public questions for Blais Brancheau's testimony.  Blais is the Village Planner. So, I would like to take this time to ask those members of the public who heard Blais' testimony and who wish to ask questions, based on his testimony, to come forward at this time.  There were a few left. 
MR. COLLINS:  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to enter my appearance tonight on behalf of the Hospital, Charles Collins, 135 Prospect Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you Mr. Collins.  So noted.  Again, please state your name, spell your name and provide your address and remember these are questions for Blais that are based on his testimony. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Hi, good evening.  Marla Sherman, S h e r m a n, 449 Beverly Road. Good evening, Blais, I wanted to thank you for the document that you prepared.  It's a great resource and I look forward to talking    to asking some questions about it.  My first question has to do with the noise ordinances.  I know that you've had discussed the    you know, the pros and the cons of the project. And I wonder is there an exemption in the Ridgewood Ordinances for construction noise, generator noise, dewatering pump noise or does that have to follow the 50/65 rule. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The rule that you've cited is not a local ordinance, it's a state regulation, the State Noise Regulations.  Ridgewood merely references those regulations.  I know there are certain exceptions to the noise standards.  They're not    they're really intended to regulate what I call continuous noise and not periodic noise.  And there may be exemptions for construction activity and motor vehicles.  It's more operational noise that those regulations cover.  But I can't tell you sitting here, specifically, what every exemption is, that would have to be looked up.
MS. SHERMAN:  But, there generally are exemptions for construction –

MR. BRANCHEAU:  There are, yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:     noise and things like that.  Okay. Do you know within the Village who actually enforces these ordinances? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I can tell you that as one of the persons who reviews development applications, it’s often a combination of myself, the Zoning Officer, and the Engineer for the Village.  We require, with every development application that has equipment, to provide us with noise specifications of that equipment.  And     
MS. SHERMAN:  Can I just stop you, I'm sorry.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. SHERMAN:  I think that maybe I asked the question incorrectly.  For example, if I were to have a party and I had a band playing at the party and it was 10:00 at night.  I would get a knock on my door by the police, Ridgewood Police, saying if    you're too loud and you need to shut it down.  So I just wondered is that the same process for Valley Hospital? Is that    who does a resident call?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If someone    if someone were to complain about a violation or an alleged violation of a noise requirement, and    it would have to be investigated and that depends on what the violation    there's different ordinances in place, not just the State Noise Regulations, but in the case of like a party there's the "peace and good order" which is in the General Section of the Code, that would be enforced by the Village and/or the Police Department. But in the case of, if someone were to say Valley Hospital's chillers are violating the noise regulations, what would happen in a case like that is we would review their approval for the chiller, what the noise levels were.  If it were suspected that they were, in fact, in violation, we could require a noise study to determine that, in fact, they were or were not in compliance.  And if not in compliance then they could be required to mitigate the noise levels to bring it into compliance.
MS. SHERMAN:  So, there are no safeties for a resident being disturbed in the middle of the night or during construction for whatever reason, if the noise level becomes troublesome? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, for example, on construction, I know there's been testimony on that, extensive testimony during these hearings. Construction noise would be something, the timing of construction and the mitigation of impacts from construction, is typically something that is regulated by both ordinance and by a Developer's Agreement that would go along with the site plan application.  So, for example, I believe landscapers aren't allowed to start cutting grass before a certain hour and so forth.  The same with construction activities.  It's limited in hours and perhaps days of use.  Specifics for any particular project, however, that would be typically covered by a Developers Agreement.  So, those safeguards are there, but if you're saying, can we a hundred percent guarantee that there would be no violation?  No, other than the threat of enforcement.  That's true with almost any rule that's out there.  We can't guarantee someone is not going to speed or hurt somebody, in some way or shape or form, but that's all that we have is    is the threat of enforcement against violations.  And, you know, the requirement that someone implements what we would call mitigating measures, like, I know we talked about –
MS. SHERMAN:  But if somebody chooses to speed and they get caught that's their own personal decision and they have to suffer the personal consequences.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Right.
MS. SHERMAN:  But if they are put upon by an entity, maybe not even just Valley Hospital, but if something happens, literarily what can a resident do?  I mean something happens that is disturbing, that is    that shakes their house.  I mean you can't, you can't investigate it, you want it to stop immediately because it's a problem.  What does a resident do? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All I can say is that you try to prevent those things from happening in the first place as best you can by imposing construction limitations.  We've talked about, for example, noise blankets and things like that.  We've talked about the hours of activity.
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm saying if all of those things didn't happen.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If all of those things failed, all there is, is a complaint to be filed and to be –
MS. SHERMAN:  With the Ridgewood Police?  Who does    where does the resident file a complaint? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It could be filed with the police if it was something that was of a nature that we required an immediate response and it was a clear and present danger.  If it’s more of a nuisance type thing, it would depend upon what's being violated.  If it's a violation of site plan requirements, typically that would be enforced by the Village Engineer.  So, really depends upon what the violation is specifically being cited.
 MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  I mean I bring this up because in your document you have sort of a checks and balance approach at times.  And I was just wondered how it is that you    how is it that your document was to    to put any sort of limitation on the level of nuisance.  I mean just saying that noise is a nuisance is one thing, but if it’s truly a nuisance to somebody repeatedly and they have no recourse, it becomes more than    it becomes a quality of life issue, not just a single incident.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  What I am saying to you is, is that there is recourse.  If someone makes a claim of a violation, it would be investigated.  And if it is determined that that violation did, in fact, occur, then there would be fines levied and measures taken to prevent it happening again.  I don't know what more you could do.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay, okay.  My third question was in your report did you consider the long term impacts of the surrounding area, for instance, during a six year construction period, it might be difficult for somebody to sell a house.  And potentially the house might go for less money than it would go if there weren't a six year construction plan coming ahead.  And how does that    I'm sure hospitals, they    they grow and then there is an effect to the areas surrounding the hospital.  Have you looked into that at all and...
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I acknowledged in my report and in my testimony that there would be some impacts from construction, but as far as like real estate values or anything like that, I'm not an expert in appraisal of property values or in determining what effect that would have.  So, no, I didn't testify or write to that in my report.
MS. SHERMAN:  All right.  I mean I wasn't just talking about real estate values.  I was talking about the way that homes get purchased and eventually they become doctors' offices.  I mean that's pretty common practice with hospitals as they grow.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I mean we've already indicated, I believe that the zone boundaries would not be amended and doctors' offices are not a permitted use in the adjacent residential zones. 
So, yeah, that would require a use variance and I didn't really go there.
MS. SHERMAN:  Is that something that could be put into the Master Plan.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I think –
MS. SHERMAN:  To    to    so that that doesn't happen?  I mean what is going to prevent someone else buying here –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That was the reason for    I mean, we already have in the Master Plan that a residential zone permits certain uses and not others.  And we also specifically said that the boundaries of the hospital zone are not to be expanded upon under the Master Plan.  So to me it's sort of like stating the obvious that we don't want to have doctors' office in a residential zone, where we've already said we only want single family homes in the residential zone.  So, we didn't    we didn't say that.  I mean, it's not needed.  Could it be done?  Sure, it could be done. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Well, I just    I just think it speaks to the fact that they will abide by what their plan is and that the Village actually is putting a constraint on it, is saying that there will not be any change to the residential zone around it, that it will not    because what's to stop them seven years from now from requesting as change to the Master Plan –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, nothing.
MS. SHERMAN:     to the residential zone to be changed to doctors' offices –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, this is –
MS. SHERMAN:     and here we are all over again.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Nothing, that could always happen and that's    
MS. SHERMAN:  But that's –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, Ms. Sherman, you have to refrain from making statements because you're not sworn in. So, if you could limit these to questions so Blais could answer them, it would work best.
MS. SHERMAN:  I thought I said "what's to stop".
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, very good.
MS. SHERMAN:  That was the question.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  There's    I mean every request, every application is made on its own merits.  And could tomorrow someone come in with something that nobody anticipated and which is contrary to what current policy is?  Yes.  And if they did that, we would evaluate it on its merits.  If it was meritless, presumably, it would be denied.  If it was    had merit, it would it be considered, you know.  But, I    without    it's sort of speculative.
MS. SHERMAN:  It's speculative, absolutely. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  I    I have a couple more –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Thank you, Ms. Sherman. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I have a couple more questions. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Well, why don't we see how many people are intending to ask questions?  Okay.  So, let's let folks come forward.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Sure.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And, Again, let's    if we could continue as we had the time, please ask your three questions. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And then allow them to be answered after all three of them have been asked.
MR. PUTNINS:  Zigi Putnins, 572 Fairway Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey.  So, Blais, at the March 31st    I think it was the 31st, 2014 meeting you gave a presentation of your analysis of the current H Zone and the 2013 H Zone Amendment.  And in it you had many comments about various setbacks on the property, various building heights, overall lot coverage and things of that nature.  Much of that analysis was based on the design described in Valley's Renewal Plan.  Given that neither at the current H Zone, nor the proposed Amendment stipulate any particular design to be built on the property, what is the benefit of such a detailed analysis?  It seems speculative at best.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm not    I didn't follow all you're saying, could you rephrase the question? 
MR. PUTNINS:  Basically, you did a lot of analysis on setbacks to the property, in terms of the H Zone Amendment, you compared the 2010 to 2013, this was back at the March 31st meeting.  My question is a lot of that is based on the Valley Renewable Project proposal.  Given that nothing said they'd have to build that proposal, what's the benefit of such detailed analysis at this point in the project? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  What's    well, the hospital has made a request for a certain Amendment to the Master Plan and this Board is considering that Amendment.  So, I think it would be unreasonable to not evaluate what they've requested.  So that's what my proposal has done is try to evaluate, in the area of setbacks, how it compares with what's already there and how it compares with the Master Plan that's already in place.  And that's what I've done.  So, I don't consider that of no benefit.  I think that's what the Board's charged to do; is consider what's being requested of it.
MR. PUTNINS:  In your analysis you mentioned, for example, the Cheel Building, the North Building, the Phillips Building, none of which are actually stipulated in the Amendment so.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The purpose of that was to compare what exists today with what is requested by an amendment.  So, it's just to get a sense of what the effect of the change that's requested of the Board would be.
So, for example, some buildings would be further than they are today from the property line.  Some would be closer.  Some would be taller.  Overall, buildings would be bigger. So, the whole point of that is for the Board, again, when I laid out when my testimony was for the Board to understand this a balancing of positive and negative.  And part of that is to see where the proposal is an improvement from existing conditions.  And in some areas it's not an improvement, it actually worse than existing conditions.  The same thing with the comparison of the Master Plan.  There's certainly are public benefits by virtue of the hospital itself.  And also by some of the Amendments to the plan and the development amendments if, for example they can reduce setbacks, if they can    I mean increase setbacks, reduce traffic, reduce coverage and so forth.  Those would be benefits that have to be balanced against the negative impacts from the proposal and there are those as well. So, that analysis that you're referring to, setbacks and so forth, is really tied back to that fundamental question of balancing positives and negatives. 
MR. PUTNINS:  If by some circumstance Valley changes its mind or gets bought out and a new plan is substantially different from the current renewal plan, would you suggest –
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sorry, sir, please speak up and start over again? 
MR. PUTNINS:  I'm sorry.  If by some circumstance Valley changes its mind or gets bought out and a new plan is substantially different from the current renewal plan, would you suggest that the H Zone be amended to accommodate the new plan?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That would depend upon what the Amendment was, I don't know. 
You know, if someone came in with a plan that was better, I would say, "yeah" we should go with that.  If someone came in with a plan that was worse, I would say, "well, what we have is better than what's proposed".
So, you know, it is a speculative question and hard to answer. 
MR. PUTNINS:  So, again, this will be my last question.  So, in the same meeting back on March 31st, you indicated that the H Zone Amendment is    hang on. You indicated the H Zone Amendment reflects up to and including Phase II of Renewal.  And you expressed some concerns about what happens if Valley doesn't complete Phase II of the Renewal project.  Again, this sounds to me like having H Zone Amendment targeted towards    specifically towards Valley's plan to the point of having consideration for their various construction phases.  Is there precedence to having a Master Plan so specifically targeted to accommodate an owner's future plans.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm not    I am not sure I understand the question.
MR. PUTNINS:  You had some concern, you know, about Phase I, Phase II, which to me is almost like a construction, you know, they get to the second phase of construction maybe you should change the H Zone Amendment to accommodate which phase they complete and so on.  It just seems like it's very specifically targeted towards their plan as opposed to be looking at the bigger picture of what's good for the    for the area.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, again, I'll go back to what I said before:  The Hospital has requested an Amendment.  And they've requested their Amendment based upon the plan that they argue addresses some of concerns that the Council put forth when it refused to implement the last Master Plan Amendment.  We're responding to what the Hospital's requesting.  We are pointing out what's good about it, what's bad about it.  And the Board will have to balance the good and the bad.  My comments about Phase I and Phase II in evaluating what's good about it and what's bad about it was to point out that Phase II at this point in time is uncertain.  And that some of the positives from Phase II are, therefore, also uncertain.  Some of the negatives from Phase II are also uncertain. And that    I had pointed out that the only thing that is immediately proposed is Phase I. And I commented in my report that it would be useful if we had an analysis of what would the results be at the end of Phase I, in the way of coverage, in the way of floor area, in the way of setbacks and so forth.  We have some of those.  We don't have a full picture.  So, but, you know, again we're responding to the Hospital's proposal.
So, I don't know how you could do this in a vacuum for a single lot zone with a specific user that knows, probably better than we do, what its own operation is and what its own needs are, whether we agree with those or not is what this Board has to decide.  But, I don't know how I could, how any Board could do this without "negotiating"    no, negotiating isn't the right word, but certainly having a discussion and a give and take with the property owner, who has been operating on the site for 50 years, I think it's something that is a given.  And you just can't plan for this in a vacuum and ignore what's already there and ignore the operation.  I think you have to. And so between them coming to us with a specific proposal and the need for us to discuss their proposal with the property owner, I don't know how    how it could be done differently than what has been done. 
MR. PUTNINS:  Okay, thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Putnins.  Please state and spell your name, provide your address.
MS. BENSON:  Cathy Benson, B e n s o n, 572 Fairway Road.  Mr. Brancheau, on page 10 of your report you put in a summary of other non residential properties and how the hospital compares to those, what you left out here is the parking deck.  How does a parking deck compare to other parking decks in town and where other parking decks are allowed in town.  Specifically, in these front lot    in the front on the corner, surrounded by residential zone.  Is this allowed anywhere in Ridgewood?  And would it be arbitrary, capricious and whatever, for the town    for the town Planning Board to say, "hey, no above grade parking, especially if the front yard". 
MS. PRICE:  Can I just?  I don't think that Mr. Brancheau as a planner is in a position to make a determination of arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  That's for a court to decide. 
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  The first part of your question, I think is fine.
MS. BENSON:  Then the second    the second part of my question would be, as a planner, do you believe that an open parking deck in the front yard, in a residential neighborhood fits in with the character of single family homes in Ridgewood.
MS. PRICE:  That I think you can answer.
MS. BENSON:  He can answer.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, that's sort of phrasing it in the vacuum, you know.  I think, I have acknowledged in my testimony that we're dealing with a situation that's a real life situation, that if this was a greenfield today, we probably wouldn't be talking about putting a hospital there.  The fact is that    the fact of the matter is it is there today and it's been there for a long time.  So    and I said at the last meeting that I think that is a significant factor.  I'm not saying that's a determining factor, but it's certainly a significant factor that the Board has to consider.  So, given that, and given the need for    reasonable need for a hospital to have parking, given the options to locating that parking either    as I said with the building, there is really three options.  You could go up.  You could go out and you can go down.  Going down means more construction.  It means more excavation.  It means a lot of things. Going up means negative things in the mass and the visual impact and other factors.  Going out means it brings it closer to the homes. So, that's a balancing thing as is it better to have more improvement coverage and more surface parking and less green or is it better to have the parking go vertical in a deck.  Those are the things that the Board is going to have to balance.  And I am just saying that if this was a greenfield would I said, yes, let's put a four story parking deck in the middle of a residential zone, I wouldn't say that normally.  But I am saying that's not the situation.  We're not dealing with a greenfield.  We're dealing with an existing hospital facility, and that's why    I mean this is six    we've been over 60 hearings on this now, either in the last iteration or in the current one, combined.  And I don't know how many versions of plans we've looked at of ones that had more underground parking and less aboveground, that had more building underground and less aboveground, taller buildings, shorter buildings.  And I think the parking deck is one proposal to try to provide an adequate number of parking spaces on the site without going to the property lines with the parking.
That may or may not be the best proposal.  I don't know how else to say that, it's just it's not easy to do it.  Even if, I think, indicated in the testimony that the parking is going down.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The number of spaces is going down.  So, could it be done in another way?  I don't know what the alternatives are other than what I have laid out:  Up, out or down.  And all of them have negatives.  All of them have positives.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.  You didn't answer one question which was –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
MS. BENSON:     where else are there parking decks, and are they in the front yard    and are they allowed in the front yard. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  We do allow parking decks in the Village.  And as far as in the front yard goes, I'd have to look it up but if someone were to have a building with a parking deck    the front yard is defined as the area between the street and the principal building. 
MS. BENSON:  Uh huh.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  A deck were to be part of the principal building, it wouldn't be in the front yard.  The front yard would be in front of the deck.  I guess maybe the question really is, is what would the setbacks be for that? 
I know in the downtown area if someone were to build a parking deck, the setbacks would be minimal. What would the setbacks be from the adjacent residential properties?  Less than what they are proposed to be here. 
Making the downtown area    admittedly in many areas it doesn't abut single family zones, but it does in some.
I think the rear yard setback is half the building height.  So, if you had a 45 foot high deck, the setback would only be required to be 22 ½ feet.  Whereas, in this situation the parking setback is    the parking deck setback is much greater than that. So, it's not a likely scenario, but you asked the question and I tried to –
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     I tried to answer it.
MS. BENSON:  So we don't have any parking decks on the –

MR. BRANCHEAU:  Not    not currently, but they are permitted.
MS. BENSON:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Benson.  Is there someone else who has a question with regard to Blais' testimony?  Again, I am going to ask again, this will be the last time, I hope, please ask your three questions together.  If you need them to be repeated or if Blais needs them to be repeated, I'll ask Laura to repeat the question as she's noted them on the record.
MS. TUOMEY:  I have to ask my questions altogether? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, please, Mrs. Tuomey.
MS. TUOMEY:  I'm assuming it's correct –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please state and spell –
MS. TUOMEY:  I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     and spell your name and address, please.
MS. TUOMEY:  Janet Tuomey, T u o m e y.  59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey.  Mr. Chairman, I was not present when Mr. Brancheau produced his or gave his presentation, but I read the document.  May I ask questions on the reading of the document? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You may as long as they are specific to his testimony.  And if you wouldn't mind –
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes, I understand that. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If you could –
MS. TUOMEY:  I'm learning.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  If you could please state your three questions –
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     together. 
MS. TUOMEY:  I had a question about the noise level as well.  I wanted to ask about who is going to monitor the level of the noise, that is a major problem with children and our children are going to be in BF –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please, please try to refrain from comments.  Please ask the questions. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.  And the decibel level, Blais, is 65 decibels that's the top level and anything over that    oh, he may not know.  Can it be destructive to children?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  What    can you just start again and just state your three questions please. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Go through them all.
MS. TUOMEY:  Who is going to monitor, on site, the level of noise during construction.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm going to say –
MS. PRICE:  No, Blais, wait.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let her ask all three.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Oh, you're going to ask all the questions –
MS PRICE:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     first?  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I've written down –
MS. TUOMEY:  That's number one.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I've written down two questions.
MS. TUOMEY:  But, I have only asked one.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Oh, I thought you wanted to know the decibel levels.
MS. TUOMEY:  I just told you, 65 decibels.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.  Why don't you keep going.
MS. PRICE:  Just ask the question.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay, number two, what were the environmental assessments that you read and that you used to come to your conclusions about the impacts? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Those that were provided during    
MS PRICE:  No. 

MR. BRANCHEAU:  Are you done? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That is number two.
MS PRICE:  That's number two.
MS. TUOMEY:  And number three; there was an assessment Mr. Collins told the Planning Board about, quite a while ago, that he would try to give to the Planning Board, and I assume the public, that Valley had done, but he said it was proprietary.  I believe, it was in response to Mr. Reilly's question.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  What is your question?
MS. TUOMEY:  Was it handed over to the Planning Board. 
MS PRICE:  Well –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I didn't testify about that, so... 
MS. PRICE:  Yes.
MS. TUOMEY:  Well, I'm asking about that, did you    did you use that or did you see that? 
MS PRICE:  Okay.  So –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Did you use it in your testimony? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  No. 
MS PRICE:  Okay.  So –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So now you can all three questions.
MS. PRICE:  So he just answered number three, no.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  So, regarding who will monitor, I think    construction noise, I think that's going to be a subject for the Planning Board to determine if and when we get to a site plan application.  There may be a requirement that the applicant monitor.  There may be a requirement that the applicant pay for the Village to hire an independent monitor or it may be done by current Village staff.  I think it's going to depend upon what, when and where.  As to environmental assessments those are all on record that were part of the hearing testimony.  I'm not an expert in the environmental assessments, but—
MS. TUOMEY:  Which ones did you    did you use?  Did you use any? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All of the ones that are on record.
MS. PRICE:  Let me see if I can help. Mr. Brancheau, you are referring to the reports that were filed by Converse on behalf of the Board. 
MR. BRACHEAU:  Both Converse and by the applicant, yes. 
MS. PRICE:  And the reports that were received into evidence –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS PRICE:     on behalf of the Hospital? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:  Those were the only reports received for evidential value at this point in time, correct? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Correct.  Those are the only exhibits and the testimony at the hearings.
MS. TUOMEY:  Ms. Price, who is Converse?
MS. PRICE:  Converse is the Board's environmental consultant who testified at –
MS. TOUMEY:  I was away, so I probably missed that one.  When was that?
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  I can't    I don't know –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  They're posted on line.
MS PRICE:     what night it was exactly, but it would by the website, because all the    all the transcripts are up on the website.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  I did not know about that, okay.
MS. PRICE:  Dr. Kabir testified, Mrs. Tuomey.
MS. TUOMEY:  I remember that was a long time ago. 
MS. PRICE:  No, he testified on direct after his review of what the Hospital had submitted, he made an independent study and an independent report. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  And then he provided his testimony.
MS. TUOMEY:  That was a long time ago, too.  I was here for that.  But    how many questions?
MS. PRICE:  That's three.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's three.
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You can come back after everyone is done.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I would encourage you to go to the website and look at the testimony that Blais is referring to.
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes, I will.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  Is there someone else?  Well, let's get through everybody once, first.
Again, if you would please state your three questions together at once.  And, Blais, if we can answer them after they've been all asked.
MS. BANEY:  Lisa Baney, 136 Brookside Avenue.  My first question –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you spell your name first for the record?
MS. BANEY:  Oh, certainly, "B" like boy, a n as in Nancy, e y, Lisa.  One of my questions is a follow up to the one that Cathy Benson asked about the concept with the big parking deck and I just wanted to follow up, Blais, and get your input on one aspect of that, which is that, no, it's not a greenfield situation and the hospital is there, but would it not be one possible solution to not have a big, potentially inappropriate, parking deck for the setting in the residential area, to simply consider it not approving this development because normally as it is now, I mean the parking is about the same amount, but it’s on the ground.  And this particular proposal means that has to go up in the air, so    or down into the bedrock. So, one possible solution, could it not be, potentially to say that this is not an appropriate plan.  That's one question, I would just like to know if that's a possible thought.  The other one is about quality of life.  And I just    Blais, I know you've often made the good point that in society, and perhaps the law deems a health care use is inherently beneficial use and that a good use, therefore, if we were to improve healthcare that it's a good outcome.  But I'm always looking for the better grasp on something which is; is it possible that if it could be acknowledged that the healthcare needs to be met in another way, beyond the Ridgewood borders, I don't know any other way, then would it not be worth weighing that against the detriments, before one says that this    this balancing act is appropriate.  Those are my questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Just the two? 
MS. BANEY:  Um huh.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay, the first one, the short answer is, yes, that is one possible determination that the Board could make, that    that it is not appropriate and they could reject this.  The second question is on the healthcare, inherently beneficial, and I hope it    my testimony was not misunderstood that inherently beneficial determination is not a free pass.  The term is used technically in a use variance case. I used it in this situation only to highlight the beneficial aspects of the use.  And this, by statute, is named specifically as a beneficial use.  And I think it's fairly obvious why it's a beneficial use. But that being said, just as with if not, just because an applicant were to seek a use variance and is inherently beneficial, that doesn't guarantee approval.  That has to be balanced against the negative aspects of the use.  And in some cases the Board can validly determine that the negatives outweigh the positives and even though they are benefits to the use, per se, in this location and this proposal the negatives outweigh that.  And there is not enough sufficient benefit to outweigh the negative.  So, it can be rejected.  So, yeah, the Board could determine that we acknowledge the benefits, but that doesn't mean we're approving it.  So, I don't know if that answers your question but –
MS. BANEY:  Yes, thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais. Thank you, Ms. Baney.  Is there anyone else?  This is the last question, last individual.  Please state and spell your name, provide your address. And, again, this is specific to Blais' testimony. Good evening. 
MR. POSNER:  Good evening, Neil Posner, 354 Walthery Avenue.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you please spell your last name please.  
MR. POSNER:  Sure, P o s n e r.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you repeat that, please? 

MR. POSNER:  Sure, P o s n  e r.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MR. POSNER:  So, my question first is about the model that Blais –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm sorry.
MR. POSNER:     that you used.  I believe that you talk about a requirement to balance detriment with benefit; is that a correct statement?  That's number one.  If that's a correct statement, can you say, give me your assessment, your assessment of whether you believe you addressed all potential detriments or whether there may be some that have not been listed in your report.  And in terms of the specific benefits to the Village, could you point us please to the place in the report that actually lays out benefits to the Village of Ridgewood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Those are your three questions? 
MR. POSNER:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  My model that I used, I said at the beginning of my testimony that there is no cookbook that says these are the steps to baking a zoning cake, so to speak, that there are certainly laws out there, but how a municipality applies those laws in each particular situation varies.  I did suggest the use a balancing test.  I find that almost universally that some type of balancing test occurs whether    whether in zoning decisions, whether in applications for variances, whether in site plan or subdivision applications.  There are always balancing going on.  No development occurs without any negative impact.  There's always negatives.  There are also positives.  And sometimes those positives are more subtle, but they're there. In the case of a hospital, I think fairly obvious that healthcare is a basic human need.  And the testimony that's been presented in the hearings has indicated, discussed at length:  Standards for hospital construction; standards for infection control; standards for treatment.  There's been extensive comparison with what other hospitals do.  And I think given that, that there are obvious benefits and I think that's why the State has defined a hospital as an inherently beneficial use, as to –
MR. POSNER:  But can I just clarify because that's not the question –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
MR. POSNER:     I asked –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  What's the question? 
MR. POSNER:  I asked if your model was indeed balancing of benefits to the community and detrimental effects of whatever is proposed here to the community.  Is that    I mean based on what you've said, I'm not sure what the answer is.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right, the benefits    municipalities are not charged with drawing the lines at their own borders when evaluating benefits or detriments.  There has been court cases that have determined that a municipality must consider not only local needs, but regional need.  Certain uses, by their very nature, serve areas larger than a single municipality.  Certain uses that are located near a border    did we lose sound here?
That are located near a border with the municipality may serve a small area, but they go beyond the border.
The same thing with the negatives.  The fact that the traffic created by development may impact somebody outside the municipality doesn't mean the town can ignore it or that the development is adjacent to a zone in another municipality, doesn't mean it can ignore it.  The law, in fact, requires that in its planning, a municipality consider the larger area, not only its own local objectives, but consistency with the State plan, consistency with county plans, and address the    look at the plans of adjacent municipalities to make sure that it's not effecting them and that it’s doing its best to try to be consistent and work together with its neighbors.  So    and in looking at addressing the public health, safety and welfare and benefits to the general public, it's not just the general public of the Village of Ridgewood that the municipality must look at, but the general public anywhere that is affected by its decisions.  So, I would say that the hospital    to the extent that the hospital benefits the Village of Ridgewood, it does so obviously to those who rely upon it, its residents, or people who work here who rely upon it for healthcare needs certainly.  The Hospital has some secondary benefits as well in that it's community programs benefit members the public within Ridgewood and without.  Doctors' offices, for example, that locate in the Village of Ridgewood –
MR. POSNER:  But, I'm sorry, that –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Doctors –

MR. POSNER:  If I may, that is not, again, what my question is.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let him finish and then we'll get clarity. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, you've asked what benefits the Hospital provides to the Village of Ridgewood.
MR. POSNER:  That was my second question.  My first question was about the model itself.  And if I understood correctly, and I have to ask this, because I heard you say that this isn't about just the Ridgewood need.  This is about regional needs and needs outside the community. So, in your role as the Village of Ridgewood's Planner, did you write this on behalf of the Village of Ridgewood or did you write this on behalf of some larger regional area? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Both. 
MR. POSNER:  Well, I find that a very difficult answer to actually think is appropriate under this situation, but –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm required by law    I'm required by law to consider the needs of the general public, whether they live in Ridgewood or outside of Ridgewood. 
MR. POSNER:  So, the question    the second question now –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  And so is this Board.
MR. POSNER:  The second question now, if we move into that about the detriments and the quantification of the various types of detriments, do you believe that's actually been captured in here? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think it's been summarized, the key.  Every little detail, no.  That would take a very extensive report.  I've relied upon the testimony at these hearings.  The exhibits that have been presented at these hearings, for much of the detail.  I don't believe that in a Master Plan Amendment that level of detail, is something that is called for.  There is certainly an adequate, I think, foundation in the record for the conclusions in my report.
MR. POSNER:  Just a question then, I mean, would    if you're saying though the key points about detriments have been summarized, would you consider impact on home values in the area to be not a potential detriment to those taxpaying Ridgewood residents?  
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, first of all, there's been no testimony on the effect of home values during the course of these hearings.  So I would have nothing to base a conclusion in my report on.  And I'm not an expert in real estate values. So, is it a valid consideration, I think   
MR. POSNER:  If I may    
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Go ahead.
MR. POSNER:     you're the Village Planner.  And I think isn't it a part of the Village's remit to ensure that not only is the character or the town maintained, but that the things that are important about any aspect of the town, when assessing something like this, that you would consider any detrimental effect.  And regardless of whether you're an expert or not, it's not even mentioned here in your report.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Because I have nothing to base an opinion upon.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay. 
MR. POSNER:  So, it's not a potential –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I am not saying there is no potential effect on property values.  I'm not saying that there is.  I don't know.  So, I don't know what to say.
MR. POSNER:  Well, I –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's not something we can really debate here at this point, you've answered his question.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I didn't testify concerning property values and no one has testified concerning property values. 
MR. POSNER:  What about standards of living and being able to enjoy one's property, is that part of the detrimental effect?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think I have addressed that in the report.  I've addressed it in the various comments in the report in a number of ways:  When I've looked at setbacks; when I've looked at coverage; when I've looked at height and mass; when I've looked at noise; when I've looked at construction effects; lighting and so forth.  I think    stormwater runoff, those all effect the quality of life and I think that those have been summarized adequately in my report.
MR. POSNER:  I agree, but I think those are very detailed.  I think the very big picture question about if the proposal goes forward as planned in its totality, not about the individual lighting, not about the individual parking, not about the water, not about any individual piece of it.  But in its totality, what does it do for Ridgewood?  I guess honestly that's where I look at this and I go, I don't know what's being said because we're    we're looking at the details of it, instead of what does it mean for Ridgewood. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Posner, I'm going to ask, Blais, if you can take your time to answer this question.  And let's bring this to a conclusion this particular point.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If someone says to me "quality of life", I am going to say, in what aspect of quality are you talking about.  And I think when    most people when they're talking about quality of life, I mean by itself that is a subjective, sort of a vague term. It’s    like the Judge said, you know, it's like pornography.  I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.  I think quality of life is something that, yes, we look at, but it’s the cumulative effect, I think, of everything that I've described.  It's not any one thing, although one thing, if it's bad enough, can have a negative effect on the quality of life.  Traffic, can affect quality of life.  Noise, can affect quality of life, visual blight, a lot of things can affect quality of life.  And when they add them all together, you can, I think, form your own opinion as to what that would be.  I think many people could disagree as to at what point it becomes a breaking point and that's ultimately the Board's call to make.  But the report does describe all of those things as they've been testified to in this hearing.  So, I think if you look at the cumulative effect and all of those comparisons that look upon what's there today and the traffic and everything else, I think they are indirectly addressing the question of quality of life.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais. 
MS. PETERS:  Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Posner.
MS. PETERS:  Mr. Chairman, and, Ms. Price, can I discuss a procedural question –
MS PRICE:  Yes.
MS. PETERS:     that is ripe in my mind.  If a person felt that    because we are asking about quality of life as this gentleman has just been asking about, if a person felt they had evidence as to either positive or detrimental effect of a hospital in a residential zone.  I know that our expert has testified as to the locations that do exist in the city, if they were to have evidence of this, how could they introduce that or they can't?
MS. PRICE:  Well, we received certain information on that very issue from Mr. Kates and the witnesses that he presented on behalf of C.R.R.  And we asked if anyone else had any affirmative documentation to present during the course.  And we didn't receive any.  I think the Chairman will be going through, you know the rules for the public comment portion.  But I think that there might need to be a little bit of clarification in terms of what I heard the last gentleman kept referring to a "model" which I think is    without speaking for Blais, is a little bit inaccurate in connection with the Municipal Land Use Law, because at the last meeting Blais explained that he was utilizing some comparisons by way of the statute. But this is not a variance application where one would be truly measuring positive criteria against the negative criteria.  This is a Master Plan Amendment which requires one to look at the statutory definition, which as of 2009 the Legislature specifically defined "inherently beneficial use" to include certain uses.  And one of those uses is hospitals, medical facilities.  So, the State, not Ridgewood, the State decided as of 2009 to list medical facilities, hospitals and as inherently beneficial uses. 
And by doing so, and which is right in the Municipal Land Use Law, it determined that those uses were uses that, in fact, served the public good and promoted the general welfare.  So, when you hear those buzz words come from Blais in his testimony those are not buzz words that he's making up.  Those are words that are actually in the statute by which this Board is charged to operate under and to follow the case law that has been generated by our courts, in terms of interpreting those statutory provisions. So I think Blais tried to explain it at the last meeting that he was using certain analogies in an attempt to make it somewhat clearer, but recognizing that this was a public policy issue rather than a variance application, utilization of, you know, benefits outweighing    substantially, outweighing detriments typically would be things that we would be looking at for variances.
So I think Blais was trying to be helpful, in terms of bringing it down on a plane that everyone could understand. 
But I just want everybody to understand that the Board is given the use as one defined by the State as an inherently beneficial use.  And Blais as a planner is also charged and limited by his professional license, in terms of where he can go in opining on certain things.  So, he would be risking, you know, risking censure or other negative behavior, if he were to go out on limbs that are beyond the scope of his role. So, I think    and I think he has been very careful to explain exactly the role of the Planner.  And these inherently beneficial uses are specifically defined and have been defined in case law, as uses that boards should look beyond the borders of a town in which those uses are located in. That doesn't take anything away from the town in which the use is located in.  It doesn't mean that the town in which the use is located is entitled to anything less than what it would be entitled to for a non inherently beneficial use, but because it is an inherently beneficial use the legislature and the courts have said people on a regional basis will have needs for those type of uses.  So some schools serve the region, they don't just serve the local community.  So, Blais, I don't know if I put words in your mouth, but I am just trying to clarify the statute.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  No.  I agree with everything you said.
MS. PRICE:  Amazing.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yeah, I was going to say that too, but at this time I'll agree with you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Great. Thanks, Blais. And, Michele, also I will be talking in a short while about public comment.  Individuals will be sworn and it's an opportunity for the public to share their views.  Hopefully, you've actually listened to part or all of the testimonies that we've heard, so your comments will be based on what you've heard and what we've heard as well.  Next, Mr. McKenna. 
MR. McKENNA:  My name is Peter McKenna, M c K e n n a, 420 Meadowbrook Avenue, in Ridgewood. 
I guess my question relates to this testimony as well, and the question is, is there    it there a difference when you look at this inherently beneficial idea and the regional benefit and regional    and in this case I think of it as a local detriment for regional benefit.  And the context of this is the existing hospital presents 100 percent of the detriment sits with the Village of Ridgewood residents through providing a tax free location, traffic bottlenecks, the nature of having a 24/7 business operation in our midst, and granted, six percent of the patient load comes from Ridgewood.  So six percent of that benefit accrues to us directly.  And we share the burden and provide that service to the region.  My question is, that's the existing operation.  Is there a point where the marginal detriment to the Village of Ridgewood    is there any point where a municipality can say the marginal deficit that I'm going to bear above what I already bear is too great.  Is there    is there any ability for a municipality to ever say no to a hospital?
MS PRICE:  Is that –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Your question is largely legal.  But I'll give you the short answer is yes.  It's    we wouldn't be here for 60 hearings    meetings if we had to say yes.  It would have been very short.  So, yes, we can.  But I don't think, to answer it the other way, is that I don't think you can flatly say no.  There has to be an evaluation.  And it has to be dealt with on its merits.  But where the line is drawn, I don't believe there's any hard and fast rule to say you draw it here.  Each town, each board has to make the best judgment you can on the facts presented before it. 
MR. McKENNA:  But I guess the follow along question would then be, is the    can this Board evaluate the marginal benefit of this expansion relative to the marginal benefits of this expansion    I mean the marginal benefits of the expansion and the marginal detriments of this expansion, and evaluate it on    purely on those grounds?  Or do you still have to consider the benefits still have to be weighed in a regional context and the detriments not so much?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm not quite sure I understand the question.  I think the Board needs to consider both the regional benefits and the regional detriments as well as the local –
MR. McKENNA:  Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     benefits and the local detriments.  Now, if you're trying to say do local detriments trump regional benefits or vice versa, that one I don't think I can give you a categorical answer.  I think they have to look at all of them in their totality and make their best judgment.
MS PRICE:  Right. 
MR. McKENNA:  Thank you.  I appreciated your report.  I thought it was very thorough. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. McKenna. I think, Ms. Reynolds, you're the last one.  We have one more after, okay, thank you.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi, Lorraine Reynolds 550 Wyndemere Avenue.  Blais, yes, I agree with Pete, your report was great.  It was probably my favorite report of the last 14 months. But I have a question with inherently beneficial, since this is a unique situation where the hospital is inherently beneficial as well as school right next door is inherently beneficial, so how do you weigh the detriment that this expansion is going to cause to another inherently beneficial institution?  Like is one more important than the other?  Are they weighed equally as inherently beneficial?  You know the school is used by    100 percent of the students at the school are from Ridgewood, so that's a benefit to Ridgewood.  Only six percent of the patients of the hospital are from Ridgewood.  So, how do you weigh the detriments that this expansion would cause on the school's inherently beneficial situation.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Is that the only question?
MS. REYNOLDS:  That is. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  I think the answer is going to be very similar to what I told Pete McKenna that I think the Board has to look at all the benefits, all the detriments.  There's no precise rule as to a mathematical formula for giving extra weight to one versus the other, you know, I think the statute wisely placed this decision making power in what is generally lay citizens who have the same perspective as the people they are affecting with their decisions.  And, certainly, they rely upon the testimony and advice of experts, but they are free to disregard it when it's    when they have good reasons for doing so.  And there's no magic formula for doing this.  The Board looks at, yeah, this serves a number of public purposes.  This also works against a number of public purposes.  And these things are never black and white.  They're always    there's always a balancing.  And that's    I don't know how to tell you any other way.  It's... 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay. I do have a follow up, so would this    would that be a valid reason for the Board to say no to this?  Because it would be a detriment to another inherently beneficial.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If the Board were to find that this proposal would be detrimental to the operation of Ben Franklin School, that could be a factor in its decision.  Whether that alone would be sufficient to overturn it, and what specifically those detriments are is impossible for me to answer really at this point in time.  I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the school is a valid consideration. But I can't tell you how much impact would be sufficient to do it.  I can't    can't give you an answer. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That's something the Board has to decide. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.  Last one and    Ms. Coopersmith. Again, please state your three questions, if you have three, together.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Yes, sir. Do you need my name?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Name and address, and spell your name please.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Right. Nancy Coopersmith, C o o p e r s m i t h, Address is 373 Meadowbrook Avenue. 
So my two    I only have two questions and they are about the height of that North Building.  And I had asked a question at the last session    and the height of that building is so far outside the range of what's permissible now anywhere else in the Village that my first question is, when I asked the question in the last session why 94 feet, I think    Blais, your first    at first you said, "well, I don't know".  And then you said, "I think it has something to do with economy," because the beds, the rooms    the rooms with the beds were all stacked on top of each other.  So, my first question is in terms of    I was always under the impression that as far as zoning issues go and certainly with variances, but I think it's all lumped into zoning, that the applicant's economics are supposed to have no bearing on any kind of zoning issue.  So, I guess that's the first    the first part of my question because it's so far outside the range of what's permissible, if the rationale is an economic one on the applicant's side then I am just wondering if that, you know, if there's a validity to saying no to 94 feet, and also the fact that it is so far outside the range, wouldn't it be a fair and reasonable change to the Master Plan Amendment to limit that height, in your opinion?  Because I know we're always talking about you can only make changes that are considered fair and reasonable. So those are my two questions. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think, generally, I would agree with you that economics    the applicant's economics are outside the    should be outside its decision making criteria.  There are some exceptions to that when the decision, when the economics of something becomes confiscatory, meaning that you're really left with no option, then it can be a valid consideration. But, generally speaking, if the Hospital were to say make less money by having a lower building, that's not something that I think is going to have much, if any, weight or should have much, if any, weight. What I meant when I said that the economy of laying it out by five floors, 14 foot floors, one on top of the other, had to do with what went into the Hospital's decision making process.
And, again, I think I said that I'm not sure what it is, but that may have had something to do with it in laying it out the way they did, was they wanted a more efficient operation, not just financially, but operationally.  So it certainly is economy of space and so forth to do it that way as opposed to separating those bed areas widely.  It's less economical not from a    well, obviously money is involved, but economic in the use of staff, in the travel time needed to go between, there's less sharing of resources if those spaces are more widely separated. 
So    but to tell you the truth I don't know conclusively why there's five stories in that section of the building, that's my best guesstimate of why they did it, why they're proposing it the way they are.
MS. PRICE:  Can I just note for the record, though, that I went back over just now, your questions from the last meeting –
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Yes.
MS PRICE:     and I don't see where Blais referred to economics at all.  And your specific reference is to the efficiencies of having them vertically stacked in the same location as opposed to being spread apart. 
And he talks about the bed care units and the references to having three options going up, out and down.  And then there's a series of paragraphs where Blais talks about construction related impacts from those three and talking about the construction impacts.  I just don't see where he referred to the hospital's economics, themselves.  I only see the efficiencies and the bed care units. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm looking myself.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  It's possible I took efficiencies to mean economies.  And –
MS PRICE:  Okay.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  But I do think there is a relationship there.  And I guess    and I guess my second question is, given that this height is so far outside the permissible range, and we don't seem to have a real handle on what, you know, what the issue is    you know, the reason, the rationale for the Hospital and it maybe is efficiencies and maybe it is economies, I don't know.  But would that be something that would be considered fair and reasonable in terms of changing that Master Plan Amendment? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think the height    and I've indicated in my report, the height is a factor.  It's one of a number of factors that the Board must balance.  And I think I've indicated the height exceeds anything else that's permitted in the Village.  And it's unprecedented.  I mean this is the biggest development in the Village, today it is and tomorrow it will be.  But    but it's a valid factor for the Board to consider.  And in some ways it's a negative factor, that height, there's no getting around that. 
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Coopersmith.  Ms. Sherman, I promised you go, you'd have opportunity to go again, so please come forward. I think this is the last question for, Blais. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I would just like to –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please again state your name, spell your name.
MS. SHERMAN:  I would just like to say that I realize there is a shortage of time but this    this is like the crux.  I mean this is our Village Planner.  And I    and I really would hate for anybody's question not to be able to be asked of the planner.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I don't think we're stopping that. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please state your name, spell your name and provide your address again.
MS. SHERMAN:  Marla Sherman, S h e r m a n, 449 Beverly Road.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.  Okay, so my three questions.  In follow up to Mr. Posner and to Mr. McKenna, Blais, when you used the term that has been thrown around, serving the public good and beneficial to the general public not just the Village of Ridgewood, is there a possibility that the fact that there are four other hospitals within about a 10 mile radius, does that sort of weigh in to the fact that this is not the only facility that the public can go to that is serving the public good and benefitting the general public?
My second question is, I question why there are no limitations of intensity in the Master Plan Amendment or maybe there are and I just missed them.  But the whole premise of Valley Hospital spelling out that these were the six things that the Village Council didn't approve of and this is how we have remedied them, I just wonder that unless we have limitations that will assure those benefits or non detriments to the Village than it really is just sort of hearsay.
And then my third question has to do with, this is kind of picayune, but I'm just kind of curious, you used building coverage, lot coverage, maximum improvement coverage.  And I just wondered if you could explain all those different terms and whether you believe that flat impervious coverage is the same as coverage with a 72 foot building on it, are those considered the same to you? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right.  I think the presence of other hospitals in the region is a valid factor.  The need for facilities is a factor, even with inherently beneficial uses.  As to the limitation of intensity, the Master Plan does in fact deal with that, it deals with primarily on page 3 of the Amendment and it talks about, in some detail, the intensity of use and there's four components that it uses in a cumulative fashion to deal with intensity as a specific statement, that the intensity of use, the goal of the Master Plan is to maintain and not increase the intensity of use at the Hospital.  The –
MS. SHERMAN:  It doesn't assure it.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm sorry.
MS. SHERMAN:  Does that    does statement assure the intensity of use or no?  I'm just...
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I think it is a reasonable means of insuring it as best we can. "Intensity of use" is a term like "quality of life", that is not capable of a precise definition.  Many ordinances simply regulate intensity of use by floor area ratio. 
MS. SHERMAN:  But, I think you have stipulated that it's traffic.  It's light.  It's noise.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It's a number of things. 
MS. SHERMAN:  It's all those things.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. SHERMAN:  Correct.  But unless we put limitations on things like traffic then there really isn't any protection.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes, in any regulation that's adopted, and any policy that's adopted, the ability to administer and enforce such a regulation is a key factor.  So, it might be, it might say here that no more than so many patients present at any one time.  To enforce that would mean constant monitoring.  It would mean    it would be unworkable to do that.  So, generally when you do zoning regulations and policies you try to base it upon standards that are measurable, that are fixed, that are easily understood and calculated and determined.
Is it 100 percent precise?  No, it is not.  But I believe that it goes beyond what I, frankly, have seen in almost any other situation that I can think of, as far as ratcheting and trying to control a unit of impact that's by its very definition open to interpretation, so four measures of control on a single factor is more than I've seen in almost any municipality that I've worked with in dealing with intensity of use.  But I'll acknowledge it's not perfect.
So, can I guarantee a hundred percent that there won't be any increase in intensity of use, no, I cannot. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Is there a way of putting in a monitoring    I mean could the Village actually say "and it will be monitored every second or third year that traffic is not growing any more than," whatever the Rutgers study or whatever traffic study might –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, here's the problem with doing something like that, and I understand the concern and, you know, it's a fair concern, frankly.  Let's say this were to be approved and the ordinance were to be approved and the site plan were to be approved and there were to be conditions on the site plan that were imposed in addition to what's in the Master Plan and the ordinance to try to make sure that the goals of the plan and the ordinance were being met.  And let's say someone did a traffic study three years out and found, oh, wow traffic is actually increased by 20 cars a day. 
MS. SHERMAN:  More than a standard deviation, whatever that term is. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, that's the problem is that    and meanwhile you've allowed the Hospital to build.  They're    you've approved their thing, they've developed it in accordance.  Now    now, you've found that traffic went up instead of going down.  What would you do?  Would you say, okay, you've got to shut down that wing? 
It's    it's very difficult to have such a thing that's workable and enforceable.  So you try to do it    because the applicant also has rights to know what they're entitled to and what limitations they have, what responsibilities they have and what rights they have.  And to leave it open to something down the road that may not even be under their control is very difficult to do.  So in the case of traffic, it's a particular difficult one to say because the Hospital doesn't completely control how much traffic comes.  They, control certainly to some extent, the shuttle operation of how many employees come to the site and so on and so forth. But they're somewhat at the mercy of the healthcare needs of the region.  If people need to get –

MS. SHERMAN:  But then the residents are at the mercy of the Hospital –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well    and that's    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's not get into a debate.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.  And that's what –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's a valid point.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     the Board is going to have to balance and consider. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  But what I'm saying is that it's very difficult to impose control a kind of control for something like that, that's really workable.  So, we try to do it in a way that best estimates what we can control and what the hospital can predict and know.  And that's how these types of rules are established. As to the coverages and what they mean.  And, no, they're not the same.  Each of them are different and that's why we have different terms.  Building coverage is essentially what I call the footprint of the building.  It's any portion of the site that's not essentially at grade, that's covered by something that goes above grade.  And whether it's one story or five stories, that's a building coverage.  And a five story building with the same footprint as a one story building is the same amount of coverage. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Same building coverage.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  Improvement coverage is essentially areas that are not landscaped, and whether that's buildings or pavement or gravel, that's all improvement coverage.  If it's not landscaped, generally speaking, that's what improvement coverage is.  There are some exceptions to that, but that's a simplified definition, they're not the same. The building coverage is really looking at the issue of mass and open space, whereas improvement coverage is looking at how much area is green and landscaped.  We’d all agree that there is a difference between a lot that's 100 percent pavement and a lot that's 50 percent pavement.  And that's what improvement coverage is looking at. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Because I think    I'm pretty sure that in your report you say that maximum improvement coverage, you put it in     I'm sorry, on page 6, you put it in as a green area, meaning that that's something that's improved from the existing conditions to the proposed amendment.  And I    but you did exclude covered walkways, sidewalks, patios, which I thought would be included because you said that it includes everything except for shrubbery.  So, I'm just wondering whether that would, in fact, be a green rectangle, if you did include those areas, and how that might compare to what exists now which is a flat parking lot which you would call impervious coverage and    and that would be maximum improvement coverage versus something that might be smaller, but that becomes visible by three or four stories.  Does that make sense?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Some of it.  I mean I'm sure it all makes sense, but I'm not sure I understand it all. 
But the    those were some of the exceptions that I just referenced a minute ago.  And the reason those are not included in improvement coverage is that those, at this point in time, are not known what they are.  It's anticipated that they are relatively minor in overall thing.  We can't give a number to them yet, so we're not trying to give a number to them yet.
MS. SHERMAN:  So, it might not be green?  It could be white.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It    it could be.
MS. SHERMAN:  It could be white.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It may be addressed in the ordinance, but at this stage of the master planning process we have not seen a plan.  We don't know how that number would be dealt with, but, you know, it's hard to predict how much sidewalk.  I could    I could say there's a factor in here that one would expect maybe five percent or something like that, that's a    that's a rough guess, so we don't know, but    
MS. SHERMAN:  Actually I see that it is    I withdraw my question because I actually see that in the proposed amendment plan that it is actually a red zone.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  A what zone?   
MS. SHERMAN:  It is    it is highlighted pink, which    or red, which is a worse condition than what exists now, so I withdraw my question because it wound   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes, that's in my report, yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:  It wound up being what I had thought.

MR. BRANCHEAU:  Actually, when you say it’s worse, both the Master Plan that's currently in effect, and the requested Amendment reduces the improvement coverage from what exists at the site today.  What exists at the site is over 80 percent.  What's proposed in this plan, depending upon which phase you're at is 64 to 70 percent so either    either phase is a reduction from existing conditions and improvement coverage.  But –
MS. SHERMAN:  No, it goes from 4,000    400,000 square feet to 469,000 square feet.  So, again, it's –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Where are you –
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm on page 8.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Getting a detailed     
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Page 8 –
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm on page 8.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Page 8 of my report? Yes, there's an increase    this is a comparison of the current Master Plan with the proposed Amendment.
MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  And I've highlighted in my report that the proposal actually has a higher improvement coverage   
MS. SHERMAN:  Higher improvement coverage.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     than what currently is in the plan. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  But both are lower than what exists at the site today.
MS. SHERMAN:  Correct.  Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Sherman. Any last questions with regard to Blais' testimony from anyone?  Well, thank you very much.  And thank you for being patient with this process.
So, this concludes the expert testimony portion of this hearing. 
So, before we conclude this item tonight, as Gail had indicated earlier, and as I did when a question was asked at the beginning, I'd like to take a few moments to walk you through the process for public comment, which is what comes next.  And I know a lot of you have been asking about that throughout the process, when is public comment? The public comment on the pending H Zone Master Plan Amendment is scheduled for the two Planning Board meetings, the next one is May 20, 2014 and June 2, 2014.  The May 20th meeting will be held at the Ridgewood High School Student Center and the June 2nd meeting will be here at the BF in the auditorium.  Both meetings will be at 7:30 p.m., will begin at 7:30 p.m.  In anticipation of these meetings, the Board has established certain rules of procedure that will be followed.  I'll review these now and expand upon them further, if necessary, at the beginning of the May 20th meeting.  Please keep in mind that the establishment of these rules, and by way of this review, is being done as a courtesy and to ensure that everyone is informed ahead of time as to how the next couple of meetings will be conducted. All interested parties to this matter have been entitled and permitted, without exception, to appear individually or with assistance of legal counsel for the purpose of asking questions of the various fact and expert witnesses.  And who gave testimony over the course of the 23 hearings which have been conducted since March 23rd of last year. So, on May 20th and on June 2nd, upon entering, each person will receive a number, this is to help make things easier.  The number will be used for the purpose of comment speaking by individuals who wish to comment and also as a necessary monitoring tool for capacity.  If someone intends to make a statement to the Board during the public comment period, once you've received a number, please proceed to a sign in desk which we'll have established, and write down your name and address and the number you were provided. When we begin the process, speakers will be called in numerical order.  Once your name and number is called, please move immediately to the microphone as you've been doing, with questions, slowly say your name and street address for the record so that the transcriber can be able to receive that information on the record.  You will also be sworn in at that time, since all comments must be made under oath. If you change your mind about speaking when you are called, that's fine just indicate "pass" and we'll move on to the next speaker.  Please note that passing or donating of time to another speaker is not permitted.  So you can't say I'm going to give my time to my neighbor to speak.  Each person who is given a number is entitled to their opportunity only. If you choose to not speak you will have waived that time allotment.  Each speaker will be given up to three minutes to speak.  The three minutes will be following the administration of oath, so we won't begin the clock until after you've been sworn in.
You may read a written statement into the record so long as it doesn't exceed the allotted three minutes.  At the conclusion of your time, you should promptly finish your statement so that it doesn't run on beyond that three minutes and take your seat.  If you choose, you may also provide a written copy of your statement to the Board's secretary, who will be in a convenient location, and the Board will include that as part of its record. We will proceed with this manner until we get through the list of everyone.  We will hear each speaker who wishes to make a comment only once in order to give everyone a chance.  Three minutes is customary.  And it's the amount of time for comments that the Council used during the underlying 2010 process for ordinance. Persons who are listed as members of C.R.R. are considered represented by legal counsel.  So those of you may proceed with your three questions and your three comments    excuse me    your three minutes, however those persons may properly be heard only through their attorney, although each member can testify their respective three minutes as long as their testimony is not repetitive.  The C.R.R. attorney will call upon them at the appropriate time.
The public comment period is also not a time for making formal presentations to the Board, as that opportunity has already been provided by the Board throughout the hearing process.  Thus, the Board does not anticipate a need for a submission of documents during this comment phase.  If there is any individual who has something that he or she believes should be considered by the Board, it may be    it must be provided 10 days in advance of the May 20th meeting.  And I think, Michele, it addresses part of your question.  That 10 days is necessary for us to review the material by Counsel.  That 10 day period is this Friday, the 9th of May, so please submit to Jane Wondergem, the Board secretary, either by e mail or in person, along with a one paragraph introduction as to the relevancy and basis for including that in the document.  She will then forward the information to the Board Counsel for legal review and should there be a concern, for example, lack of foundation, hearsay, relevance, etcetera, the Board will rule on admissibility of the document at the next meeting.  Again, if there is a question. Petitions cannot be accepted, nor any written statements by any parties not present at the hearings can be accepted.  This is a rule established by case law in the state and that all parties seeking to put information before the Board, must be available for cross examination.  It is improper for a Board to examine or discuss a petition and consideration of such a document, and it is certainly outside the scope of the Board's decision process.
As has been the Board's practice, we kindly ask that no one applaud, taunt, boo or interrupt the speaker at the podium, since he or she has the time to speak during that three minute period.  We also ask that everyone respect the time limits and promptly end their statements when we indicate the time is up.  This will allow all persons to be heard.  Please also be aware that the Board has the right to limit repetitive and irrelevant statements and we anticipate not needing to cut short any speakers provided this established procedure is followed.  I think this process has gone very well, people have been very courteous of each other.  And I expect that that will continue during the public comment period. 
The procedural details    the procedures detailed by me tonight will be followed up again on May 20th and also on June 2nd.  We will begin the June 2nd meeting with the first person and number that we did not have time to get completed through on May 20th.  So on May 20th we'll go through all those we have time for, we'll finish at approximately 10:30, and we'll begin with those in the number sequence on the second of June that didn't get a chance to speak on the 20th. 
If you're not able to be available on June 2nd, it is our recommendation that you come early on May 20th so that your name is high on the list.  We'll anticipate that we'll open doors for the provision of numbers and sign in and filling out sign in sheets about an hour prior to start time, which is 7:30.  So we will be here at about 6:30 with set up for you to get your numbers and sign in if you have a desire to speak. Again, as I mentioned, we'll end each evening at approximately 10:30 p.m. 
So, on that note, I want to thank you all for coming and I do look forward to seeing you    we all look forward to seeing you on the 20th of May.
MS PRICE:  At the high school.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  At the high school student center.  Thank you, Gail.  Just so there is no mistake about that. 
MS. BENSON:  I want to know –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, you had a question earlier about process, does that answer your question?

MS. BENSON:  No. No. No.  I want to know if you –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please come to microphone because the recorder can't hear. 
MS. BENSON:  If your    can't be here on time on May 20th, can you sign up on June 2nd?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.  So you can still sign up.  So it's not –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  There will be the sign-up sheets, will be there also on the 2nd.
MS. BENSON:  Thank you. If we hit 10:30 on June 2nd and you haven't finished everybody, then what?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Well, we'll see what happens.  We're going to continue with comment    
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     everyone is entitled to comment.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, Ms. Tuomey.
MS. TUOMEY:  Around January, I submitted some research that I had accumulated which came to you, and I apologized that all of that material came to you on your computers, I didn't intend for that to happen.  Nor did I think or ever would have done anything that I didn't think was correct.  So there was    as Gail said, there was a miscommunication and you got that material. However, it is very important material as far as I'm concerned, it took me a long time to sort it out.  And it isn't everything either, although it's a number of studies on health effects of particulates in particular, and also cardiovascular events and other things from particulate matter that I'm interested in and    as you know. 
When can I    you said you would be very interested in this and Counsel for Valley Hospital objected to my submitting this.  And he said I had to present it when I got up like everybody else.  And if its three minutes, there's no    and I can't hand in the material, what is to happen?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So, I think you were referred to our counsel to try to sort that out. And, Gail, I think –
MS PRICE:  Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     why don't you follow up with this.
MS. PRICE:  I think, Mrs. Tuomey, that you were working with Ms. Razin from our office, in terms of trying to help you with what is or what might be admissible in that package, recognizing that articles authored by third parties who are not capable of testifying are not admissible and that there are other constraints placed upon what can come in and out of the record.  And some of the articles that you had provided had your handwritten comments and commentary on them, which doesn't allow this Board to consider those.  So what I would suggest, given the volume, is that our office work with you between now and the end of the week to see what can be done. All 1,000 pages, I can tell you, they're    it's not admissible in their entirety because you    you don't have firsthand knowledge about the drafting of them.  So –
MS. TUOMEY:  They are abstracts of articles from the National Institute of Health.
MS. PRICE:  I understand. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  And there might be certain issues that the Board can take notice of, but others where the documents are potentially compromised by commentary and certainly Counsel for C.R.R. as well as Counsel for Valley would have the opportunity to weigh in as well, which is one of the reasons why the Chair made reference to wanting to get this done by Friday because we want the Board to be able to utilize all of the time when we're here or at the high school to hear from everyone and that we don't get bogged down with objections and rulings. So we want to try to get all of these rulings taken care of, at least in advance sorted out so then the Board knows what they actually have to weigh in on.  So, let's touch base, I know you've spoken with Katie a bunch of times already.
MS. TUOMEY:  Not in a long time actually.
MS. PRICE:  Well, you were away I believe, right?  You've been away?
MS. TUOMEY:  I've been away, yeah. 
MS. PRICE:  So    right, which is why we couldn't talk to you.  So, now that you're back.
MS. TUOMEY:  And nobody tried either.
MS. PRICE:  Oh, that's not –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's make a point of doing that, yes.
 
MS PRICE:     I think we can have a difference of opinion with that since Katie is right there shaking her head.  So, we can communicate outside this meeting. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay, very good.  Thank you very much.  It took effort and it is very important for you to see, I think.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MS. TUOMEY:  But it is what it is.  Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Tuomey. 
MS. BANEY:  Lisa Baney, my question is procedural.  And it's funny, since Janet was kind of tied into my question, but I'd like to ask, Gail, if you could possibly tell the Board or the public tonight specifically what will be the weighting of the basis of the Board Member's decision?  What weight on expert testimony and verifiable facts versus more subjective issues of quality of life, character of the Village and other intangibles. Because I know that you've said on many occasions that quality of life is, you know, a really important aspect of it.  And I've gone back and forth with the transcripts and seeing, you know, in some cases it says that particular emphasis should be put on fact based, you know, material, so as to sort of avoid the possible exposure to lawsuits for the, you know, appearance of capricious and arbitrary in its decision, but I know at the same time you really are interested and I know the Board is interested in quality of life aspects. So I'm wondering how    I think the residents should know before they go in, if they can, to give their public comments because I would be informed, you know, by knowing how to make my comment useful.  And I know the Board would want to have comments that they could use. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Right.
MS. BANEY:  So this is what I'm very curious about.
MS PRICE:  Lisa, I don't think I can answer your question in terms of what weight is going to be given because that's a determination for the Board Members to make when this matter comes to a vote.
But prior to the vote, I will be going through the parameters of    the legal parameters on actions on a Master Plan Amendment and the issues that have been raised by all sides and certain aspects and constraints on what the Board can do and not do. But I think the Board has acknowledged during the course of the hearings, which certainly has gone longer than the court had anticipated, but I think the Board has demonstrated that they want to make sure that they hear everyone –
MS. BANEY:  Uh huh, uh huh.
MS PRICE:     that at the end of the day it's going to be a combination of fact and expert testimony.  And then the Board, like on all of their matters, they have to make a determination as to whose credibility they assign the most weight. 
So from a residential standpoint, things that affect your quality of life are things that the Board, I'm assuming, would expect to hear about.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  And those things need to be personal to you.  You can't testify about what's happening to your neighbor or things that are happening to third parties.
So to the extent that you're going to get up and make a statement, I mean the statements that were made the last time were very helpful and very detailed.  So make it about you and your family and your thoughts on issues that affect your life in connection with the Hospital whether that's pro or con. 
And you've heard how the experts have broken down their testimony.  So you have traffic testimony.  You have stormwater management testimony.  You have you have environmental testimony in terms of certain underground issues.  You have open space, air and light testimony. 
We've heard from the Board of Ed representative, but certain, you know, parents have direct and firsthand knowledge of children in the schools, and you can certainly testify about that so, you know, a normal 24 hour day in the life of, how does this matter affect you, just as any development potential would affect you. 
I think that's    that's your guidance, you know, where you would get into trouble is if you steer off course and rely upon a newspaper article or say something that doesn't really involve you, but you're opining on another group. 
MS. BANEY:  Well, I'm glad I asked because I had the impression that there might be some better weight put or the Board might be advised to put more weight on testimony, public testimony that has some kind of facts and figures and verifiable, measurable, you know, aspects to it.
MS. PRICE:  Those facts and figures, if you're going to utilize any of those, they need to be based in documents that the Board can take judicial notice of.  They can't be subjective facts and figures that can't be confirmed without speculation or without debate. 
MS. BANEY:  Unless, perhaps, they're presented as part of, as you said, a person's own subjective day in their life, then    well, I guess, it's interesting because I thought I heard    this is helpful, I thought I heard     I thought I heard    I think I even read in one of recent transcripts, I thought there was somewhere where I thought you said that the Board would be urged to put more weight on fact based testimony.
MS. PRICE:  I think the question I was asked was does fact testimony   
MS. BANEY:  Get more weight   
MS PRICE:  Is fact testimony assigned any weight? 
Someone asked that question.  And the Board looks    I think the answer was the Board looks at all the testimony it receives. 
MS. BANEY:  It looks at all of it.
MS PRICE:  And then decides what weight to give to it. 
MS. BANEY:  Okay, that's great because I also get the sense that there's no real absolute norm with regard to a Master Plan application amendment process, you know, in terms of a rule, you know, on that, that it kind of is the judgment of the Planning Board and their attorney how they best think they can   
MS. PRICE:  It has nothing to do    although the blog and a lot of other neighborhood spin seems to think that their attorney has stuff to do with it.  It does not have anything to do with their attorney, it has to do with the decision of this Board and Board Members.
MS. BANEY:  Okay.  Okay.
MS PRICE:  But you're right, it doesn't have a hard and fast rule such as a variance, which I mentioned earlier where the positive and negative criteria can be more easily determined and that's why the Village Planner was trying to make comparisons for the purpose of presentation of his testimony, so that everyone could understand his analysis.
But the Master Plan Amendment creation is different than ruling on a typical site plan application.
MS. BANEY:  Okay.  So the only concern that I can think of is lying out there in the back of my mind, if I'm a Board Member and I'm sleeping at night, is the    the nightmare of have I exposed myself to a lawsuit because, you know, I haven't come up with something verifiable that Jane Doe thinks this is bad for her life, you know, and so I hope we can as residents come up with ways to talk about our personal heart and how we actually feel about the character of our Village and indeed that will be given as much weight as, you know, some expert's take on that, I hope.  So thank you.  Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Baney. 
Ms. Sherman, yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Just two quick questions.
Do I have to give my name and my address again? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If it's a procedural question just ask the question. 
MS. SHERMAN:  So my question is what sort of material can be sent to Jane if it    if it can't be an article from the National Institute of Health or it can't be    what do you mean?  Can you give us some examples of things that could be sent in, additional materials.  That's my first question.
And my second question    well, I'm going to wait for the first.
MS. PRICE:  It's really, we    the Chairman asked during the course of the hearing several times, if people had anything to present or if there was going to be a formal presentation, so that's what he meant when that reference was made earlier. 
During public comment, public comment is really not the time for the Board to start receiving documents at the end of the case, so it should be limited   
MS. SHERMAN:  What kind of documents can we submit? 
MS. PRICE:  I'm going to answer your question. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Oh, okay.  Fine.
MS PRICE:  Okay.  I was breathing. 
It would be, for instance, if you happen to live across the street from a particular site and you take a picture that you personally take of the line of sight from your property to an adjoining piece of property and you can then stand up and say, I took this picture on such and such a date and I can authenticate it and this is my view shed of this particular property. 
The Board could take that into the record and accept it for your testimony as to what it accurately portrays in your opinion.  That's an example of something.
MS. SHERMAN:  Great.
MS. PRICE:  But if you're going to pull something from, you know, 1982 that talks about hospitals in Alabama and something that happened there that the author is, you know, now in Costa Rica, that's not going to come into the record. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Their statements also can be brought into the record.
MS PRICE:  And    right, and your statement, just as we did in the underlying, your statements can be handed in and they will go into the black binder and the Board reviews those statements because they are part of the transcript and can refer back. 
And the last go around, those statements were    I can tell you the statements were very personal and very detailed.  There was no shortage of opinion given.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's a good idea to do that because it helps organize your thoughts and you can practice the three minutes and then we will have a hard copy as well.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  And then last question, I'm just going to sit down after I ask the question, is can you explain the difference between the vote and then the resolution?  Because I don't know if I understand that whole process.
MS. PRICE:  Yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm going to go sit down.
MS PRICE:  Okay.  In all land use applications or matters, the official action as defined by the Municipal Land Use Law is not the vote of a board, it is the adoption    actually it's not even the adoption, it's the publication that is made of the adoption of the resolution memorializing the vote.  That was a lot of words. 
In essence, after the Board votes, either yes or no, our office drafts a resolution which memorializes the Board's vote. 
After that resolution is adopted, the Board secretary arranges for a notice of that resolution's adoption to be published in the official newspaper of the Village.  And the appeal period runs from the date of publication of that notice.
So the 45 days on an appeal would run from the publication.  So, even though you might think, oh, well, it's the vote that really counts, it's not.  It's the adoption of the resolution that is the official action.  And then the appeal runs from the publication.  So that's the difference.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Just the resolution last time was many, many, many pages.
MS PRICE:  Correct.
MS. SHERMAN:  It doesn't have to have more content in it than just the memorialization of a yes, no vote, that I    I don't    I am not sure    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Content is important. 
MS. PRICE:  The resolution is the findings.  The resolution has to be findings of fact a conclusions of law. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  There you one more, I think.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please, please come forward. 
MR. O'DONNELL:  My name is Laurence O'Donnell, L a u r e n c e O ' D o n n e l l, 568 Wyndemere, in Ridgewood. 
The deadline which you imposed of May 10th, may seem very important and necessary to the workings of the Planning Board, but isn't it clear that it is putting an unreasonable burden on anyone who would like to file something for consideration to your board. 
In other words, you're saying next time there is a hearing, if you want to submit any documents, they have to be here by the 10th, which is three days from now. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The end of the week, yes.
Well, the hope is that you have that material.  If there is something you need to prepare, if there is a special circumstance it would have to be a good one.  Unless you   
MS. PRICE:  And the statement doesn't have to be    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No.
MS PRICE:  The statement is not necessary to be filed by   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, that shouldn't be the misunderstanding. 
MS PRICE:     the 10th.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The statement that you make, if there is a supporting document that's   
MR. O'DONNELL:  The supportive documents.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Supporting, completely separate from your statement   
MR. O'DONNELL:  Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     and there really is not many circumstances where that would be the case in our view.  Those should be in by the 10th so they can be reviewed appropriately by Counsel.
But your statement, you have until the 20th or the 2nd   
MR. O'DONNELL:  Yes, but the documents   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     to prepare for that.
MR. O'DONNELL:    are what you want by the 10th. 
MS PRICE:  The 9th.
MR. O'DONNELL:  So they can be circulated.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  By Friday.
MR. O'DONNELL:  That's pretty short notice to say that to the people. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's correct. 
MS. PRICE:  And that's how the Board has acted with all of the matters to date. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ten days before.
MS PRICE:  Everyone has had to file their documents 10 days in advance of the meeting. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Including the applicant. 
MR. O'DONNELL:  Well, for what it's worth, it doesn't send a good signal about the interest in getting the information from the citizens. 
MS. PRICE:  Well, I mean anyone could also get in touch with Jane or with our office and say, if you're having a hard time getting something, for instances, you can identify what it is, because if you haven't gotten it, but you can identify it, we may be able to expedite a ruling on it as well. 
The documentation really needs to be something that can come in and is admissible into the record. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Is it a question of determining that you may or may not add something and you're trying to figure that out or do you know you   
MR. O'DONNELL:  No, I'm not asking it from a personal basis.
MS PRICE:  Oh.
MR. O'DONNELL:  I don't have a document that I   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's just a general question that you have? 
MR. O'DONNELL:  A general question.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  I hope we answered it. 
Thank you Mr. O'Donnell.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Charles, can I just ask a question about the procedure and the comments from the public?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Sure.
MS. DOCKRAY:  If they feel there's been expert testimony on a subject, but it's missing something or they dispute something in that testimony, should they not bring that up in their comments as well?
MS PRICE:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  It's not just their personal experiences, but if   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Personal observations, they are welcome to do that.
MS. DOCKRAY:  That too.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  As long as it's theirs. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you for the question, Wendy.
Yes. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi, can like a school teacher or a Realtor come up during public comment and give their opinion as to, you know, if there was a school teacher that has lived through prior construction and what her experience or his experience was like or a Realtor giving their opinion of, you know, what people tell them.  People said, hey, if this is going through I'm putting my house on the market. 
MS. PRICE:  No.  Well, the Realtor    that may be hearsay on behalf of the Realtor.  So if the Realtor can opine directly   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  To themselves.
MS PRICE:  Yes, to themselves.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  But the Realtor wouldn't be able to say so and so told me such and such because that would be hearsay. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  No, but even say for the last time when the Board voted yes, if the Realtor said there was a spike in sales around the Hospital and clients didn't want to buy those houses because of they thought that, you know, construction was going to be going on, something like that.  If they thought houses were not being sold as quickly or at, you know, market value because of what people expected.
MS. PRICE:  I think that that person would be subject then to pretty significant cross examination by different parties on a variety of issues. 
And, you know, a school teacher who's also an interested party can certainly testify as to his or her own experience and an interested party is defined as any person whose right to use, acquire or enjoy property is affected or may be affected.  So that's a pretty broad umbrella.
But, again, since it's a personal statement, it can't be based upon hearsay or not have the right foundation. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.  So anybody who has actually lived through the construction, prior construction.
MS. PRICE:  I would just caution it to be relevant to this matter because that's what the Board is    the Board is now acting on the new amendment in contrast to the existing amendment that's in place.  That's the issue. 
The 2010 Amendment is still valid.  And we'll discuss this in June, but the 2010 Amendment is in place.  The Board will be acting on this amendment which, if adopted, would then moot out the 2010 Amendment.
So the Board would be looking at, at some point, the relevance of prior construction projects because what it really needs to look at is, is this Amendment appropriate at this point in time in 2014, for the neighborhood, for the Village, for all of the questions it has to answer within the parameters.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. 
Okay.  No last questions on procedure.
So, hopefully, we will see you all on the 20th.
Again, it's at the high school. 

9:50 p.m. - Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan – AH-2, B-3-R, C-R & C Zone Districts – Chairman Nalbantian announced that the Board would hear architecture testimony for The Enclave and then proceed with public questions for the architects from all three applicants.
Thomas Bruinooge, attorney representing 257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, submitted the PowerPoint presentation of Minno Wasko, which was marked as Exhibit E-3. Mr. Bruinooge introduced Bruce Englebagh, architect for The Enclave project. Mr. Englebagh was sworn by Ms. Price and his credentials as an expert in architecture were accepted by the Board. Mr. Englebagh stated that he was standing in for David Minno, architect, but that he was very familiar with the design. Mr. Englebagh presented the PowerPoint which showed an aerial photograph of the property and the surrounding buildings. Mr. Englebagh showed the buildings on the property that would be demolished and where the proposed five story tower would be built to adjoin the existing Sealfons building with parking spaces in the lower level. Mr. Englebagh showed photos of other buildings in the downtown area to show how the architectural style of the new building would fit in. Mr. Englebagh showed a rendering of the proposed development, explained the architectural features and in the next several slides showed how The Enclave would look from different perspectives. Mr. Englebagh explained how the height was determined and compared it with other buildings in the area.
The meeting was opened to the public for questions of Mr. Englebagh, Mr. Appel and Mr. Peter Wells.
Brian Abdoo, 308 West Ridgewood Avenue, asked Mr. Englebagh how many parking spaces existed on the property now.
John Saraceno, 17 Coventry Court, was sworn by Ms. Price. Mr. Saraceno said there were 74 parking spaces now and that 14 of those spaces are reserved for employees.
Mr. Abdoo asked if the applicants were obligated to build what has been presented if the master plan amendment is approved. Ms. Price explained the process of the master plan amendment and adoption of an ordinance and said that once that was done the applicants would need to come back to the Planning Board with a site plan application consistent with the ordinance.
Oliver Beiersdorf, 50 South Murray Avenue, asked Mr. Englebagh about the height of the existing buildings which were shown in his presentation. Mr. Englebagh wasn’t sure of the height and explained that he used those buildings for the architectural style. Mr. Beiersdorf asked for clarification of the number of units being proposed and how many people would reside there and the number of parking spaces for those residents. Mr. Englebagh said there would be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit and that of the 134 proposed parking spaces, 78 would be reserved.
The hearing was closed for public questions.
Board members asked the architects what the street frontage and floor area was for each of the proposed developments. Mr. Appel said the street frontage of The Dayton would be approximately 330 feet and the floor area of the building would be approximately 180,000 square feet. Mr. Englebagh said the street frontage of The Enclave would be approximately 176 feet and the building floor area would be approximately 63,900 square feet. Mr. P. Wells said the street frontage of Chestnut Village would be approximately 180 feet and the building floor area would be approximately 68,000 square feet.
The Board members asked Mr. P. Wells regarding the units set aside for special needs at Chestnut Village and if consideration was given to making them two-bedroom units to accommodate an aide. Mr. P. Wells said that would be open to the owner’s consideration.
Board members asked for clarification regarding the parking at The Enclave and the floor area for the commercial space. Mr. Saraceno said that currently there is approximately 43,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Saraceno said that what is proposed would include 28,000 square feet of commercial space after 14,000 to 15,000 square feet of existing commercial is demolished and replaced by the 52 residential units. There would be 134 parking spaces, 56 for commercial and 78 for residential. 
The Board members asked each of the architects regarding the use of any green space or patios associated with the apartments. Mr. Englebagh said, regarding The Enclave, that there is green space in front of the building mainly for aesthetic purposes as well as a common terrace area for the residents.  Mr. P. Wells said, regarding Chestnut Village, that they would hope to have an outdoor recreational area at the rear of the building in addition to the patios and stoops along the street front. Mr. Appel said, regarding The Dayton, that there would be buffer area and landscaping around the building and a courtyard that separates the buildings. Mr. Appel said that there would also be an amenity deck on the first residential floor.
Mr. Brancheau asked how the heights of the buildings were measured when the comparisons were done. Mr. P. Wells said they worked with the site engineer and used his measurements.
Mr. Brancheau asked, regarding The Enclave, if an analysis was done to determine what the relative parking ratio for the commercial component of the building is currently versus what it would be proposed. Mr. Saraceno said it would be better than the current ratio. Mr. Brancheau said that the Village Code requires 3 or 4 parking spaces per thousand square feet and that what is proposed is less than that, and that the occupancy of the commercial space would have to be restricted to certain uses to work with that type of parking ratio. Mr. Saraceno said currently they go to the Planning Board for each tenant due to those restrictions. Mr. Bruinooge said these questions would be better for the traffic or parking expert.
Mr. Rutishauser asked Mr. P. Wells, regarding Chestnut Village, what the height of the building would be when viewed from the west towards east. Mr. P. Wells said it would be two stories, about 28 feet.
Ms. Price asked about the length of time for construction if these projects were to be approved, from demolition to the first Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Englebagh said, regarding The Enclave, that they had not looked at that. Mr. Appel said, regarding The Dayton, that they looked at it but there were too many factors to consider in order to make an estimate at this time. Mr. P. Wells said, regarding Chestnut Village, that it would take 10 to 12 months as the site is already demolished.
Mr. Weiner had no questions.
There was discussion regarding hearing dates and witnesses. The hearing was carried to June 3, 2014.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 P.M.
      
      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved:

 
The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of May 20, 2014. For more detailed information, interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Joel, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq., substituting for Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Councilman Pucciarelli is recused from the hearing on the H – Hospital zone and was absent from the meeting.
Correspondence received by the Board – Ms. Wondergem said there was none.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H-Hospital Zone, The Valley Hospital, 223 N. Van Dien Avenue, Block 3301, Lot 51 – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  So, we're finally at public comment, for those of you who have been through this process with us from the beginning, thank you very much for enduring this.  What I'm going to do is read my statement so I don't forget anything. 
I want to talk about the process and procedure we're going to use tonight.  I think most of you have heard this already or may be familiar because we did have some of it posted in the press.  So let me take a moment and then we will begin public comment.
Thank you all for coming and enduring the sign in process this evening.  Tonight we'll begin our process to hear public comment on the pending H Zone Master Plan Amendment. 
The Board has established certain procedures so that tonight's process goes smoothly and the Board can hear your views.
Over the course of the 24 hearings conducted since March of 2013, all interested parties have been entitled and permitted, without exception, to appear individually or with the assistance of legal counsel for the purpose of asking questions of the various facts and expert witnesses who have given testimony.  So, tonight the Board would like to hear your comments.
Each of you upon entering, received a number.  This number will be used for the order of public comment speaking.  In addition, and for everyone's safety, the number will also be used to monitor the room's capacity.  Unfortunately, that's not an issue tonight.
Those of you who have come tonight to comment should also have checked the box when you signed in indicating your intent to speak.  In a few moments I'll call each of you in numerical order.
Once your name and number is called, please move immediately to the microphone at the podium up front and then speak slowly to say your name and street address for the record, so that the transcriber is able to record that information. 
You will also be sworn in at that time since all comments must be made under oath and Laura will also    the reporter will also swear you in. 
If you change your mind about speaking when your name is called, please indicate "pass" and we'll move on to the next speaker.  We hope those of you who have indicated that you will speak will speak.  There have been one or two instances where some people came unprepared.  If your name is called, please come and see me during the break so we can see about adjusting the time of your slot.  But we do hope everybody can speak tonight who's intended to speak.
It's important to note that passing or donating your time to another speaker is not permitted.  If you choose not to speak, you will have to waive that time. 
Each speaker will be given up to three minutes for comment.  The three minutes will begin following the administration of the oath.  If you have a written statement, please be sure it does not exceed the allotted three minutes before you begin.
Jane Wondergem, the Board secretary, will indicate when you have reached three minutes.  In fact she's going to give you a 30 second warning so you know you have about 30 seconds.  At three minutes, please try to wrap it up. 
At that time, please promptly finish your statement and return to your seat allowing the next person to speak.  If you choose, you may at that time provide a written copy of your spoken statement to Jane for inclusion into the file, however, what we will be doing with those statements is verifying them against the transcription of what was spoken, to verify that there isn't any difference between the two, because we can only admit to the record words that were spoken. 
When I call the next individual's name and number, we will continue to proceed in the same fashion until we get through the list.  Please note that we will hear each speaker who wishes to make a comment only once, to give everyone opportunity.  Three minutes is customary.  And it's a customary amount of time for comment and consistent with the time given by the Village Council during the underlying 2010 process. 
Those of you who are listed as members of C.R.R. are considered to be represented by the counsel.  Remember, the public comment period is not a time to be making formal presentations to the Board, as that opportunity has already been provided by the Board throughout the hearing process.  The Board has received document submissions from two parties which Kate, the Board attorney, will further comment on in a few moments. 
Please also remember that petitions cannot be accepted by the Board, nor any written statements from someone who is not present.  This is a rule established by New Jersey case law that all parties seeking to put information before the Board must be available for cross examination.
Please be considerate to everyone in this room tonight, this is important.  We ask that your comments reflect your own personal experiences with regard to the merits of the pending H Zone Amendment and the testimony heard tonight throughout the process or throughout the process. 
Please do not use this time to criticize individuals whether of the public, the applicant, the Board or its professionals.  We also kindly ask that no one applaud, boo or interrupt the speaker who is at the podium. 
Also please use respect to time limits and appropriately bring statements to a close when we indicate that time is up.  It's fair and it will allow all persons to be heard. 
Please also try to avoid repetition.  The Board has a right to limit repetitive and irrelevant statements.  And we anticipate not needing to cut short any speakers provided this procedure is followed. 
The same procedure will be followed at the next hearing on June 2nd.  We will begin that meeting with the first person and number that didn't have time for tonight.  We, again, anticipate on June 2nd, that we will open the doors for provision of numbers and sign in sheets approximately one hour prior to the 7:30 start time, or approximately 6:30 p.m.  We anticipate both meetings will end at approximately 10:30 p.m. 
Let me summarize the remaining H Zone scheduling that is anticipated at this time.  June 2nd, is the continuation of tonight for public comment.  We expect that will be completed on June 2nd.  June 9th will be when attorney rebuttals and summations are presented, also instruction from the Board attorney for the Board.  June 17th will be Board deliberation, a motion for resolution and the vote. 
The June 2nd, June 9th and June 17th meeting will be held at the BF auditorium.  Please note that the 17th will be at the BF auditorium, not here as we anticipated before. 
All the future meetings will be at BF.
Thank you again for coming tonight and for offering your comments on the H Zone Amendment.
Katie is going to now speak about some of the documents that were provided.  And then we will begin public comment.
MS. RAZIN:  So the Board received, through our office and through Jane, two submissions from members of the public, one from Ms. Tuomey and one from Mr. Halaby.  Both included a number of articles by authors that are not present this evening, so I'd like to provide our office's legal opinion very briefly to the Board so they can determine ultimately if they are admissible into the record.
And Charles and I actually spoke to Ms. Tuomey directly about the documents that she submitted and I also spoke to Mr. Halaby as well and although the documents may say very different things, the concerns that I would have from a legal standpoint are actually very similar.  Primarily there's an issue of relevance, the documents don't speak to this particular amendment proposal or the project or the site and what's proposed here.  So there's, in my opinion, a lack of relevance by what's being proposed in the documents, in both sets of documents. 
Specifically with Ms. Tuomey, and as we explained, a lot of those documents related to air pollution and particulate matter, but there was a lack of connection to this particular project. 
The second concern, which I hinted to earlier is the fact that the articles in both cases were not presented by experts who are being put forth for testimony.  So there is not going to be sworn testimony to support the documents that are being submitted or to make formalized opinions for the Board and those individuals who authored those documents are not available for a questioning or cross exam which is a right of this Board and the public. 
And for those reasons, it would be my opinion and our office's opinion that the documents themselves be inadmissible. 
We've also received objection from Mr. Drill relative to Ms. Tuomey's documents which relatively summarizes in greater length, what I just said. 
One thing with Ms. Tuomey's documents, there were four submissions that are from governmental websites, two from the NJ DEP, one from the EPA and one from the DOT.  And how I explained this to Ms. Tuomey was that the Board could take judicial notice of these documents, which means that they will    in my opinion, they should not be admissible for purposes of relevance to the matter at hand or they don't speak to    directly to the testimony or the proofs that were provided, but the Board can take note of the facts that are contained on these websites and on these printouts because they come from reliable sources, the governmental agencies, and so there's no reason to question the facts contained into those documents.  So, I have separated out those pieces, depending on what the Board ultimately rules on right now, those can be handed out. 
But what I've encouraged both Ms. Tuomey and Mr. Halaby to do is to formalize their written presentations into their statements and to make them more personal during their speaking presentations.  And I'm sure the Board would be eager to hear what they have to say, but in the form of public comment. 
So, ultimately, it's up to the Board, but that's our recommendation.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I think your recommendation is good.
I'd like to hear comments from the members of the Board on that?
MS. PETERS:  I agree with what Katie is speaking about, I have no   
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  We can't hear.  We can't hear.
MS. PETERS:  First time I've never been heard.
I said I agree with what Katie is speaking about, the government agencies are    the documents are things that we certainly should be reviewing at this time.  And I look forward to hearing the personal comments made. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Michele.
MS. PETERS:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anyone else? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Then we will accept Katie's recommendation? 
MS. BIGOS:  I accept it.  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you, Katie.
MS. RAZIN:  Oh, and I just have two more brief comments.  All right.
Just for the public's awareness and for everyone on the Board, we did meet    Charles and I met with Mr. Drill and also with Kate Walsh who is of Mr. Kate's office, and we discussed some of the procedure for this evening and for future meetings.
So there was an understanding between C.R.R. and the hospital and the Board, a process for tonight and going forward, and we did discuss C.R.R. members speaking.  And I discussed that with Pete McKenna this evening.  And I understand that that may occur at the next meeting.  And I'll reach out to Mr. Kates in the interim to speak with him further on that, but we did encourage whoever wanted to speak, to come and speak.  So I just wanted to make everyone aware of that. 
And we also were just finalizing our procedures for the June 17th meeting, which as mentioned is going to be at BF.  And we want everyone    we welcome everyone, but we encourage everyone to be, again, respectful and peaceful.  And we hope that it's a good turnout. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And, fortunately, BF has a large seating capacity so we should be able to accommodate everyone. 
Okay.  If there aren't any questions from the Board, I'd like to proceed with public comment   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Charles, I have one question. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Are we allowed to question   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     the people presenting? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I'll ask you if you have questions. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  In fact, I won't.  If you do have a question   
MS. DOCKRAY:  I    well, you know I always do.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:    let me know and just indicate to me that you do have a question.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  So the first person, number one, Mr. Rurik Halaby, please come forward. 
And for the record, please state your name and address.
MR. HALABY:  Rurik Halaby, H a l a b y, 374 Evergreen Place, resident here for 44 years. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sir, please spell your first name. 
MR. HALABY:  R u r i k.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand to be sworn in.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 
MR. HALABY:  I do. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
R U R I K    H A L A B Y, 374 Evergreen Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MR. HALABY:  Will you start the clock now? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. HALABY: Valley is one of Ridgewood's crown jewels, now I am not sure what statements or facts I can refer to, having been surprised by the last comment by Katie, but if you do any kind of internet research you will see that it is ranked as number five or number six hospital in New Jersey.  Medicare ranked it as number one, as far as    as far as emergency wait times.  And the AARP magazine basically listed the 66 top hospitals for safety in the United States and Valley was one of them.
Now, an unfortunate fact of life is that nothing good lasts forever.  And this is especially true of institutions.  Take Blackberry, ten years ago it was a mobile phone of choice.  Today, its market share is two percent. 
Do you remember Kodak?  The stock for widows and orphans.  It is now bankrupt.
What do Blackberry and Kodak have in common?  They did not work hard enough to reinvent themselves to remain viable to the markets that they served. 
This, in simple terms, is what Valley is trying to do, to reinvent itself to remain viable to the community it serves by having state of the art facilities and equipment and attracting the best physicians and staff. 
Yes, Valley is planning for a healthcare delivery future that will only get more complex and difficult.  Valley knows, you adapt or you die.  Now, some of you will say I'm conflicted since my wife served as a trustee at Valley Hospital for 13 years and is presently on the Board at Valley Home Care.  Let me state clearly, we are not beholden to Valley.  My wife served as a volunteer as a trustee, but also as a receptionist, you know, wheeling patients around and did not receive a penny for her services. 
But, as I think about it, perhaps we are beholden to Valley.  A year ago at a routine annual checkup my wife was given a diagnosis that no woman wants to receive.  This serious medical situation needed immediate attention.  We discussed what to do and where to go.  And my wife knew that she would get as good a service and treatment at Valley as she would anywhere in the country or in New York. 
Thanks to Valley, with early detection and state of the art medical care, including surgery and radiation, she is now well on her way to a full recovery. 
People talk about the quality of life in Ridgewood, they talk about ball fields and tree lined streets.  I would think health is the primary component of the quality of life.  And how do you ensure health?  Prevention, early detection and the proper cure. 
I urge you to vote unanimously and promptly to approve Valley Hospital's plan to renew.  You owe it to Ridgewood, to the community at large, and last but not least, to yourselves.  If you don't, you will be condemning a world class hospital to mediocrity. 
Thank you.  Any questions? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Halaby, thank you very much for your comments. 
MR. HALABY:  Thank you.  Because if anyone has any questions about any conflicts I might have, I would like to address that because there is no conflict. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No questions?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Halaby.
Okay, number two is Ms. Janet Hunt.  Come on up, Ms. Hunt. 
Please state your name and your address for the record please.
MS. HUNT:  My name is    does this work better?  Can you hear me? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. HUNT:  Thank you. My name is Janet Hunt.  J a n e t H u n t. I live at 412 Mountain Avenue in Ridgewood.  Ridgewood, New Jersey.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. HUNT:  I do.  J A N E T   H U N T,  412 Mountain Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MS. HUNT:  I thank you all for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you tonight. 
I am a 62 year resident of the Village.  I am a veteran New York City commuter who has steadfastly clung to my beloved small town roots.  I have no desire to see Ridgewood deteriorate into the urban chaos of lower Manhattan.  I'm also passionate about Valley Hospital.  I have a    I have been a grateful patient there on multiple occasions as have several members of my immediate family.  I am also a long time Valley volunteer, donor and now a Valley Foundation trustee.  I strongly support Valley's Plan For Renewal. Throughout its history, Valley has defined its mission as the delivery of high quality health care to the residents of northwest Bergen County.  The key role of the    the key goals of the Hospital have always included staying abreast of fast changing developments in medicine and attracting and retaining top flight medical professionals for the hospital staff.  As an attorney myself, I'm well aware that a lawyer who fails to remain current on the evolution of the law soon degenerates into a public menace. 
I have every reason to believe that an identical principle applies in medicine.  Valley's purpose differs from that of institutions such as New York Presbyterian Hospital and Rockefeller University, with their emphasis on basic research and teaching. However, I view the decisions of many investigators and physicians affiliated with these world renowned academic medical centers, to establish practices at Valley as well, to be persuasive evidence that Valley also ranks as an institution receiving the highest marks for scientific and clinical excellence and compassionate care. Membership in this powerful global network immeasurably benefits Valley and must be strengthened and expanded.  I believe we should count ourselves as extraordinarily fortunate to have such resources available to us here in our community.  We Villagers have the right to expect Valley to adhere to its traditional policy of good citizenship by minimizing disruptions associated with this latest modernization project.  In return    in return, Valley has the right to expect support from us Ridgewoodites for its foresighted initiatives designed to meet the demands of 21st health, science and technology. 
Again, I thank you for your attention tonight and commend you for taking on this challenging role in service to the Village we are all privileged to call home.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Hunt, thank you very much for your comments tonight.
MS. HUNT:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Anne Crane.
MS. CRANE:  Thank you. 
MS. RAZIN:  Jane, do you want to mark    is that the first one that you received? 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Second.
MS. RAZIN:  Second.
MS. WONDERGEM:  First one I received, yes.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Do you want to mark it P    I would mark it "P" for public, that's the first one you were handed though?
MS. WONDERGEM:  Yes.
MS. RAZIN:  So one.  Okay.
(Whereupon, Statement of Ms. Hunt is received and marked as Exhibit P 1 for Identification.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Sorry, Ms. Crane.
MS. CRANE:  Good evening.  My name is Anne Crane.  A n n e C r a n e.  I live at 114 East Highland Avenue. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
If you could please raise your right hand to be sworn? 
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. CRANE:  I do.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
A N N E    C R A N E,  114 East Highland Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Laura, can you bring the microphone a little bit closer?  Do you have one there?  
THE COURT REPORTER:   No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You don't?  Okay. Speak up if you could the next time. 
THE COURT REPORTER:   Sure.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.
MS. CRANE:  I want to thank each of you for the opportunity to talk to you tonight. 
My family and I have lived in the Village for 38 years.  During this time we have had numerous occasions to be very grateful to Valley Hospital's immediacy and superb care    sorry    for Valley Hospital's immediacy and superb care.  We're all aware of the continuing evolution in healthcare and the particularly dramatic changes that are currently occurring as the field strives to meet the constant goals of safety and quality.  Consider, for example, single patient rooms, which Valley does not have, or the operating room having the DaVinci robotic surgical system, which Valley does have.  Valley surgeons use this system to remove cancerous tumors making incisions only a few inches in length, best allowing patients to recover more swiftly and return home in a much shorter period of time.  It could only be installed at Valley by converting an existing operating theatre and sacrificing an adjacent major equipment storage room.  These are just two reasons why we need to undertake this project now. 
For more than 60 years Valley has played a critical role in Ridgewood and in surrounding communities, and we'd like to be sure that it can viably continue to do so.  Valley Hospital's past building projects have demonstrated to the community that the Hospital is always concerned for the health and safety of our neighbors.  After all, their business is keeping people well.  And this project, like the previous ones, will be designed to meet the specific measures spelled out in an ordinance to be approved at the appropriate time.
I know this is a challenging decision for each of you, and I sincerely hope that for the greater good of Ridgewood you will approve this Amendment to the Village Master Plan. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  Thank you, Ms. Crane. 
Eli Kirshnal (sic), number four.
DR. KIRSHNER:  Kirshner.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Kirshner, I'm sorry.  It's an "r".  Please state your name and address for the record.
DR. KIRSHNER:  Eli Kirshner, 711 Upper Boulevard. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sir, can you spell your name please? 
DR. KIRSHNER:  K i r    Eli is E l i, Kirshner K i r s h n e r. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  And please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
DR. KIRSHNER:  I do.
EL I    K I R S H N E R, 711 Upper Boulevard, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
THE COURT REPORTER:   Thank you.
DR. KIRSHNER:  Members of the town Planning Board, I thank you for listening to me today.  Unlike my other previous speakers, I've only been a member of this town, residing here, for only 18 years. 
I appear today to speak to you in support of The Valley Renewal.  I have somewhat of a unique perspective, and I'd like to share that with you today.  I am a physician.  I've been on staff at Valley Hospital since 1995.  My office, however, is located in Westwood, New Jersey.  And I was also affiliated with Pascack Valley Hospital from 1995 until it closed in 2008.  I was co chairman of the Division of Medical Oncology at Pascack Valley for three years prior to its closing.  I was a fan of Pascack Valley and was very sad to see it close.  I would like to give my perspective on why Pascack Valley Hospital closed and how it is relevant to our discussion today regarding The Valley Hospital Renewal.  Much of the blame for the closing of Pascack Valley was placed on the CEO and the hospital administration, and in particular the decision to vastly expand the facility in the year 2004. Undoubtedly, that was a bad decision and resulted in the hospital's premature closure within only a few years.  As bad a decision as it seemed in retrospect, the decision at the time was not without an important understanding of the trend in hospital care.  Pascack Valley Hospital was losing its share of patients to the other area hospitals, in particular, Hackensack and Valley, and because it was a small hospital it could not possibly afford the broad range of services available at the larger hospitals. This trend towards fewer, larger hospitals with closing a small hospitals, has been seen nationwide over the past two decades.  The decision to expand the hospital was made to improve and expand services such that the patients would be willing to be admitted to Pascack Valley and so that additional medical talent could be recruited.  Unfortunately, for Pascack Valley, the expansion came too late, the debt burden was too great and they were unable to retain their patients and unable to attract new medical talent. Although the hospital expansion resulted in the hospital closing sooner, I believe that the reason that Pascack Valley Hospital closed is that the model for smaller hospitals became obsolete.
So, why is this relevant for Valley Hospital renewal?  Currently I am proud to be affiliated at Valley and can say with all honesty that it provides superior care as evidenced by its rewards and recognition. 
So, Valley Hospital is doing so well, why would we want to change anything?  And does the experience of Pascack Valley suggest that hospital growth is a risky endeavor?  I would argue the opposite.  The problem with Pascack Valley, that it was too small and lacked the critical mass of doctors and services necessary to improve itself. On the other hand, Valley offers a broad range of services and complex medical procedures to be performed in our own backyard.  It would be naïve to believe that Valley could continue on this path of excellence, which is clearly demonstrated, without renewal, without improving the services for the next generations to come.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Kirshner, for speaking tonight. 
DR. KIRSHNER:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Number seven, Marcia Ringel. 
Please state your name and spell your name and provide your address. 
MS. RINGEL:  Marcia    excuse me Marcia, M a r c i a, Ringel, R i n g e l, 250 Ferris Place, on the west side of town, not near the hospital. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Can you raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. RINGEL:  Yes. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
M A R C I A     R I N G E L, 250 Ferris Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MS. RINGEL:  A child says, "I want a pony".  Parent says, "how about a puppy or a guppy". Child's counteroffer, "how about a slightly smaller pony with setbacks and an aboveground parking lot"? 
They don't spend ten    eight years discussing where a horse could be stabled or where it    what it would eat.  They just say no pony.
Valley's proposal is a slightly smaller pony. 
In my 42 years in town, I have entered Valley as an inpatient, outpatient, parent and visitor.  But Valley feels much less caring to me now.  Our community has been treated with contempt by our community hospital, marketing madly with millions saved in taxes on the backs of that very community. What began as David and Goliath has morphed into David and Godzilla.  And if this thing is built it will get worse.  We have no dearth of fine hospitals.  Even New York is coming to us.  Memorial Sloan Kettering in Basking Ridge.  And in the fall, physicians offices in Paramus for the Hospital for Special Surgery.  That was in The Record this week. 
You asked us to state how we feel.  I feel perplexed as my neighbors must repeatedly remind our elected and appointed officials that we love our Village.  Begging them not to destroy it in the name of progress or from fear of litigation. I feel alarmed that almost every year a new group of residents has needed to band together to protest the handing over of public lands and space. I feel betrayed by our Board of Education which wimped out when it should have spoken out. I feel dismayed that this issue has cast a shadow over five Council elections, including a special one, one November. 
Ridgewood neighborhoods are adjacent to schools, fields, parks, shops and a hospital.  We lived in harmony for many years, that delicate balance must return.
Several years    several decades ago the late Barney Van Dyk told me that he wanted to expand his ice cream store, nestled among private homes on Ackerman Avenue, to allow indoor seating.  But he graciously accepted the Zoning Board's refusal, understanding that zoning laws are meant to protect residents.  And so we still eat our ice cream outside. 
You are our Planning Board, please plan.  And consider the future, what we don't know as well as what we do. 
Mr. Brancheau's recent report said phase two might not happen.  Of course it would, as would phase three.  We would all endure decades of unstoppable derangement, a tax exempt juggernaut that no wall, buffer or traffic island could mitigate.  And for what? 
Also, our environment is changing rapidly, if water or electricity were rationed, would a giant hospital get first dibs? 
Ask yourself, please, do I have the moral right to let this happen to my Village?  You have the authority to say yes and the responsibility to say no. 
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Ringel, thank you very much for speaking tonight. 
Number eight is Neil Posner. 
MR. POSNER:  Good evening. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please state your name   
MR. POSNER:  Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     and provide your address.
MR. POSNER:  Neil Posner, N e i l P o s n e r, at 354 Walthery Avenue. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sir, please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. POSNER:  I do. 
N E I L     P O S N E R, 354 Walthery Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
THE COURT REPORTER:   Thank you.   
MR. POSNER: Thank you for the opportunity. 
First, some numbers to consider.  According to publicly available IRS form 990, which is a tax return or a non tax return, if you will, of organizations exempt from income tax, completed by The Valley Hospital Incorporated for 2012.  They had $102 million in revenue, less expenses; $847 million in assets, of which $441 million are liquid investments in publicly traded securities. In 2012, Valley spent 12.1 million on conferences; 5.2 million in officer compensation; 3.3 million in advertising and promotion.  They had seven employees that received greater than $400,000 in compensation.  And they paid zero to the Village of Ridgewood in taxes. Their form 990 states that 70 percent of their discharges are from 32 towns in Bergen and Passaic counties, with a population of 440,000.  Of course, the other 30 percent have to be from further away. As we know, 6 percent, approximately, of Valley's patients reside in Ridgewood.  This is a tiny proportion of their business. 
Based on my own observations of Valley's sponsorships, radio advertisements, billboards, which are ubiquitous in the area, it's clear that Valley has aspirations to be far more than a community hospital.  There is only one word to describe Valley and it is a "business".  And by    and by any measure, a highly successful one. 
People move to Ridgewood not for Valley, but as a place to set up roots for their growing families, for the quality of the schools and for the unique small town character of Ridgewood. We tolerate, in fact, the existence of Valley.  In fact many of us benefit from it.  But it is maxed out in its present form, no less what they're proposing. A regional powerhouse on that tiny little parcel of land, tilts the existing balance on its head.  This proposal does everything to hurt Ridgewood's attractiveness as a community and it does nothing to help it.  It's a hundred percent detriment and zero benefit, in my opinion. The students of one of our two middle schools, which is clearly also an inherently beneficial use, will essentially suffer forever as a result of this proposal.  And I believe Ridgewood itself will suffer permanently. I believe it is high time for the Planning Board to reject this ridiculous request and an expansion of this magnitude on a tiny parcel of land in the middle of a community right next to a middle school and its athletic field. 
The clear and lurking detriments from this proposal on my personal quality of life, my home values and on my and my own family's ability to peacefully enjoy our home and community are immeasurable.  And this proposal should be viewed as nothing but actually obscene. 
I am going to wrap it up. 
Given the chance to put forth a meaningful compromise, Valley instead has come back with no compromise, no modifications to the earlier proposal leaving the entire mass, the building, the four story parking garage untouched.  This is anything but a compromise and demonstrates a total lack of recognition or acknowledgement that the concerns voiced by many about their proposal are both real, valid and have basis in fact. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please wrap it up.
MR. POSNER:  We instead    I'm going to wrap it up.  If you would please bear with me one second. 
We instead get traffic studies that get completed in the dead of winter over a school holiday and when the Village of Ridgewood is closed for business.  And we hear comparisons to hospitals that are residing in cities. The question at hand is not whether Valley is a good hospital or what it needs or whether it has proposed reasonable steps to mitigate the obvious and real problems the proposed expansion will cause to residents, students and the Village, itself.  The question is about whether an expansion of this tremendous size and scope is appropriate to begin with for the Village. 
We    and very importantly, last point, I promise.  We've told that Mr.     we've been told, you've been told by Mr. Steck, who I believe testified on behalf of C.R.R., that none, zero of the promises made by Valley in conjunction with this proposal, can actually be enforced or mandated by the Village of Ridgewood in the future.  You've been told that even the day after the approval of this proposal    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Posner   
MR. POSNER:     plans can be changed at any time. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I think that   
MR. POSNER:    you're entrusted to look after the long term   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Posner, you've made a few promises   
MR. POSNER:    interests   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     I'm going to have to ask you to stop. 
MR. POSNER:  Okay.  We entrust you guys to look after long term interests of this Village and not Valley.
Thank you.
(Applause.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Posner. 
David Lipson, number 10. 
DR. LIPSON:  David Lipson, 302 Heights Road. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sir, spell your name please.
DR. LIPSON:  D a v i d L i p s o n.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
DR. LIPSON:  I do. 
D A V I D     L I P S O N, 302 Heights Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
DR. LIPSON:  I am also a physician at Valley Hospital.  I came to Ridgewood and to Valley Hospital in 1978 after doing my training in New York. As a young plastic surgeon trying to get a practice going, I joined eight different hospitals.  Since my first year of practice, I believe that makes me a resident of Ridgewood now for 36 years as of July. In the years since, four of those hospitals have closed.  They closed because they went obsolete.  If you don't progress in this industry, you die. Now, Valley does advertise, I think they're forced to advertise because the competition engages in aggressive marketing.  And so I don't think it's Valley's choice to do that, but they're forced to do it. Valley is a unique hospital, through my training and through my experience and practice, I've been on staff of about 14 different hospitals.  None compare to Valley.  Valley is an enlightened institution.  It's a good neighbor. 
As an enlightened administration that gets along with the medical staff, a rare thing in the world of medicine.  Those of us who know hospitals are aware of this. There is a wonderful relationship, a family feeling at Valley. Over the years I have been on staff at Valley, running to the emergency room, and I know I have several patients of mine in this room right now, Valley renewed itself three times, three previous construction projects, went through the Planning Board, were approved, were carried out.  I was there, I've always gone to the Planning Board.  And as far as I know there have been no allegations of excessive noise, excessive pollution or injury caused to any student or neighbor of the hospital. 
By the way, the hospital was there before any of the neighbors who live in the area of the hospital.  They were there first.  Anyone who moved into the neighborhood knew that there was a hospital.  Anyone who is here now knows that there was a hospital when they moved in.
So, in conclusion I just want to support Valley's application because it's the right thing to do and because Valley needs to keep up.  A hospital that does not keep up goes under as my fellow physician said earlier. 
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Lipson. 
Number 11, Janet Tuomey.  Please state and spell your name and provide your address.
MS. TUOMEY:  Janet Tuomey, T u o m e y, 59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey, a 44 year resident. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. TUOMEY:  I do.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
J A N E T    T U O M E Y, 59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MS. TUOMEY:  During my over 50 years of professional nursing, I have been a pediatric head nurse, an ER nurse, a school nurse and a school nurse practitioner.  I worked for 30 years in the Ridgewood schools. 
Over the last five years I have spoken often and passionately about the dangers from pollutants that will be generated during the six to ten years of construction at Valley.
We have 95 students at BF and Travell who are diagnosed with asthma right now.  And they are not the only ones with health compromised    they are not the only ones being compromised by this.  There are others that are health compromised, that's what I wanted to say. 
Now, let me tell you a story.  One day after lunch a third grade boy came into my office, I'll call him Joseph.  Joseph's color was almost indescribably, not white, not blue, what I call the color of fresh, wet cement. I sent the other students who were in my office out to the secretary. Joseph was diagnosed with asthma since the first grade, and I grabbed a medicine box which contained his prescription of a rescue inhaler.  He had never been having to use it before. 
What happened honey?  Did you eat anything at lunch that was different? 
He shook his head no and said very quietly, and with difficulty, I was just playing outside. 
I tried to give Joseph his inhaler as I modeled how he should breathe in and deeply to get his medication. I told a mom who peeked in the room to call 911 without Joseph's hearing me. 
I asked our secretary to call his dad who lived very near the school.  I kept talking to Joseph as I cuddled next to him on the couch. I adjusted his position for breathing and pursed his lips again on the inhaler.  I had checked his respirations, his chest retractions.  I listened to his lungs with a stethoscope.  His respirations were silent.  No coughing.  No wheezing.  A very bad sign. Joseph's face became a darker cement color.  I prayed, oh, my God don't let this child go on us. He was conscious but terribly fatigued and failing. Just then Joseph's dad burst into the room holding the same two medications that I had been given.  He was terrified of the sight of Joseph and ran to him and snatched him up off the couch.  He ran out of the school with me running after him yelling that the ambulance was on its way. 
Outside we saw a single fireman holding a tank of oxygen who quickened his step as he saw us.  In seconds he had a mask on Joseph who was now on the freezing pavement, but still conscious. 
I urged Joseph, take a deep breath.  And he did and then another.  And his color became a wonderful chalk white.  As they moved him, I said you're going to be okay.  And he nodded that he knew what I meant. Joseph was treated right in the ambulance rig with oxygen and IV medications.  He was in pediatric ICU for four days, but he did return to school shortly thereafter. The chemical or substance that caused the asthma attack was never identified.  Joseph never had another attack at school. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Tuomey, thank you very much for speaking this evening. 
Number 12, Michael Noe. 
MR. NOE:  I pass.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You pass?  Thank you. 
Looks like number 14, Jeanette LaRocco. 
MS. LaROCCO:  Jeanette, J e a n e t t e, LaRocco, L a R o c c o, 454 Bogert Avenue.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
MS. LaROCCO:  Yes.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. LaROCCO:  I do.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
J E A N E T T E     L a R O C C O, 454 Bogert Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MS. LaROCCO:  There is a country song called "Give Me Back My Hometown" by Eric Church.
Ridgewood is my hometown even though I didn't grow up here.  It is because after almost 26 years of living here and having my children grow up here, I feel at home.  I am tired of having to fight in front of two Planning Boards and one Village Council to protect Ridgewood and its neighbors from Valley's overexpansion. I believe doubling the hospital will be disastrous for Ridgewood.  It's a community filled with people and businesses, of which Valley Hospital is the largest of them. Ridgewood does not, however consist solely of Valley Hospital, which if it was it would be called Valleywood, not Ridgewood. 
Ridgewood is a village made up of neighborhoods, which we are trying to preserve, as a place where people will want to keep moving into. It's a place where children are born, grow up, move out and then will want to move back to because of their wonderful experiences.  A place that when people retire, they will find a reason to remain. This is what I hoped for my family, but if Valley gets their way, I seriously doubt mine will want to return.  And I won't want to stay because who will want to live next to a sprawling and unwieldy hospital where noise, traffic, pollution, etcetera will be a serious problem for several years during construction and afterwards for the foreseeable future. If I wanted to live in Hackensack, I would have moved there. 
One of my biggest fears is that my house's value will go down and I will be forced to leave sooner, rather than later.  I live in a neighborhood with great neighbors, many of whom are friends, and wonderful children who I have enjoyed watching grow up and would miss if I am forced to move because of the expansion.  And I worry about their safety walking to and from school. If it was such a great idea, why haven't the real estate brokers come out in favor of it?  I believe it's because they know what will happen when real estate values go south.  All you have to do is drive down Summit Avenue in Hackensack to see what happens to homes near a hospital. 
I am also tired of the rhetoric surrounding the number of beds.  In my opinion, it's so people will forget that they are not increasing the breads    the beds    excuse me    dramatically but the number of rooms will be doubled. And the size of the rooms are larger than they are now, which at this point include two beds. It means that the buildings have to be larger.  And I am worried that how can we trust Valley not to change their plans to include outpatient services because they may not need all those beds because of changes in healthcare. Obamacare for businesses does not kick in until, I believe, 2016.  So we won't know the ramifications from that regarding insurance reimbursements. You must remember that Valley is a healthcare corporation, a business.  And a business is concerned with revenues and competitors like Hackensack Hospital North, which is advertising having only single rooms and a spa like atmosphere.
Valley has no choice but to be competitive.  But I ask you at what price? 
The question you as a Board need to ask is:  Should Ridgewood have to give up its future in order for Valley to be financially successful?  That is your job to decide, what is best for Ridgewood and how to achieve that without destroying all that makes Ridgewood desirable as a destination village to live in for the foreseeable future. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. LaRocco.
(Applause.)
MS. DOCKRAY:  Excuse me.  Excuse me, I just have a quick question. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. LaRocco, please come forward, there's a quick question for you.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I just didn't hear your    the street you lived on. 
MS. LaROCCO:  Yes, I live on Bogert Avenue   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Oh, Bogert.
MS. LaROCCO:     between Ponfield and Glen. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Number 18, Lorraine Reynolds. 
MS. NOE:  I'm sorry.  I was number 13 and I'm not sure what happened.  And I wanted to speak. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I'm very sorry.  I did skip over your name.  My apologies, Kathie Noe.  Is it Noe? 
I think what I did was I got mixed up with somebody whose spelling was very similar.  My apologies. 
MS. NOE:  That's okay.  Can I speak now? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, please.  Absolutely.
Please state your name and spell your name and provide your address.
MS. NOE:  Kathleen Noe, K a t h l e e n, N o e, 623 Ellington Road, down in The Lawns. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Can you please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 
MS. NOE:  I do.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you. 
K A T H L E E N     N O E,  623 Ellington Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MS. NOE:  Thank you.  And thank you all for your time, and to my neighbors also for all their time that they've spent concerning this. I don't think anyone is against the hospital updating or modernizing.  I do not like the scope of the expansion project.  The height and the lot coverage are just too great, especially in a residential neighborhood. I've been a resident of Ridgewood for over 50 years.  I do not live in the immediate neighborhood of the hospital, my home is about two miles from the hospital.  The current proposal still impacts me greatly as a resident and taxpayer in Ridgewood. Of concern to me is the safety of the residents, especially the children going to BF, RHS and Travell during the construction and after the construction. Also of concern to me is the underground water that will need to be discharged either into the rivers or the town's sewage treatment plant. Currently, during normal heavy rains, nor'easters, hurricanes, we have flooding of homes and streets in neighborhoods near the rivers in town. Also, when malfunctions of the town's sewage pump station or problems at the sewage plant occur, backup of sewage in my neighborhood can happen and has happened. Can our sewage plant handle the extra discharge of the water from the building's usage and the underground water that needs to be displaced? With the potential of possible multiple housing units being built in town, will these questions be factored into your consideration of this hospital expansion? As residents of this town, we cannot overbuild on our lots.  This helps to preserve the character and integrity of Ridgewood.  The Ridgewood that made us want to live here. 
Any business, and the hospital is a business, should have to comply by those same rules and standards. 
We all want to enjoy the quality of life that Ridgewood offers, the peaceful enjoyment of our homes.  Please vote no to this expansion, rebuilding proposal. 
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Noe. 
Lorraine, please state your name and provide your address for the record.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Lorraine Reynolds, L o r r a i n e R e y n o l d s, 550 Wyndemere Avenue. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. REYNOLDS:  I do.
L O R R A I N E     R E Y N O L D S, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi.  Thank you to the Planning Board for allowing this time for public comment and sitting through all of these meetings.
On March 11, 2013, Mr. Drill discussed six reasons why Council unanimously denied the ordinance following the June 2010 Master Plan Amendment to the H Zone.  He then went on to say that this new amendment has addressed these issues. He said that Valley had listened to what the Council said as well as the neighbors.  I couldn't disagree more. Number one, light and air.  The new North Building is still 360 feet long by 150 feet wide by 94 feet tall.  I can't even imagine something that massive in the residential area of Ridgewood. Number two, traffic.  Valley has promised to move select outpatient services to new locations.  The experts say this will reduce traffic.  Valley has had 14 months to move services and prove traffic will get better, but they have not done so. How do we know they are going to do it if this passes? Number three, water table disturbance.  Slight change. Number four, removal of bedrock.  Again, slight change. Number five, construction phase.  It has been shortened to six years.  Think about how long six years is.  That is six years of children going to school eight hours a day next to a construction zone.  Approximately 1400 students will be living this on a daily basis for their entire three years at middle school. Number six, the project is just too large and too intense for this site.  The marginal size reduction is an insult to the Board and all of the residents that were waiting for a real compromise.  Currently we look at an above grade building mass of 405,000 square feet.  According to Blais's report dated March 31, 2014, if this were to pass you'll be looking at an above grade building mass of 1,056,400 square feet.  And this doesn't even include the 245,000 square feet of parking deck.  This is beyond overwhelming for this 15 acre site. 
I want to remind everyone of some of the words that Mr. Steck, the planner, had spoken on September 13, 2013.  Some of his words were: "This represents an improper balance of the Hospital's interest with the interests of the neighborhood.  This proposal will have major effects on the neighborhood.  An environment that produces noise, lights and traffic is one that starts to degrade a single family area".
When speaking of the parking deck, he said:"That's like a beacon in the night.  It has a huge land use impact in terms of its presence in a single family area.  I've never  seen a parking garage at night that looks the same as the architect thinks it looks like or projects it will look like". 
When speaking about the height, he says: "It will simply look like a less residential environment.  The fact that the buildings would be shifted towards the school, it will be much more visible from a greater distance".
For all these reasons and so many more, I urge the Planning Board to vote no.  Please make a statement to Valley that this has been a waste and an abuse of the Planning Board members and the public for the last 14 months.  Do not continue this farce by sending this to Council. Since it is negligibly less horrible than the 2010 Amendment, I have no doubt that the Council will vote this down as well, so please don't waste our time, our money.  Please help us take back our town, get back to the business of planning, and stop this eight year long fiasco. We need to stop the divisiveness that everyone feels.  And we all do.  The residents feel marginalized.  We feel that our voice has not mattered. Voting no on this will accomplish making us feel like we've been heard.  Thank you so much for your time. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. 
Please, please don't.
Number 23 is Dina Stein. 
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Dina Stein had to leave.  She said she's going to pass.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Number 25 is Bob Pressner. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Katie, I think we just got another statement I don't know the markings.  I just want to keep track of the marking.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Jane's gotten a whole bunch I think.  So we'll make sure you're all set with all the markings.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you. 
MR. PRESSNER:  Bob Pressner, 508 Van Buren Street, P r e s s n e r.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
Raise your right hand please.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. PRESSNER:  Yes. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
B O B     P R E S S N E R, 508 Van Buren Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. PRESSNER:  First let me thank you all for all of the time that you've put in on this particular issue.  I've been to a number of meetings and my hat's off to all of you for sitting through this, it's been incredible. 
I'm a 17 year resident of Ridgewood.  I'm never    it never ceases to amaze me how eloquent our    our community is, incredible people, on both sides of the issue. I wish I can speak just a little bit to my own personal feelings on this    this issue.  I'm not in favor of the changes to the Master Plan to accommodate Valley's proposal and expansion.  Throughout the year of hearing process, the simple question of is this expansion good for Ridgewood, I really don't believe it's been satisfactorily answered.  I think it has really been answered that it's not.  It's not in the short term, if ten years is a short term.  And it certainly isn't, in terms of the long lasting negative effects to the community. And not just the west side, I think it affects all of Ridgewood. Those of us who are opposed to this have been characterized as NIMBY, Flat Earthers. Well, Valley's already in our backyard.  We already live with it.  We already live with the traffic on Linwood, backed up to Route 17 by about 2:30 every afternoon.  It's not going to get better.  I don't think any of us believe that it's going to get better. And so we're already living with this.  My question is, is it really necessary that they build as big as they want? I suggest Valley reuse, revise their plans so as to meet their needs and the needs, but the needs    and the needs of the people they serve.  But, most importantly, the needs of our community. I respectfully ask the Planning Board to stand against this overreach of Valley Hospital and vote no on their request. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Pressner. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Walter Durant, number 27.
MR. DURANT:  Good evening, Walter Durant, 538 Linwood Avenue. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Mr. Durant, raise your right hand please.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 
MR. DURANT:  I do. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
W A L T E R    D U R E N T, 538 Linwood Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MR. DURANT:  Actually this weekend coming up would be our 29th year in Ridgewood. I was quite a bit younger then and I've aged quite a bit since then for various reasons. But at any rate, we urge you to reject this latest expansion of Valley Hospital.  The expansion is too big for a residential neighborhood:  A 94 feet tall building; a five level parking garage on Linwood Avenue, which is just obscene to think about; ten years of construction.  After construction is over, it's just even the quality of life of living within that environment.  Increased traffic during and at the completion of construction. And how are we going to pay for this project?  As they say, Valley is a big business.  And when you build a business this size, you have to increase your patient revenue to pay for it.  How is that going to take place? 
These are a few    excuse me    these are only a few, but significant reasons, to vote no on this expansion.  And I just wanted to urge the Board to do that. 
Also, thank you for your time because I know it's been tough on you and it's been tough on me also. 
So, thanks again.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you Mr. Durant. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Christian Reinhardt, number 28. 
MR. REINHARDT:  Christian Reinhardt, 359 Corona Place.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Can you spell you last name please.
MR. REINHARDT:  R e i n h a r d t.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Raise your right hand please.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. REINHARDT:  Yes, I do.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
C H R I S T I A N    R E I N H A R D T, 359 Corona Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MR. REINHARDT:  Good evening and thank you for your service. 
I was not going to make a comment at first, but then I realized I have to because I am a parent of a school going child.  And I have to voice my concern as a resident of Ridgewood for over 20 years. 
My daughter, who is currently attending Travell, is going to go in BF in a couple of years.  And my main concerns with the hospital expansions are noise pollution affecting BF as well as local traffic, which is a problem already at this time. And children's safety is put at risk at this point during the busy times of traffic at the hospital. And this was very evident this couple    this week and the previous week by a parent who was observing the traffic and noticed that the hospital traffic did not respect the pedestrians trying to cross the street as well as the children trying to cross the intersection of both on Linwood as well as East Glen.  And the parent who observed had to post the comments and observation on the social media because the children were actually put at risk. And that is a major concern, besides the health reasons and everything else.  We have been patients of    our family has been a patient in Valley on a couple of occasions.  It is a good hospital, but at the same time, Valley has a lot of satellite offices that we are using at this point. Not only the main office, but you have    you have certain things that you have to do at Luckow Pavilion or whatever.  I mean it's    and it works fine. So, I mean in our opinion, the expansion of the Valley Hospital would definitely affect the quality of the family life in our neighborhoods as well as the future of our children.  So please consider that when you vote for the Valley expansion. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Reinhardt. 
Number 34, Joan O'Donnell. 
MS. O'DONNELL:  Pass in favor of my husband.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Larry O'Donnell, number 35. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sir, please state and spell you name and give your address.
MR. O'DONNELL:  My name is Laurence, L a u r e n c e, O'Donnell, O ' D o n n e l l, 568 Wyndemere. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. O'DONNELL:  I do.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you. 
L A U R E N C E   O'  D O N N E L L, 568 Wyndemere Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey,   having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:   
MR. O'DONNELL: We live several blocks south of the hospital.  My wife, Joan and I have lived in our house for nearly 40 years, raised four children of our own and a number of foster children.  We love our neighbors. Having a good hospital nearby is an asset.  We have been    I have been a patient there many times.  The medicine is always good.  And so is the service. That said, I'm deeply concerned about the scope and size of Valley's proposed expansion, it's simply too much for a 15 acre site that is surrounded by houses and a school.  In late 2011, less than three years ago, the Village Council voted five to zero to turn down Valley's expansion proposal, which was substantially similar to the one that you are now looking at.  Not identical, but still resulting in the doubling the size of the hospital. 
The residents of Ridgewood who live near that hospital are being asked to overlook or accept a number of problems that will come with the expansion, increased traffic, already heavy in part because of the hospital's earlier decision to become a regional hospital instead of a local one.  During construction of six years or more, large diesel powered construction vehicles will flow constantly in and out of the area. 
As construction is completed, the flow of traffic bringing patients and visitors from around the region will expand.  Air pollution stemming from the construction, itself, and increased traffic will endanger the health of older people, myself, children and those participating in watching sports events at the newly designated field behind Benjamin Franklin, right next to Valley. 
These are the very heavy burdens that Valley is asking, with Village approval, the residents to accept. 
The hospital should receive the strongest possible message that we don't want or need a hospital McMansion.
(Applause.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you very much, Mr. O'Donnell. 
Next person is number 39, Meegan Shirley (sic), Meegan Shirley (sic), I'm sorry.
MS. SHEVLIN:  Hi, it's Meegan, M e e g a n, Shevlin, S h e v l i n, 512 Van Buren Street.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 
MS. SHEVLIN:  I do. 
M E E G A N      S H E V L I N, 512 Van Buren Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
THE COURT REPORTER:   Thank you.
MS. SHEVLIN:  Hello, thank you very much for your time in these proceedings.  I know it's been a very long amount of time. 
I am a breast cancer survivor and I love Valley.  My great breast cancer surgeon and oncologist are based out of Luckow.  And all my treatments, my chemo, my radiation and both my surgeries were at Luckow.  I want Valley to modernize.  I want single rooms, please, single rooms.  And I want Valley to remain a top hospital. However, I am also a mom of a fourth grader at Travell and an eighth grader at BF.  And I cannot support the expansion in its scope and present form.  The educational environment of these schools will be negatively impacted both by the construction and the final building, if completed. 
My concerns mainly relate to the air quality, construction noise, the duration of the construction time and the traffic. A 94 foot building will tower over BF and its brand new track and field facilities.  And this will impact the health and safety of our students for generations to come. The land is just too small for this hospital to double in size.  And shifting buildings towards BF is the opposite of what should be done.  The scope and size is just too large for its present location. Valley needs to modernize, I understand that.  We all understand that.  But it needs to take into account its current location next to a school and within a residential neighborhood. This proposal is barely smaller than the first proposal, which is a bit of an insult to the residents.  And I urge this Board to vote no on this proposal.
Thank you.
(Applause.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Shevlin, thank you very much for your comments this evening.
Number 41, Zigi Putnins.
THE COURT REPORTER:   Sir, can you please state your name, spell it and provide your address? 
MR. PUTNINS:  Zigi Putnins, 572 Fairway Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. PUTNINS:  I do. 
Z I G I    P U T N I N S, 572 Fairway Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having  been duly sworn, testifies as follows:   
MR. PUTNINS:  Give me one minute here, sorry.  (Pause). I'm sorry.
Okay, I have two topics I want to comment on.  First, one of the things I found frustrating about the hearings on the 2013 Amendment, was the amount of time spent on details versus the big picture.  Has there been adequate discussion about the impact of the H Zone Amendment to the immediate residential area? This Board    the Board has spent about 24 meetings on a variety of topics.  It has been pointed out that some of the testimony is at a level of detail that may be more appropriate for a development plan meeting, rather than a forward looking, overarching document like a Master Plan. 
There has been testimony on the average number of construction trucks per hour of each phase of the construction, change in average length of hospital stays over the last 20 years, we even learned that the water table at Valley's site fluctuates by 11 feet during a particular study period. However, the time spent on this type of detail took time away from talking about the bigger picture.  This testimony seems to focus on how can we can build this?  What will happen when we build this?  But not on, should we build this? There has been much time spent on detail minutia, but what about the bigger picture?  What will happen to the impact on the quality of life after the construction's complete?  What will be the impact of the mass on the aesthetics of the neighborhood?  What are the impacts of a parking deck on a residential neighborhood?  And most of all, does anyone have any idea of what Valley Renewal will look like from a ground level?  From Linwood Avenue?  From BF? I would think that this would have been a good thing for all of us to see. 
On July 30th, 2013, the Board discussed this very topic, but unfortunately declined to seek such information. But if you created such a model, you would find out that on the driveway that leads to the back of BF, the one that goes along Valley's property line, would not see the noon day sun for five months out of the year.  This should give you some idea of how immense this thing is going to be. 
My other comment is in regard to the amendment to the 2000 H Zone, in particular in keeping with the spirit of trying to scale back the project. Although there is an overall reduction in square footage of the building, according to the Burgis Association presentation on April 13th, 2013, the amended plan keeps the floor roof areas at or above grade to 1,000,025 square feet. 
My favorite comparison that I like to make is that this thing will be as big as the Paramus Park Mall.  I don't see how a project like fulfills the spirit of scaling back the project from the 2010 proposal. 
Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Putnins. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Number 45, John Krause. 
MR. KRAUSE:  John Krause, I live at 70 Monte Vista Avenue. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  I'm sorry.  K a   
MR. KRAUSE:  K r a u s e.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. KRAUSE:  Yes.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you. 
J O H N     K R A U S E, 70 Monte Vista Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MR. KRAUSE: So everyone's giving their pedigree about how long they've lived here.  My family moved here in the late '30s.  We lived on Linwood Avenue right across from where the hospital is now.  At that time there was an open field, there was no BF, there were    I think there was one house on that whole piece of property. My wife and I both graduated from Ridgewood High School and have been property owners here since the '60s.  I lived in my present house for 39 years.  So we know the town well and we don't want the town to change either. On the other hand, having Valley Hospital in this town is a wonderful thing.  And I think the danger in not allowing them to do what they want to do as far as their growth goes, the danger is taking a risk that it won't last, that it will fail, because I have read in many articles, other than just what Valley wants to do, that the thing of the future is to have single occupancy rooms in hospitals.  If that's what they need to have, I think we should let them do it. 
As far as the building size goes, we're used to large buildings, I work in New York every day, there's    big buildings are not a detriment, I don't think. 
(Audience outburst.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please.
MR. KRAUSE:  The problem is we have    we have a 90 some foot high building, I don't think that's a    that's not going to be something that's going to bother people. The one    the one negative that people have said about the hospital is that the building time that will, of course, be a problem, but once it's over I think we'll have a hospital that will come up to standards and be able to last in our town.  And I think that's a very important thing. 
I second what Mr. Halaby had to say and Dr. Lipson and so on.  I think we need to    to move promptly to do this.  We've been talking about it for too long, I agree with that too.  We've been talking about this whole project for way too long.  It's time to do what the hospital needs.  It's important to have a hospital.  It's important to    to do what they need to do to stay viable. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Krause. 
Number 46, Wayne Angelback. 
MR. ANGELBACK:  I'll pass.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Well, why don't we use this as a time to take a short break.
It's 9:05.  Let's resume again at 9:15.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to resume our meeting.  Please take your seats.  (Pause.)
Okay.  Ladies and gentlemen we're beginning. 
Jane, roll call, please.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mayor Aronsohn?
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Bigos? 
MR. BIGOS:  Here.
MS. BIGOS:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Reilly?
(NO RESPONSE.)
MS. DOCKRAY:  Mr. Reilly.
MR. REILLY:  Oh, yes.  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Peters?
MS. PETERS:  Here.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you everyone for your comments, I'm going to ask if, again, during the period if you agree or disagree with someone, it really isn't fair to that individual to interrupt them or to applaud or make comments if you don't agree with their statements.  I'm going to ask you again to refrain from that. 
We're going to begin this half with number 49, sorry number 48    number 49, I'm sorry.  Vincent Loneto. 
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  He left.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Number 51, Janet Daly.
MS. DALY:  Janet   
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please state your name for the record please and spell it. 
MS. DALY:  Janet Daly, D a l y, 386 Ponfield Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. DALY:  I do. 
J A N E T    D A L Y, 386 Ponfield Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MS. DALY: Good evening. 
I hope everyone is well and holding up.  And thank you for all the years that you've given to this.  It's been eight years since the first CD came out about Renewal.  It will be eight years in September. 
Okay. I was debating today as I was driving home what to speak about this evening when I got stuck in traffic on Linwood Avenue.  And I said, okay, here we are.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's a sign.
MS. DALY:  So    and I did type up my statement so I will try to stick to it and read it.
I have lived in Ridgewood for 40 years.  I moved from New York City to live in a charming, quiet, suburban community with decreased traffic and clean air.  I live 0.4 miles from Valley Hospital.
Since I live northwest of the hospital, I frequently pass the hospital on my way home.  Today, May 20, 2014, it took me five minutes to travel from Paramus Road to North Van Dien. I locked    I clocked my trip from the intersection of Linwood and Paramus at 4:18 p.m.  And I arrived at Linwood and North Van Dien at 4:23.  That's five minutes to travel one half mile or six miles in one hour, when you are allowed to travel 25 miles per hour. This traffic jam did not have an ambulance causing the traffic to pull over.  It did not have the BF middle school students' dismissal.  It was not during the hospital's change of shift.
Over the years, I have seen the traffic increase.  Unfortunately, this is a typical traffic jam on this section of Linwood Avenue.  This is not a onetime event. Linwood Avenue is not able to handle normal traffic around the hospital, how then can it handle six to ten years of construction? If this long term expansion of the hospital goes forward, the traffic jams will increase in volume and frequency. I will be sitting in traffic jams on Linwood Avenue while construction trucks enter and leave the hospital.  While I sit there I will be exposed to diesel particulate from the construction vehicles, construction dust and the loud noises of the construction. 
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Daly. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ed Daly, number 52. 
MR. DALY:  Edward Daly, D a l y, 386 Ponfield Place.      
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. DALY:  I do.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
E D W A R D     D A L Y, 386 Ponfield Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. DALY:  Thank you. 
I want to also say, as my wife said, thank you so much for all the time that you've spent here.  We've spent about half as much and we consider it a lot. 
At one point during these proceedings, the C.R.R. planner broached the subject of Valley's holdings in Paramus.  And Mr. Drill objected saying you're the Ridgewood Planning Board you're not the Paramus Planning Board. Well, I agree, but it's also true that you're the Ridgewood Planning Board and not the Board of Directors of Valley Hospital. So, when you consider this or anything that comes before you, you really have to consider the impact on this Village. Had this upside-down planning process gone normally, you would have taken up the issue of coming up with a fundamental plan for the H Zone or Valley's site. 
Would any of you have seriously come up with the idea of allowing 94 foot tall buildings there?  I mean the Village residents were in an uproar over 65 foot tall telephone poles.  And they're telephone poles.  And I agree with them by the way. This is a building that is about 50 percent more than that.  The height limitation on cell towers is 75 feet, just towers.  The height limitations on structures adjacent to the railroad tracks is 50 feet. Why would anyone consider it appropriate to build a 94 foot building in the middle of a residential neighborhood.  Also, during these proceedings, we learned that it's not necessary to build a multi tiered parking garage to accommodate the 1700 cars Valley will be limited to. Again, Mr. Drill objected that the underground parking is in phase two.  But you're considering a Master Plan, not a site proposal. This community doesn't want a multi tiered parking garage in the CBD.  Surely it doesn't want one in a residential neighborhood. 
For these two reasons I ask you to vote no.  And I know that voting no leaves the previous plan on the books, but I ask you not to lend credence to this seriously flawed proposal, even if it is less onerous than the existing plan.  Please vote no.  Then we can use this experience that we've gained over these years and put together a good Master Plan for the H Zone and I know the town would support you in that effort.
Last point, if anyone tells you that you have to vote a certain way, please don't listen to them.  If you're entitled to vote, you're entitled to vote the way you see fit. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Daly, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Number 66.  Forgive me, Jerry D'Ambrea (sic). 
MR. D'ANDREA:  It's close.  It's Jerry D'Andrea.  J e r r y D ' A n d r e a.  And it's 340 North Van Dien in Ridgewood.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. D'ANDREA:  I do. 
J E R R Y     D ' A N D R E A, 340 North Van Dien, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:   
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
MR. D'ANDREA:  I really wasn't planning on speaking tonight, I'm going to try to make this very quick, just some things that I wrote down as I was listening to everyone speak. 
My family has been a part of this community for about 20 years now.  And I would like to go on record stating that I am not in favor of this Valley Hospital expansion. Any additional growth to this hospital would depreciate this character of this town and create a negative impact on our quality of life. 
The Village's infrastructure, its roads, its utilities, its water supply cannot accommodate this expansion.  And its residents should not be burdened with the wants of Valley Hospital. As part of the community, I consider myself a good neighbor to Valley.  They are our guests and we take very good care of them.  We tolerate their noise and traffic and provide them with a free place to live and added security from our great police and fire department. This expansion will compromise our    most importantly, this expansion will compromise our children's safety and their education. Children that are not even born yet will be affected by this expansion.  It is impossible that a project of this magnitude can be managed safely without affecting their lives. 
I am asking our elected officials here to deny Valley's expansion so we, as a community, can move forward and add closure to this matter. 
Thank you so much, have a great night.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. D'Andrea. 
Number 70, Linda Robins. 
MS. ROBINS:  Linda Robins, R o b i n s, 752 Linwood Avenue.  
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. ROBINS:  I do.
L I N D A     R O B I N S, 752 Linwood Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:   
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
MS. ROBINS:  I want to join with my neighbors in thanking you for all the time and consideration you have given, and thanks to my neighbors for putting up with eight years of these hearings as well. 
Hospitals are good things.  Keeping up to date is a good thing, but not in this community, not in Ridgewood.  Please vote no. 
We are desperately fighting for the quality of our lives, our life investments, and the quiet enjoyment of our homes. 
Thirty five years ago I put my life savings into the purchase of my house on Linwood Avenue by the Saddle River, neighboring the beautiful historic Tudor estate of the Janke who have lived there for generations. 
I was happy to live down the street from a hospital and my daughter was born in Valley, the first of my traumatic experiences at the hospital.  While our two children were in BF we endured the endless chain of trucks rumbling by on Linwood Avenue dropping dirt and all other consequences of the last Valley Hospital expansion. 
Thirty five years later, in what is supposed to be my golden years, I am totally depressed and agonizing about the conditions I live under and what threats hang over my property's value in our neighborhood. 
I feel we are the stepchildren of Ridgewood.  I look out on rubble as another so called non profit has destroyed the estate it promised the Janke it would keep. 
I do my gardening to the exhaust fumes of bumper to bumper traffic every afternoon in front of my home daily.  I am awakened by the flashing lights of ambulances that do not turn off their sirens although they should, even when there are no cars on the road at night. 
Getting out of my driveway frightens any visitors and requires great patience and skill.  If I attempt to cross Linwood Avenue at anytime on foot, my heart is in my mouth. 
What is even more terrifying at present is what the future holds.  It seems that no one at the helm is seeing the total picture and the certain consequences.  And nobody is looking beyond the borders right across the river. 
If Valley Hospital were allowed to expand, the added traffic would pool with what is happening on our eastern border on Linwood Avenue.
The hospital     well, the Tudor estate has been destroyed as you know.  And they are putting up, as far as I understand, they are putting up a dormitory and the entrance and exit will be on Linwood Avenue.  So that will be traffic.
The two lots that used to belong to the Janke estate are now being proposed to be joined and have erected a two story daycare center for 169 students with ingress and egress on Paramus Road and Linwood Avenue. 
Valley Hospital has bought up the blood bank.  And I today, trying to go onto Route 17, there was a working car right in front on the    on Linwood and just before Stop and Shop that was holding up traffic. 
Of course there's the approved office building that's also on Linwood Avenue.  And then there's the strip mall down the way.  All of this is affecting what's happening. 
Neighbors in Ridgewood have joined those in Paramus to try to fight this daycare construction.  At the last set of hearings, Ridgewood's learned Council, here at these hearings, Ridgewood's Council spoke of broadening of Linwood Avenue by the County.  The next would be the broadening of Paramus Road. 
Do we want highways cutting through our Village?  If this expansion were to go through, this future is certainly not implausible.  And I do not want to spend my old age in such an environment.
This is not why I came to Ridgewood. 
My most recent experiences inside Valley Hospital have shown me an institution more concerned with rules and regulations than with compassion for its patients and its sufferings. 
It excels at soliciting its patients for complimentary comments on its performance and staff.  Outside it has shown total insensitivity to what it proposes to do to its surrounding neighborhood. 
It seems to want to own this Village.  It has bought up homes in Ridgewood, according to a newspaper article.  And has so much money that it even gives cooking lessons at the mall.  It has earned my enmity. 
The voters have spoken recently with a resounding vote of no to this expansion and in my opinion, any expansion on the part of Valley Hospital at this site. 
Valley has 102 millions, I endorse all the wonderful facts that have been brought before you.  Let them find another site. 
Please listen to Susan Knudsen's ideas to protect our zoning laws from constant challenges by those who would destroy the unique nature of the Village of Ridgewood with ambitious over planning.  Save our Village. 
I urge the Planning Board to vote no.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Robins. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Number 81, Andy Weissberg.  I'm sorry.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sir, state your name. 
MR. WEISSBERG:  Andy Weissberg, 344 Walthery Avenue in Ridgewood. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Spell your name please? 
MR. WEISSBERG:  W e i s s b e r g.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. WEISSBERG:  Yes, I swear. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
A N D Y     W E I S S B E R G, 344 Walthery Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MR. WEISSBERG:  Thank you Planning Board for all of your hard work, I know this is probably grueling, I    to be honest I've only been involved in    as a resident for, I want to say 2003, so ten    ten and a half years.  So I really haven't been as attuned to what's been going on for    only until the last couple of years, I thank, you know, my neighbor on Walthery. But as a parent of two young kids, both at Travell, one going to BF next year, it would sort of be selfish for me to just speak about their safety and their wellbeing and all of the pollution concerns and traffic concerns that everybody here has been talking about. I'm also a member of the R.V.S.A. Board of Directors, actually came here just some coaching.  And I'm also on the Ridgewood Soccer Association Board. I don't speak for    in that capacity for the boards, for those respective boards, but as a member, as a coach, I coach three softball teams right now.  I coach two soccer teams.  I'm on these fields.  I'm coaching kids that are not even from this area or the immediate area.  And I can tell you with 1500 kids in just R.V.S.A. alone, another thousand or so in the soccer program, and being on those fields, year in, day in, day out.  I also am part of the blacktop mafia.  I pick up my kids at school. The traffic is horrendous, but I can tell you just from a sports perspective, this would be a disaster. One of the gentlemen earlier mentioned about the path near the field that would have no sun, forget the aesthetics, just the safety alone.  The kids here depend on these programs.  The adults depend on these programs.  The safety of the kids walking to BF is at risk. 
And I use the sports analogies here; partially because I see it work when there's good planning. 
Tonight I literally had a group of nine year old kids turn two, 1 2 3 innings, make two double plays, because before we started the innings we talked about situations and preparing for situations.  And the "what if" scenarios of, hey, if there's a runner on first and a runner on second and where's the play to third.  And sure enough they made the play to third.  And they made the play to second.  And they made the play to first. Point being, these kids were prepared enough because they actually thought about it.  And having been involved in these meetings the last couple of years, just doesn't seem like there's any thought being put to the real issues, the bigger picture issues.  So I would hope that the Planning Board would think a little bit harder about the real    the real life issues for these kids.  And for the families.
Thank you. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Weissberg, and also for your contributions as a coach. 
Mr. Weissberg was the last person on my list for this evening.  But I would like to extend an opportunity if I missed somebody on the list or if there was someone who came who at this point would like to speak this evening. If so, please let me know now.  Okay.  Please did you sign the document already? 
MS. PILLA:  I said no.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  What is your number? 
MS. PILLA:  I'm 83.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Come on forward.  So Mary Pilla.
MS. PILLA:  Yes, I    I will go now though who knows I might have the baby beforehand. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Very calm.
MS. PILLA:  I'm Mary Pilla, "P" as in Peter i l l a.  And I live at 333 Meadowbrook Avenue.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 
MS. PILLA:  Yes. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Thank you.
M A R Y     P I L L A, 333 Meadowbrook Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey,  having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MS. PILLA:   Thank you again.  You guys are getting a lot of thank yous.  So last thank you of the night. 
Ten years ago I came from Tappan, New York to have my son Johnny.  I chose to deliver at Valley only because my father had died at Nyack Hospital.  And I didn't want to deliver a baby at the same place where I lost my dad. A few years later my husband and I decided to move out of Rockland County and we immediately began to look in Ridgewood, not because of the lovely nurses or the gem of a hospital or the obstetric care, it was because of the beautiful families, the beautiful neighborhood, the happy families, the excellent school system and the peacefulness of Ridgewood. Expanding Valley Hospital threatens the peaceful neighborhood, the happy families and the excellent school system.  It also affects the safety of the neighborhood around. This is all, by the way, just very quick notes.  I'm a literacy specialist.  I'm very annoyed that I'm not as prepared.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's okay.  Take your time. 
MS. PILLA:  But, in two months I will be back delivering at Valley Hospital.  And if this expansion goes through, my son or daughter will not have the experiences that my son Johnny has each day.
My son Johnny walks to school every day and loves to walk along Meadowbrook Avenue.  That will be very different with the trucks and the transportation issues that will be coming. But putting that aside for a moment, I think about the common core and the state tests that we're going to be undertaking with PARCC and all of these other major testing events that will be happening in our school district very shortly. Half of Ridgewood will be attending Ben Franklin.  These students will be    these students will be dealing with taking state tests.  And those state tests will impact our property values. 
Those students will be filtering into Ridgewood High School.  Ridgewood High School brags about their ranks and their scores. My concern is how will students learn in a place where there will be major noise, major health issues and other things that will be coming down the pike.
Again, ten years ago I came to Ridgewood, not because of the hospital, but because of the community.  And I hope to consider that the community will be the first place that you'd consider    sorry.  I hope that we think about our community first and the hospital second. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Pilla.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Is there anyone else? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Well, that will end tonight's portion of public comment.  This meeting will be carried without further notice to   
MR. DRILL:  Mr. Chairman, before you carry   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:    to June the 2nd.
Yes.
MR. DRILL:  Before you carry it, I think there's a bit of housekeeping that should be done.  I think you should have Jane read into the record, the P 1, however many numbers there are and identify whose statements they are, even though they're not being admitted into evidence, they're being marked for identification.  I think you should make it part of the record. 
MS. RAZIN:  I think we intended to do so, but I spoke to Jane at the break and some of the speakers provided their statements after they spoke.  So   
MR. DRILL:  Right, it doesn't matter, but are they   
MS. RAZIN:  They're not in order.  We would like to go back and make sure everybody is in order.
So, Jane, what number are we at for the "P"s, do you know? 
MS. WONDERGEM:  We're Up through P 13. 
MS. RAZIN:  We're up to P 13. So I think it would be best if we    are you settled, you have the order of them? 
MS. WONDERGEM: I have them in order.
MS. RAZIN:  You do.  Okay. So then we can go    do you want to start   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, let's do it.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay. We can do it tonight.  Just Jane needed a moment to reorganize. And, again, these are being marked for ID at this point.
MS. WONDERGEM: So P 1 is for Janet Hunt. P 2 Anne Crane.
(Whereupon, Statement of Anne Crane is received and marked as Exhibit P 2 for Identification.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I notice folks are leaving, please remember that June 2nd, will be the continuation of this.  And it will be at the BF middle school auditorium. 
MS. RAZIN:  At 7:30.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  At it will begin at 7:30, but we'll open the doors for sign ins at 6:30 roughly. 
We hope to see you then. 
Continue, Jane.
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 3 is Eli Kirshner.
(Whereupon, Statement of Eli Kirshner is received and marked as Exhibit P 3 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 4, Marcia Ringel.
(Whereupon, Statement of Marcia Ringel is received and marked as Exhibit P 4 for Identification.) 
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 5 would be Mr. Posner.
MR. DRILL:  First name is Neil. 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Neil, right.  Yes.
(Whereupon, Statement of Neil Posner is received and marked as Exhibit P 5 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 6, Janet Tuomey.
(Whereupon, Statement of Janet Tuomey is received and marked as Exhibit P 6 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 7, Jeanette LaRocco.
(Whereupon, Statement of Jeanette LaRocco  is received and marked as Exhibit P 7 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 8, Lorraine Reynolds.
(Whereupon, Statement of Lorraine Reynolds is received and marked as Exhibit P 8 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 9, Walter Durant.
(Whereupon, Statement of Walter Durant is received and marked as Exhibit P 9 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 10, Laurence O'Donnell.
(Whereupon, Statement of Laurence O'Donnell is received and marked as Exhibit P 10 for identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 11, Janet Daly.
(Whereupon, Statement of Janet Daly is received and marked as Exhibit P 11 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  P 12, Edward Daly.
(Whereupon, Statement of Edward Daly is received and marked as Exhibit P 12 for Identification.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  And P 13, Linda Robins.
(Whereupon, Statement of Linda Robins is received and marked as Exhibit P 13 for Identification.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you very much.
MS. RAZIN:  Thanks, Jane.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thanks, Jane.
MS. RAZIN:  Marla, do you want to come to the mic?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, come up.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Marla Sherman, do I have to give my name and address?  No.  Okay.
You used a    you just said something that just made    I don't understand the whole process.  What's    is there a difference between evidence and testimony? 
MS. RAZIN:  What I meant when I said marked for ID at this point and not moved into evidence at this point, the statements that everybody made at the microphone is their testimony.  And then the statements    some of the statements were provided to Jane in written format. What we would like the opportunity to do is just to make a comparison because we anticipate and hope that they would match each other.  If that's the case, likely everything will be moved into evidence, which means they will become part of the record. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Part of the record.
MS. RAZIN:  It's just for now we're doing it as ID just to make that comparison.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay. 
MR. DRILL:  And just for the record, if they match up, the Hospital will consent that they be moved into evidence.  If they don't match up, then we'll have to discuss it. 
MS. RAZIN:  Then we can have a    we'll have a discussion. But the point is that    I mean everybody had an opportunity to provide their testimony, so I don't foresee there being a huge issue.
MS. SHERMAN:  No, I was just wondering if there was a difference. 
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, so that's the point.  It will   
MS. SHERMAN:  The testimony is evidence.  Is evidence testimony? 
MS. RAZIN:  It will happen, it's just    it will happen, we just need a few days to get up to work. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thanks. Are there any other questions before we move on to a new topic?  Okay. 
Thank you for coming and hopefully we will see you on the continuation of the public comments portion of Valley on June 2nd at BF.

The hearing was carried to June 2 at 7:30 p.m. at Benjamin Franklin Middle School.
9:48 p.m. - Approval of Minutes – The minutes from November 5, 2013 and November 26, 2013 were approved as drafted.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: