The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 3, 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: Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Joel, Mr. Hurley, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq., substituting for Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, and Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer. Councilman Pucciarelli is recused from the hearing regarding the Master Plan amendment for the AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C-zone districts and was absent from the meeting. Mayor Aronsohn was absent.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Rutishauser said there was none.
Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan – AH-2, B-3-R, C-R & C Zone Districts – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  At this time we're going to begin the fourth item which is public hearing on the Amendment for the Land Use Plan Element to the Master Plan, AH 2, B 3 R, C R and C Zone Districts. 
This is testimony from traffic engineer for applicants.  The last time we met on this topic we concluded the testimony by the architects for the applicants.  We actually had questions from the public and the Board. 
And tonight we'll hear testimony from traffic experts.  The way we'll proceed is that we'll hear all three presentations. Then at that time, I'll open to the public for questions, if they have questions for any of the witnesses tonight.  And then we'll follow that with questions from the Board, the Board's experts.  And then any cross from the attorneys present tonight. 
Okay.  With that, Mr. Wells? 
MR. WELLS:  I will just give a few words of introduction, if this is working?  Yes, it is.
To remind the Board and the members the public that are here, what we're doing this evening is going to present testimony of the traffic expert.  This particular traffic expert is Langan Associates.  And they presented a report to the Board during the work session in consideration of this matter in 2012, which is about a year and a half ago. And in reality when we went back and looked at the report, we realized that it didn't really need to be revised.  So, we resubmitted it to the Board about two weeks ago.  Hopefully, you received copies of it. So, that there's no confusion, there were indeed, actually, two dated reports:  One dated September 28th, 2011, and I'm sorry; than the other one was September 11, 2012. And the reason for the change was in earlier discussions with respect to The Dayton project we had been talking about for the proposal, included is 120 units on the property, and it was subsequently revised to 106 units. So, at that time and before he testified the traffic engineer submitted a supplemental report. And I'm hoping    we'll put both of these into exhibits in a minute, but I am hoping that the Board Members did get those in advance.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. WELLS:  Okay, great. 
And, obviously, as has been ruled in the past, all of the materials the Board heard during the work session is no longer in the record, per se.  So, what we would like to do this evening is present again, testimony of the traffic expert.  I will tell you in the way of introduction for the traffic expert that consistent with what the Board is doing now, which is working very hard on considering a revision to its Master Plan in accordance with the proposal that the Board has prepared itself, as a template. I have asked the traffic expert not to dwell on this, as if it was a site plan.  The first testimony was a little bit more site plan oriented.  And there will come a day, hopefully, where this and other applicants may be in front of this Board, you know, presenting a site plan. But right now since the Board is really considering its Master Plan revisions, which basically contemplate a use, and, therefore, this use and the traffic it could generate is relevant.  I ask you to focus on the traffic that would be generated, in this case, from 106 units on this property.  So, that would be one primary area that the traffic expert would testify. 
The other area, which is not a use variance    but not a use variance, not the "use" per se, but a bulk requirement that is also within the purview of a traffic expert, is with respect to parking.  And since there has been discussion and the Board is considering not just the use, but a use with certain requirements, and in reality what the Board is considering is requiring that any use that's there conform with RSIS, which is essentially a state regulation, which provides for really two things:  It provides for a certain number of cars per unit and, therefore, the bedroom count and so forth are based on bedrooms. 
So, for example, it would provide a certain number of cars that would be appropriate for a one bedroom unit and a certain number of cars would be for two bedroom unit.  And you will hear testimony on that. 
Then it also provides for the Board to consider other factors.  The one that we'll talk about here, is no surprise, is the proximity to transit.  And, again, we will not be doing this the way we would do it in a site plan process, but generally would speak to the amount of parking that we believe would be needed. 
I will tell you, as I did at the outset, and having said many times that this Applicant is comfortable with what the Board is discussing right now, which is to simply impose the RSIS regulations, which is really a state minimum anyway, in the ordinance. So, we have no problem with that.  We're not going to present testimony from the traffic expert stating we have a problem with it.  We're simply going to let him explain to you why we believe what we propose will work out given that.
So, those are really the parameters of the testimony I have asked them to present to you.  The report that you have is somewhat more detailed than that. Although, that's primarily what the report is about.  And, hopefully, that will be very informative, in terms of the consideration that he has. I told him that I don't believe the traffic is the most important consideration for this Board and, therefore, I told him to keep his testimony straightforward and not to make it any longer than it needs to be. Then certainly to take whatever questions the Board or the public might have about the traffic or the parking that we will generate here. 
So, that said in the way of introduction, what I would like to do is to just    the gentleman, so there is no confusion for Board Members who have been sitting here since 2012, the gentleman that will be this evening is also with the same firm, but he's not Mr. Disario who came to you last time. 
Who I would like to call is Karl Pehnke who is one of his colleagues who will be testifying this evening. 
MR. PEHNKE:  Here? 
MR. WELLS:  And I think you'll find it easier, over there (indicating). While he's going to the podium, I could tell you that most everything you have is in the material, in fact everything you have is in the material you have. And we're only going to present two slides just for clarity purposes.  So, I don't think the Board needs to move down.  The first just shows you the site, approximately where it is in the town, and its proximity to the railroad station.  And the second one is a chart. 
So, those will be projected in a minute, and if you don't mind just turning and looking over your shoulder for a second, you will probably catch it.  It is    really is very much for everybody else, as it is for the Board. But I do, in addition, so that the Board Members don't have to turn their neck too much, as he's getting sworn, I'm going to walk by you and give you the actual slides.  So that the Board Members actually have it in front of them.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Tom.
MR. WELLS:  So I'll leave Counsel to swear in the witness then we'll go from there. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Can we have the appearance of the attorneys for the record? 
MS. RAZIN:  Sure, we can do that first.
MR. WELLS:  In that case, as the Board well knows, my name is Thomas Wells, for law firm of Wells, Jaworski & Liebman in Paramus.  I am here right now representing    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you speak into the mic, Tom?  I'm sorry.  
MR. WELLS:  Yes, The Dayton Project.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Yes, good evening, Thomas H. Bruinooge   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you use the microphone, I'm sorry.  We can't hear in this room. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Good evening, Thomas H. Bruinooge, Bruinooge & Associates, 301 Route 17 North, Rutherford, New Jersey, representing The Enclave, 257 Ridgewood Avenue Associates, LLC. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Tom.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board, Daniel L. Steinhagen, from the law firm of Beattie Padavano, 50 Chestnut Ridge Road, Montvale, New Jersey, on behalf of Citizens for a Better Ridgewood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Dan. 
MS. RAZIN:  Are we set to go? 
Mr. Wells, just to clarify, you are also here, I know that you mentioned you're here for The Dayton, you're also here for the   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Chestnut Village.
MS. RAZIN:  Chestnut Village? 
MR. WELLS:  That's correct. We'll do that in a second.
MS. RAZIN:  You are also here for Chestnut Village? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.  I am also here representing Chestnut Village.  
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you. 
Mr. Pehnke, do you want to please state your name, spell your name and provide your business address, for the Board? 
MR. PEHNKE:  Certainly, my name is Karl with a "K" Pehnke, "P" as in Peter e h n k e.  I am with the firm of Langan Engineering and Environmental Services and our office location is 619 River Drive, Elmwood Park, New Jersey.
MS. RAZIN:  If you raise your right hand to be sworn in please. 
Mr. Pehnke, do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes, I do.
K A R L  P E H N K E, 619 River Drive, Elmwood Park, New Jersey, having  been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MS. RAZIN:  Are you intending to qualify, Mr. Pehnke? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes, I am.
MS. RAZIN: That's what I thought.
MR. WELLS:  Before I qualify him, let me just do one other piece of housekeeping. I do have additional copies of the report that he submitted, should any of the Board Members need it, although it was mailed to you in advance or should anybody else who is here need to see a copy of it, I would be happy the supply it.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  We also have   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If the public would like to have it.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  We also have copies on the piano, if any members of the public are interested. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Come on down if you want a copy.
MR. WELLS:  Okay, good. 
If you would, Mr. Pehnke, could you run through your professional qualifications starting perhaps with your education, how you learned to be a traffic engineer and then telling us whether you had the opportunity to testify in front of a board before.
MR. PEHNKE:  Sure, yes, I have a degree in Civil Engineering from Villanova University.
I am a registered professional engineer in the State of New Jersey, as well as several other states. 
My area of expertise is traffic engineering which I have been performing for over 28 years.  I regularly appear before planning bodies throughout the State of New Jersey. 
I have qualified as such.  This is the first time that I am in Ridgewood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
MR. WELLS:  I would propose to offer Mr. Pehnke as expert to testify in the area of traffic.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thanks, Mr. Wells. Any comments with regard to his qualifications?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, okay. 
Are there any questions from the public with regard to Mr. Pehnke's qualifications? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Accepted. 
MR. WELLS:  Thank you. 
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLS:
Q. Mr. Pehnke, I'm going to bring two reports over to you and use the mike before I do that, and one is dated    revised to November 22, 2011, addressed to the Planning Board on Langan stationary.  It's    well, I will let you identify it further.  The other is dated September 11th, 2012, again addressed to the Planning Board on Langan stationary. If you could identify those two documents and then we would have them marked as exhibits. 
A. Yes, the first document is a letter to the Planning Board prepared by my partner Dan Disario, who is also a professional engineer.  And it is dated, the most recent date of November, revised November 22, 2011. 
MR. WELLS:  Do you have a sense of what number we should put on this? 
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, I believe we're on D 7, does that sound right to you? 
MR. WELLS:  I'm sorry.
MS. RAZIN:  D 7, the November 11, is going to be D 7.
MR. WELLS:  We will make that D 7.
It is going to be D 7. 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
(Whereupon, Langan Engineering Traffic Report, Last Revised to November 22, 2011, is marked as Exhibit D 7 for Identification.)
MR. WELLS:  Continue. 
MR. PEHNKE:  The second document is a letter, again prepared by my partner Dan Disario of Langan Engineering dated November 11, 2012, also addressed to the Planning Board.
(Whereupon, Langan Engineering Traffic Report, dated November 11, 2012 is marked as  Exhibit D 8 for Identification.)
BY MR. WELLS: 
Q. Okay, if you could discuss what is now marked as D 7 and D 8 and your own recollection about this project?  Would you run through for the Board both the traffic considerations and the parking considerations of this proposed project?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Wells, we can't    we can't hear you.  I am sorry, you will have to use the microphone.  Thank you. 
MR. WELLS:  I'm sorry.
Q. That resulted in this particular application in support of the Board's consideration of the Master Plan revision to allow multifamily housing.
A. Yes.  You're going to bring up the first slide.  You want to bring up the first slide?
Q. Yes, hopefully.  I need your help now.
A. So the first slide before you this evening is basically an aerial view from Google maps.  It shows the project area, the project area is basically   
Q. I'm sorry.  Keep going. 
A.    is basically the property that would be best identified as the old Brogan Cadillac. It's currently not in operation as a commercial use, it is being utilized for commuter parking for about 90 spaces, used on a daily basis by commuters. The location is on South Broad Street and it's located in very close proximity to the    to the train station, within quick walking distance from the train station. 
Before I move to the next slide.  Just to lay a little foundation, from a traffic engineering standpoint and rezoning consideration, one of the things that is Board will need to evaluate and understand is the relevant traffic generation from the project as well as under potential uses of the site. Today the property is zoned for uses by commercial users such as an office, such as a retail, maybe a mix of the    the two.  It does have some residential opportunity on the second floor over commercial. So there is a range of uses for the property today under your existing zoning.  And then also as proposed this evening, we're proposing to or requesting a change to allow a pure residential use on the site, which would yield 106 units on this site. And what's important from a traffic engineering standpoint is to understand the potential change in the traffic generation from this site as compared to what could be generated or just developed on the site under the existing zoning. It really is indicative of the relative traffic impacts that might be dealt with at the time of site plan approval for either a use developed under existing zoning or if this Board concurs and agrees with the properties and the site would be designed as currently proposed under that use. 
In evaluating the traffic generation, traffic engineers have a substantial amount of data to rely on, that data is primarily documented in a publication entitled "Trip Generation".  It's published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.  It is a nationally maintained publication that basically documents data gathered and existing uses so that we have a means to project forward the traffic characteristics of a new use by looking at and understanding the characteristics of the various uses.  It is a well recognized source document.  And it really is the formal document that is used by the transportation and traffic engineers throughout the country to understand traffic generation. At this point in time we're in the 9th Edition of that document.  It is a living document that is regularly updated.  So the property as it stands today, as I indicated, could be developed for commercial uses or alternatively as I proposed it could be developed with pure residential use.
As a traffic engineer, the second thing that is important to us in understanding traffic is understanding the impacts of the project during the peak hours of the roadway.  That's when traffic is generally reaching its highest point on the roadways.  In many cases this is the timeframe when various uses are also generating their highest traffic.  And that's the period where traffic engineers tend to try to focus on to identify and evaluate, in terms of traffic impacts. In general on a weekday daily basis the two peak hours that are generally critical is the morning peak hour and then there's an evening peak hour.  The morning peak hour characteristics are of generally peaking traffic related to people going to work, starting their business day, school activity, of course and it's    it's mostly the office work related type trips. The evening peak hour traffic, particularly in downtown area, is a little more complex.  It certainly has that home    or work/home trip related characteristics to it but it also has a mix of high activities associated with commercial establishments that are in play, restaurants, retail, and school activities of people starting to focus on evening entertainment.  So the evenings generally are what we see as higher traffic volumes. It's a more complex volume that we're dealing with, but those are the peak hours that we generally look at.  And with this particular project in the property currently zoned for commercial uses and also being for residential, those are really the peak hours that would be critical in the analysis of what the property is developed for under existing zoning or as proposed. 
If you could switch to the next slide.  So this slide is a very simple slide, it looks at three potential conditions on this site.  And it looks at, in the first several columns, the traffic generation possibilities that would be generated during this critical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the property under the proposed zoning that would result in, as we said, a 106 units being yielded at the property. But then it looks at two alternative development opportunities on the site, which under existing zoning seem to indicate could be developed with a commercial building approximately 52,000 square feet.  Whether it's office use or retail supermarket use or something of that nature. And this probably is a little in between type uses that could be mixed, but characteristically have been similar traffic generations. So as I indicated from a zoning standpoint, purely understanding, you know, what it the Board is considering is, we look at the comparisons during the various peak hours to the alternative uses of the site under existing zoning.  And what we would find in this particular case is the proposed unit counts and really the totals that are here to focus on in the a.m. peak hours we're anticipating approximately 38 vehicles that would be generated by the 106 units, and that would be compared to approximately 82 by an office use on this site or 178 by a supermarket on this site. And you can see by that direct comparison right off the bat that the proposed use is certainly a less intense use than other options that could be developed on this site. And then the same characteristics in the evening peak hour, 106 units would generate approximately 47 trips coming in and out of the site. And from an office or supermarket standpoint, we would be looking at closer to 78 to 80 trips from an office use and may be closer to 500 if we actually had the supermarket site, certainly the highest activity that you would see on the site. Actual site today, as I indicated, while it's no longer being use as a commercial site it's actually active and being used for commuter traffic.  And even that traffic today, the 90 vehicles that come in and out during the peak hour who would use the train station, there's about 62 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and 55 vehicles in the evening peak hour, which are basically a little bit higher than what the residential use is. So, quite frankly, if you took off and closed that property today and developed 106 residential units the actual traffic characteristics being generated by the site and the adjacent roadway system, in terms of total peak hours, in terms of traffic, would be similar or less.
The one thing that my partner did not mention in this particular site, but which should be considered by the Board in terms of the benefit of the residential use in a downtown area, particularly located as close to the train station in this particular case, is that it is desirable for certain demographics, the location in such an opportune space, so that they can take advantage of the various activities that are available in the downtown area of the Village and they can also take advantage of the commuter mode in that immediate area. So while providing some projection as to what the potential traffic generation is based upon the ITE data, that data does not consider a downtown Village area, and we know as traffic engineers that we would anticipate that peak hour traffic to actually be lower by upwards of almost 20 percent because people would have less of a need to use their cars for after shopping activities, restaurant uses, so forth and/or because they have excellent mass transit opportunities immediately available to them. So we're actually providing a relatively conservative picture of what might be generated by this site by residential use on this site. 
So from a zoning consideration standpoint, the representation that we would like to make to this board is that what is proposed would not result in a detrimental traffic impact compared to the commuter use of the property under existing zoning. In fact, there's a high likelihood that it will actually result in less potential traffic in the Village during the peak hours, in particular, than if this site was developed with the commercial uses that are permitted today.  So I think that's important to understand. 
Lastly, just quickly on parking, I know we chatted a little bit about that in the introduction, all residential development in the State of New Jersey is governed by the Residential Site Improvement Standards.  It's across the board, whether you be out in the farmland of Hunterdon County or in the Village of Ridgewood. But the RSIS also provides for consideration by the Planning Board at the time of site plan approval, to local considerations as the environment of the site and provides the ability for the Board to make a determination as to the appropriate adjustments to the RSIS standards. And in this case something the Board would likely consider at the time of the site plan application is the fact that the site is located in the Village.  And it is immediately adjacent to a high profile train station.  And also has great interconnectivity with bus service and, you know, from planning studies done by the New Jersey Transit, particularly in the publication entitled "Planning for Transit Oriented Development" that residential development in such an environment could actually demand 20 to 25 percent fewer space than are required.  So that's just something the Board might consider and that relates back to the conversation that I just had with regard to the traffic generation actually making    being lower than what the national standards suggest.  So that's basically the presentation that I have for this evening.  And I would leave it there.
MR. WELLS:  I would like to do two things, one is the two slides that we used, if we could mark those as D 9 and D 10 for the record.  The map would be nine.  And the chart would be ten.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.
(Whereupon, Map Slide is marked as Exhibit D 9 for Identification.)
MS. RAZIN:  And the chart D 10?
MR. WELLS:  And the chart would be D 10.
(Whereupon, Chart Slide is marked as Exhibit D 10 for Identification.)
MR. WELLS:  And then just to make a comment before I turn him over for questions about another area of inquiry that I was not going to go into, but I'll clarify because this was discussed during the Work Session process, when your traffic engineer had the opportunity to meet with the traffic engineer for the Village, Mr. Jahr, representing Maser Associates, he pointed out to us, as he did to the Board in his previous testimony and likely will again, that there are traffic issues in the Village with    at various points that are not directly related to our site so, for example, even though the testimony here before the Board this evening is that this application will actually produce less traffic than could otherwise be expected, there are already existing problems in the Village as we're familiar. And at that time, I represent on behalf of the Applicant, that I would represent again that we understand that if we are fortunate enough to get to a site plan process and the Board would determine that there is a    that there are improvements needed in the Village that would have a "rational nexus" to our property, we are certainly open and amenable to that    that kind of improvement. We also expressed support to the Board then and we would express to the Board again support should the Village ever determine to create what is usually referred to as the "TID" what stands for Traffic Improvement District in the whole Village or for the core area of the Village and would look for contributions from developers within that TID, not necessarily the rational nexus, but within the nexus to the overall area, again, we would be amenable and supportive of    of that kind of contribution because we believe that what is good for the Village core, the Village itself, is good for this particular applicant as well.  We can't do anything more than that at this point because we're not at site plan.  And we don't know where we are, but I wanted to re express to you what I said to you a couple of years ago that we do    we are aware that there are issues of matters that could stand attention and we would be willing to participate in that to the extent that we could. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  That said, he's open for questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Actually, Mr. Wells, what we'll do is hear the next presentation for Chestnut Village.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And then   
MR. WELLS:  Do them all together? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     we'll do them all in one, open for public question before we actually receive questions from the Board.
MR. WELLS:  Okay. 
I'll give you a bit of introduction, so let me, as I did with respect to the other applicant, I'll remind you where we are, although I can shorten the process considerably here because much of what I said with respect to the date also applies to The Chestnut Village, like the other project we are not here on site plan.  So, I'm asking Mr. Rea, who also did an extensive traffic study, which hopefully it was submitted, the Board received it as well and, again, as did before I have additional copies if Board Members want them. 
And then I heard Mr. Rutishauser indicate that there are additional copies on the piano as well for members of the public.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  We're going to put them out shortly.  So if anybody needs them they can have those.
This was a report prepared in 2011, and like the other report remains accurate.  And as I indicated before, I have asked Mr. Rae to focus his testimony on the areas of the traffic generated by this project, which is, as the Board knows, is considerably smaller than The Dayton project.  It's 52 units as opposed to 106 units.  And then after talking about the traffic, again to address the Board's concerns as they might relate the parking, which is a bulk requirement which is included within the Master Plan.
As before, there is going to be an exhibit.  It's on the table or its on the screen already, but I will let Mr. Kohut, since he's coming, do the actual walk    
MR. KOHUT:  Leg work.
MR. WELLS:     the leg work and walk around and hand that to Board Members. 
As he's walking back I'm going to let the witness been sworn and then I'll get his exhibits introduced.
But I will do one thing before I do that and since I just discussed it with you with respect to the application by The Dayton what I will do is say to you that this Applicant, as well had similar conversations through its traffic engineer directly with Mr. Jahr representing the Village about concerns that occurred in the Village as well.  There was a distinct difference in this case and that is some of those concerns were more    were focused more directly on one particular intersection.  I believe it was the intersection of Franklin Avenue and Chestnut Street. However, I do understand that the County is undertaking to make improvements to the area, so as with respect to the earlier application I would again represent the Applicant's willingness to, during the site plan process, to certainly consider and help on traffic improvements that have a rational nexus to the site or if the Village should undertake a TID again would be supportive and willing to participate in that. 
And, again, that's about as far as we can go this evening.  So now what I would do is I am going to walk over, because I don't want to have that microphone problem I did last time, I'm going to walk over in the minute and show Mr. Rea the report dated October 26, 2011.  And Ms. Razin is going to tell me what the number would be, I hope.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, it's going to be CV 6.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  And CV 6 you said.
MS. RAZIN:  CV 6.
MR. WELLS:  CV 6, right.  And then    CV 6 and then if we could, what I will do to be efficient is can you take both of them over and just show them to him so he can qualify it, and then the slide that's on your Board, we could make that CV 7.
(Whereupon, Traffic Report of Mr. Rea,  October 26, 2011 is marked as Exhibit CV 6 for Identification.) 
(Whereupon, Slide is received and marked as Exhibit CV 7 for Identification.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. Does that look familiar to you, Mr. Rea?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the report you prepared, all that kind of good stuff?
A. Could I answer?  I haven't been sworn in yet.
MR. WELLS:  Oh, I'm sorry.  Swear him in.
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Rea, can you please state your name, spell your name and provide your business address? 
MR. REA:  Sure.  John Rea, R e a.  I'm a principal with McDonough and Rea Associates.  I work out of our Manasquan office at 1431 Lakewood Road, Manasquan, New Jersey.  We also have a Westfield, New Jersey office.
MS. RAZIN:  Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?   
MR. REA:  I do.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
J O H N   R E A,  1431 Lakewood Road, Manasquan, New Jersey, having  been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. WELLS:  Thank you.  Although Mr. Rea has had the opportunity to testify before this Board a number of times in the past, I would like him to briefly review his credentials, both academic and professional, so that we have them in the record.
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. If you could?
A. Yes, I have an Undergraduate Degree in Civil Engineering from the Newark College of Engineering.  A Masters degree in transportation engineering from Polytech Institute in New York.  I have been a licensed professional engineer for approximately the last 35 years and have a total of 40 years experience in the traffic engineering field. I have testified before many planning and zoning boards and township committees, council meetings, across the state, in various court.  I have appeared here the Ridgewood on several occasions as an expert witness in traffic issues.
MR. WELLS:  Okay. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Rea.
MR. WELLS:  Mr. Rea is an expert engineering   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Do we have any questions regarding his qualification from the Board? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  From the public? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Accepted.
BY MR. WELLS: 
Q. Now, I will ask that question that I jumped the gun, the report that Mr. Kohut showed you a few minutes ago dated October 25, 2011, can you tell us whether you recognize this and tell us what it is?
A. Yes, that is the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for Chestnut Village by my firm and signed and sealed by myself.
Q. Okay.  Now, using that which is CV 6 and CV 7, which is the table that is up on the screen, if you could tell the Board your professional opinion and conclusions with respect to this particular project on this site and as it pertains to the Board's consideration of Amendment of its Master Plan in order to allow multifamily housing on this site?
A. Yes, I'll do that. 
First of all, Mr. Pehnke has already established a good foundation for what we do and how would do it in terms of traffic studies, I don't want to repeat a lot of what he said as far as why we do analyses of certain peak hours for residential projects.  We do focus on the traditional morning and afternoon peak commuter hours because those are the days and hours of the week when people are basically going to work, coming home from work.  And also, basically, those hours are peak hours for the roadway network as well as. 
And so that's why when you're doing a residential project you focus on those Mondays through Fridays peak commuter hours because those are the hours when a residential project will have a consistent maximum impact on the roadway network. So we, again, did the same thing.  We focused our study on the traditional morning and afternoon peak hours.  I'm going to go a little bit off what Mr. Pehnke had testified to.  We did do traffic counts at the intersection of Robinson Lane and Chestnut Street which is the T intersection over by the YMCA which basically is right across the street from our site.  We did do Level Of Service Capacity analysis for our site driveway and the intersection of Robinson Lane and Chestnut Street.  And all of the levels the service that we calculated for the post development condition were B Levels of Service or better.  Very good levels of service for northern New Jersey, and certainly well within acceptable traffic engineering parameters.
So the first thing we did is we did an analysis of our driveways, of the one closest off site intersection that we will impact, to make sure that we had no significant capacity or safety issues at those locations.  And we don't. So we know the site access will work safely and efficiently. 
But, again, very importantly as Mr. Pehnke indicated in a zoning case you have to take a look at the traffic generation from the use that's being proposed for which you are seeking a use variance or a zone change as compared to what's permitted in that zone. 
We have a somewhat unique situation here in that we already received an approval for a 91,000 square foot self storage building several years ago.  And so I included that on the slides that are behind the Board, in terms of trip generation comparison. And what I can tell you is that the uses on the ITE Trip Generation Manual as we all do when we do these trip generation calculations the number of visitors that are proposed for Chestnut Village, which is 52 units, and this consists of 46 apartments and six townhouses which will actually have frontage on Chestnut Street, our traffic generation number, if you look at the slides, are very have comparable to what's already been approved for the site, the self storage facility, there is very little, if any, difference in traffic generation.  And, therefore, it would be a very similar impact whether we built the self storage facility or we received an approval for 52 residential units. But the last two lines on the slide show what could be generated from either general office or medical office space on that property.  And, again, similar to the case of The Dayton, a permitted medical office use, in particular, would generate approximately twice as much traffic during the morning peak hour and a little bit more than twice as much traffic during the afternoon peak hour.
And looking at the land uses that are along Chestnut Street, medical office is something that is conceivable.  We do have a big medical office building right adjacent to our site.  And so, that's something that's not "pie in the sky" in my estimation.  That is something that could conceivably be built on the site and, again, generate twice as much peak hour traffic. So in terms again, of the issues that the Village is dealing with, downtown in particular, the traffic issues, again this is a land use that will generate a similar, if not lesser traffic impact, then a permitted use. 
And so that is a very important consideration in a use variance for a zone change situation.  As far as all parking situations are concerned we have the site    the last site plan I looked at we had 82 parking spaces and that represents a ratio of a little bit over 1.5 parking spaces per unit.  It's my experience, and I second what Mr. Pehnke said, given the location of this property, proximate to the train station and to all the downtown businesses in the Village, we do have a sidewalk connection to the train station along Chestnut Street.  The expectation is some of the residents of this building and this community will probably walk to the train station in the morning and so even the trip generation estimates that you see on the board that's behind you, they're probably a little bit on the high side, because we did not take any credit for the consideration of the proximity to the train station and to the Village and to the other transit lines, the busses that run along Ridgewood Avenue and go into New York and other various places.
So we did do a very conservative analysis.  Any way you look at it, it's going to be less traffic than certainly a permitted medical office use.  But in terms of the parking, again, we probably    at 1.5 spaces per unit we probably provided a little bit more than we really anticipate where we're going to need at the end of the day, but it's    it's a good healthy number for a project of this size and the location that it's at.  And I am very confident that if we're given an opportunity to come back and present the site plan to the Board that I will be able to provide you with a significant backup that the 1.5 spaces per unit that we are providing for our project will provide for more than adequate resident and visitor parking.  And that basically summarizes it. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Rea. 
MR. WELLS:  I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The lights.
MR. WELLS:  We'll turn it off. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  So, Mr. Chairman, based on what you've said we're going to stop now and The Enclave will present.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Correct.
Mr. Bruinooge? 
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Bruinooge?
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Tonight my client asks the Board to consider the testimony of our traffic engineer. 
We have marked two Exhibit E 4 which I will talk about in a second, and E 5A through E 5D.  The second exhibit E 5 being the slides that are being projected up on the screen behind the Board. 
(Whereupon, Omland Engineering Traffic Assessment is marked as Exhibit E 4 for Identification.)
(Whereupon, Traffic PowerPoint is marked as Exhibit E 5A   E 5D for Identification.)
MR. BRUINOOGE:  So may we have the witness sworn please? 
MS. RAZIN:  Well, do you want to state your name, spell your name   
MR. KLEIN:  Sure.
MS. RAZIN:     business address?  
MR. KLEIN:  My name is Lee Klein    my name is Lee Klein, K l e i n, with Omland Engineering, 54 Horsehill Road, Cedar Knolls. 
MS. RAZIN:  And do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. KLEIN:  I do.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
L E E    K L E I N,  54 Horsehill Road, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:  
Q. Now, Mr. Klein, please for the purposes of qualifying you as a traffic expert, give the Board and those in attendance this evening the benefit of your background, your history, your work experience, and whether    please tell us as well whether you hold any licenses issued by the State of New Jersey or any other states?
A. I have a Bachelor in Civil Engineering from Rutgers University.  I'm a professional engineer in the State of New Jersey as well as New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware. 
I am also a Certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer which is a national certification issued by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.  I have been sworn in as an expert at planning and zoning boards in over    probably over 50 zoning boards and planning boards combined.  I've also been an expert in Superior Court in Bergen County and Union County.  Anything else? 
Q. Yes, before I ask the Board to accept your qualifications, by whom are you employed?
A. They don't want to hear that. I'm with Omland Engineering as a consultant.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I'd move the qualifications of this particular witness and suggest to the Board that he is qualified and have his testimony as a traffic expert.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge. 
Are there any questions with regard to Mr. Klein's qualifications from the Board? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  From the public?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Accepted.
MR. KLEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
Q. Mr. Klein, I show you what's been marked for Identification, at this point, as E 4.  It's not quite yet in evidence, but it's marked for Identification.  Are you familiar with the document; and, if so, please tell us what it is?
A. Yes, sir.  This is our revised May 27th, 2014 Traffic Assessment Study, prepared by my office. 
Q. And it's a Traffic Assessment Study of which property, and if there was an earlier date; if you would cite that date as well?
A. It's for The Enclave At Ridgewood, the original date was January 31st, 2013.
Q. Are you familiar and does this report bear your signature?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. I show you as well what has been marked as E 5A, and I ask you if you are familiar with that?
A. Yes.  These are a series of slides, 5A is an aerial photograph of the study area of our existing site.
Q. Okay.  And E 5A is projected up on screen; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Tell the Board, if you would please, what E 5A describes and how that impacts in on what you've been asked to do by our client?
A. Yes, I wanted to give a visual aid to you, so that I could have something to point to and to talk to when I discuss the various locations of the driveways, the intersection of this existing site. 
It's an actual aerial view of the property lines.  It was put together by Minno & Wasko the architects for the project.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  And I would represent to the Board, Mr. Chairman, that this particular photo was actually marked, and I am not quite certain what the actual evidence number is, but I think it might be E 3, since it was the last witness.  I see Katie indicated, yes.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes. 
Q. So we asked you to do sort of an overview of what the project is all about.  What existing conditions are.  And what the proposed conditions are.  [What] the existing access is and proposed access; is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Why don't you tell us what you found?
A. Certainly, I will just give you a brief overview of the project site. Right now existing on the site is proximity 43,927 square feet of commercial space, 19,645 square feet of office, 24,282 square feet of retail. In the proposed condition, we're going to eliminate 14,551 square feet of retail and construct 52 apartment units.  Access for this site:  Currently, there are three access points.  There's a two way access driveway on East Ridgewood Avenue.  There's an "exit only" on Ridgewood Avenue right at the edge of the site, on the western edge of the site (indicating). There's an "exit only" from the garage onto North Maple Avenue under the Sealfons building. And there's a two way driveway from the existing flooring store, towards the northern end of the site.  For the proposed conditions, we're going to retain the two way driveway on East Ridgewood Avenue.  We're going to consolidate the exit only driveway and the two way driveway for the flooring store into one two way driveway, in order to keep the cross access easement between the site and the municipal lot behind us. The driveway on Franklin is going to be for our reserved parking.  I'll get into that in a little bit, but that'll be a gate controlled access point two way for a separate parking area.  And I'll talk about it in a little bit.
Parking, that seems to be an important issue for this project and I just wanted to explain a couple of things, when it comes to parking. The slide that I put up now is a table that we put together to summarize the parking calculations for the existing and the proposed conditions.  Right now on the site there are 76 parking spaces, required by the Village are 159 parking spaces.  There's a deficit of 83 parking spaces right now. I believe that this site has been previously given waivers and variances for the parking deficiencies at that point.  We also do what we call a "shared parking analysis".  Now, shared parking is when you have multiple uses on the same site or within neighboring the same site, you want to be able to have the most efficient uses of the parking. So, when you have different uses such as office, retail and residential, which is what we have, they all peak as different times.  So, if you can imagine a residential parking would operate, in the evening as people come home have work, they start to fill up the parking lot and overnight, they're going to be using the parking spaces. In the morning when you get up to go to work, most of the people start to take their cars out six, seven, eight o'clock in the morning to head to work.  And the opposite would be of an office parking facility.  People would start to arrive at eight, nine o'clock in the morning.  Start to fill up the parking lot.  At 10:00 when people are having meetings, it normally peaks at that time.  And then later, five or six o'clock in the evening, that's when the parking starts to dissipate as people start to go home. Retail, generally starts a little bit later in the morning, nine, ten o'clock.  Employees show up at nine.  The stores open at ten.  And depending on when they close, parking usually sticks around until six, seven o'clock in the evening and, again, dissipates. 
So, when you look at the peaking characteristics of those three different uses, you want to be able to come up with an efficient use of parking in this facility so that you don't have parking for the retail, parking for the offices and parking for the residential and it's not all being used efficiently.
Q. Let me interrupt you, if I can?
A. Sure.
Q. You just spoke about some shared parking analyses   
MS. PETERS:  Can you turn the mic please? 
Q. You just spoke about shared parking analyses that you've done, is the shared parking analysis set forth in any of the exhibits that we previously marked?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm showing you, as you sit down, what's been marked as E 5C and E 5D and I believe, E 5C is now currently up and is also referenced as table, is it IV 1?
A. Yes, that's correct. 
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Bruinooge, I'm sorry, just for my own clarification, I have E 5A as the front page and the second page, is that E 5B? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Roman Numeral IV V would be with an "E"    I am sorry. First, the aerial photograph is E 5A.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  So, that's the top sheet.
MS. RAZIN:  Correct.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  The second sheet is E 5B.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Because that one we didn't mark  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  It does not bear a title.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Fine.  So, that's E 5B and the following page is E 5C.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Correct.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Thank you.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE: 
Q. E 5C is up on the screen at the present time?
A. That's correct. And what that is, is that's an existing shared parking analysis for a weekday.  And what we did is we looked at the Village parking standards for the various uses that are on the site right now. And we've got approximately 15,571 square feet of office in the B 1 Zone which requires a parking demand    a parking supply of 3.3 spaces per thousand square feet; 4,074 square feet of offices in the B 2 Zone, which requires four space per thousand square feet. And then in the B 1 Zone there's a retail portion that is 9,731 square feet, which requires 3.31 parking spaces per thousand square feet. 
And it would be retail in the B 2 Zone is 14,551 square feet requires four parking spaces per thousand. 
And we look at the peaking characteristics from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and we get this data from The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation.  There's temporal distribution of the various land uses, data collected over various times periods, and compiled into this report.  And we use that data to be able to figure out when different uses peak at what times.  So to compare apples to apples, we use the Village parking standards in this case, and we looked at the temporal distribution, and as you can see at 10:00 a.m. the office is peaked, the 52 spaces is what would be required for the 15,571; 16 spaces for the 4,074; 30 spaces for the    32 spaces for the retail at 9731 square feet; and 58 parking spaces for the 14,551. And when we look across, as you can see they    they peak slightly different, but the peak demand of the parking for the existing use would be 152 parking spaces at approximately noontime. And if you look at the parking that's provided, the 76, we have a deficit of 76.  And that's what I had on my first slide, that's the existing conditions.  If we move onto Table IV V, which is the Exhibits E 5D, as in "David".  We did it for the proposed conditions.  And, again, to compare apples to apples, we looked at the Village requirements for parking, the Village Standards and we also looked at the Residential Site Improvement Standards for the residential portion. 
Q. Just for purposes of the record   
A. Yes.
Q.    E 5D which the Reporter will mark formally as we get off the stand, but is also Table IV V?
A. That's correct. 
The Proposed Shared Parking Analysis for a weekday.  As you can see in the fourth column.  We took out the 14,551 square feet of retail.  We substituted the residential units, 52 units. And what we did is we did a subtotal of what is out there today and what's going to remain, the office in the two zones and the retail, subtotal that up and then we looked at the residential units. And, again, we have the temporal distribution information that we have from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, we laid it into the table.  And we look at the peak and we see that there's a peak of 133 parking spaces at 11:00 a.m. that's the combination of the office, the retail and the residential. 
And if you look at the next column "Parking Provided   Common" there are 82 parking spaces out of 134 that we're proposing that are going to be open to the office, the retail and anyone in the residence that have an additional vehicle that they need to park. So, 52 vehicles are taken off the board, that's one per unit, they'll be reserved.  And it's in that separate parking area that's accessed off of Franklin.  And then the other 82 parking spaces are open for the various uses.  So, you can see at the end, we've got a much smaller deficiency of parking.  We're only at the most 20 parking spaces short.  And then really that deficiency is for only five or six hours of the day.  Whereas, before, we had a much larger deficiency of 76 vehicles throughout most of the day.
Q. So, based on your professional experience and your training, that you formed an opinion as to whether or not the proposed parking works?
A. Yes, in my professional opinion, we're taking advantage of the shared parking.  The different peaks of the office, the retail and the residential.  And we're developing a site with efficient parking.  We're not going to have a large field of parking that's going to be empty half of the day.  We're going to have parking spaces that are going to turn over and they are going to be used more efficiently.
If you think about it, on street parking spaces are shared parking spaces.  They're for the bank.  They're for the hair salon, office may be upstairs where the accountant is.  So, those parking spaces turnover throughout the day as well. 
Q. In addition to analyzing parking both existing versus proposed, at least as has been generally discussed in this planning exercise, did our client ask you to do any work with respect to traffic that might be generated by the existing uses, proposed uses, and what their impacts might be? 
A. Yes, we did. We did a traffic study as has been marked in Evidence as E 4.  And that study was a compilation of, as the other two traffic engineers had said, traffic data, traffic studies and what we focused on were the intersections of Franklin and North Maple, and North Maple and East Ridgewood Avenue.  Those were our two main intersections that we studied.  And we looked at    similarly, we looked at the trip generation of the existing site and then the substitution of the 14,551 square feet of retail with 52 residential units. The calculations indicate that the site generated existing, according to the ITE 135 a.m. peak hour trips; 96 in and 39 out.  And in p.m. peak hour 201 peak hour trips, 61 in, and 140 out. And on a Saturday it would be approximately 174 trips; 90 in and 84 out.
Q. Now, is any of the information that you just testified to presented in tabular form or in a slide that is available for viewing by the Board and the public?
A. We've got    in our report, we have a Figure 5, which is the Site Generated Traffic Volumes on a diagram it shows the study intersections, you can see how those volumes come out, if you look at Figure Five.  There's also a table that shows the calculations for the trip generation in the report, if you will.  That's Table Three; Trip Generation. 
The proposed land use, we looked at    now in order to be conservative, we looked at the 14,551 square feet of retail that we're removing.  We used a higher trip generation generator number, a specialty    I'm sorry, a lower number, specialty retail.  We said that we're going to take away a lower number and then we're going to substitute the higher number. So, we looked at specialty retail, which is a lower generator for 14,551 square feet.  We substituted that and took that lower number out.  Then we did the trip generation for the 52 residential units.  We plugged those numbers back in. And the change in traffic volumes that resulted in removing 14,551 square feet of retail and substituting 51 residential units was an increase of only 27 vehicle in the a.m. peak hour; 57 trips in the p.m. peak hour; and 53 trips on a Saturday peak hour. And that's roughly one vehicle per minute either entering or exiting the site, in addition to what's there today.
Q. Based on your expertise and your training, your education, have you formed any preliminary opinions as to whether or not traffic, as it generally has been described by you and set forth in detail in E 4; any preliminary opinions? 
A. Yes, we noticed through the existing analysis, as well as the projected analysis, that the intersection of Franklin and North Maple, as well as Ridgewood and North Maple, don't operate very efficiently.  It's old equipment.  We've spoken to the County.  And I know that your engineer has spoken to the County, as well. We spoke to Mr. Gary Ascolese at the County.  He said that he was approached by your Village Engineer, you were looking to    a few months ago and you were looking at some improvements that may be taken over by the County.  We're looking at possibly improving the intersection of Franklin and North Maple, upgrade the traffic signal, additional new ADA ramps, new signage, striping, to improve the efficiency of the intersection. Mr. Ascolese said that the County would be putting approximately $400,000 towards that signal upgrade, that intersection upgrade, and they're asking for the Village to participate by providing new mapping, surveys mapping of the intersection, providing the design. 
Q. So, overall, just to sum it up, you've looked at parking, you looked at traffic, both from the point of view of existing on site right now and the proposed per The Enclave, suggest to the Board that what could happen if the Master Plan is amended.  And do you have an opinion as to what both the traffic and parking were? 
A. It's my opinion, with my years of experience and other projects that I've worked on in places very similar:  Westfield, Cranford, Fanwood, other areas that have train stations and areas of downtown that have mixed use development, and in this situation, it's an ideal location and an ideal situation for a shared parking.  Taking advantage of the peaking characteristics that complement each other, so to me this parking is something that should work very well. 
And as far as the traffic impacts go, we understand that there are some issues right now with the efficiency and the operation of the signals.  We think that upgrading those traffic signals would improve the overall operation today and the addition of an additional vehicle every minute; either entering or exiting the site during the peak hour would not be a detrimental impact to the operation of those intersections.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I have no further questions for the witness at this time.  And certainly Mr. Klein is available to answer questions of the public or the Board. 
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Bruinooge, can I clarify Table 5, the last page of your D 5, do you want that to be D 5E? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I don't think    I didn't talk about that.
MS. RAZIN:  I don't think you discussed it, so I don't know if    so leave it out.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Leave it out. 
MS. RAZIN:  Fine.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Yes.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're welcome. 
MR. KLEIN:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It might be good to have Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Rea and Mr. Klein all find a microphone.  There's one at this table (indicating).  Can we make    can we bring the one up    actually leave the one on the podium.  That's great.  Good.  So before I open to the public, can I get a show of hands of the number of people that will have questions for tonight's witnesses? Great, okay, good.  Okay.  So, is there a motion to open to the public for questions?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  A motion to open to the public for questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Second please? 
MS. BIGOS:  I will second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anyone opposed?
(NO RESPONSE.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Charles, let me ask a question, the attorney for the residents, does he go before the public? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, he'll speak at the end when we   
MS. DOCKRAY:  At the end? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  At this time, I'd like to ask members of the public who have questions with regard to tonight's testimony from Mr. Pehnke, for The Dayton, which is South Broad Street; Mr. Rea for Chestnut Village; and Mr. Klein for The Enclave to please come forward.
We will do one at a time.  Please state your name, spell your name and provide your address, please.  
And you'll be entitled to three questions.  And it's best if you can ask the three together, first and then we can see how it goes after that.
MR. ABDOO:  Brian Abdoo, A b d o o, 308 West Ridgewood Avenue.  Is it on?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, Mr. Abdoo.
MR. ABDOO:  Good, I'll ask the three questions now.  These are general for all of you. 
Your guys are obviously professionally trained in this and I'm not.  So, I'm looking for some clarification on things.  You all seem to be getting the estimates from the books, that I'm sure written by numerous studies and statistics and probability studies that make perfect sense, but each site seems so uniquely different.  How granular are the assumptions that go into whatever the book is you guys have been using to come up with these estimates? For example, if would you were to build a 52,000 square feet ShopRite in a downtown area versus a rural area, I assume your traffic assumption would be different. 
So, I'm just curious as to what assumptions go into that, that's question number one. 
Question number two is does    I'm not sure if there's a society of traffic engineers or are you just individually?  Do you guys ever go back and actually look at it a year later, what traffic was actually generated, compared to what the estimates were? I am sure again, bell curve distribution, what's the ratio of error and stuff like that.  And then number three which is a specific question for Chestnut Street and The Dayton, in just looking at the numbers, the only thing that kind of didn't make sense to me is    and, again, I'm assuming that Chestnut Street is 52 apartments or 21,000 square feet; The Dayton is 106 apartments almost double, a little more than double, or 50,000 the general office I am sure again, you don't publish a finding and paraphrase it like that.  And then there is a separate question for Chestnut Street and Dayton.  Just looking at the numbers and what didn't make sense to me is, and again, I am assuming that Chestnut Street is 52 apartments.  Where it is 21,000 square feet.  The Dayton, if I have this right, is 106 apartments, almost double, a little more than double or 52,000 space, again, a little more than double.  And yet, the ratios that in each are estimated are very, very different for the apartment traffic versus the general office traffic. So, for example, again if I look at your numbers correctly, for The Dayton for the a.m. peak for the proposed 106 units, you're saying that there will be 38 total?  But if it was general office space, it would be 82 total or more than twice as many.  And yet    and the same thing is true in the p.m. And yet for Chestnut Street they're saying the a.m. peak for 52 units would be 27.  And yet the a.m. peak for an office space would only be 34.  So, it's only very slightly different.  To me that's confusing.  So, those are the three questions.
MR. REA:  You want to work from left to right? 
MR. PEHNKE:  How do you want to handle this left to right, right to left? 
MR. REA:  John Rea, we'll work from left to right. 
MR. ABDOO:  However you want to do it.
MR. REA:  Well, I'll give you my take on it.
MR. ABDOO:  Sure.
MR. REA:  The numbers that we used from the ITE Trip Generation Manual are predominately numbers that were taken from suburban sites. So, if anything, all of us have probably over estimated the traffic generation from these residential units, given the locations of these units, proximate to downtown, to the Village, to the train station. Mr. Pehnke mentioned that, I don't know if Lee did as well too, but I know I did. So, if anything, we probably over estimated the traffic from the residential units. 
With respect to the differences between my counts and I think The Dayton counts that Mr. Pehnke did, I think I have an explanation for that.  It's several fold:  Number one, I want back and checked and actually my numbers are from the Eighth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.  Karl's are updated.  He used the Ninth Edition.  So, I probably could have taken a little bit more credit, if I looked at the latest edition. 
So, you're helping me.  So, that's fine.  But    and the second thing is we have a townhouse component which generates a little bit higher traffic volume than the apartment component. So when you weigh all of those factors together, I think that's why there's a little bit of a difference.  But I know Mr. Pehnke's numbers are accurate.  I think, it has to do with two different editions of the Trip Generation Manual and the fact that we have a townhouse component and they don't.  Their project is all apartments.
MR. ABDOO:  So, it's an Eighth versus Ninth Edition? 
MR. REA:  And there is also a little bit of    and    and there's also an average rate you can use on a regression equation.  There are two ways of doing it.  We all tend to be overly conservative when we do these things. I    my engineer that assisted me in this project, he was like super conservative and I think he probably looked at the two different methods of generating traffic, using the average or the regression equation and used the higher of the two.  So, that's the explanation.  But I can tell you what everybody's testified to, I know these gentlemen very well, everything is dead solid accurate as far   
MR. ABDOO:  I'm not   
MR. REA:     less traffic than permitted uses. 
MR. ABDOO:  I'm not questioning you.
MR. REA:  Yeah, no, I   
MR. ABDOO:     I'm just curious about the numbers, I mean the numbers seem out of whack.
MR. PEHNKE:  I think there's a second part of the answer too, because I think you were raising the question as to why    when he was comparing for an office use and I was comparing to an office use and we're showing different levels   
MR. ABDOO:  Different ratios.
MR. PEHNKE:  Different ratios, and the size of the buildings that we are estimating would be able to be developed on those properties, because the property themselves are different, are also variable. 
For instance, where based upon existing zoning the office use, getting involved with the different levels of use there. 
MR. REA:  Different ratio.
MR. PEHNKE:  Different ratio; the size of the building that's we are estimating maybe and to be asked on these properties, because the properties themselves have a big difference. So, that is why are all a variable, for instance, where based upon existing zoning, we are anticipating an office building 50,000 could be built and John had   
MR. REA:  It's 21,000.
MR. PEHNKE:     21,000 that could be built.  So that's a big difference.  So that's why you see a difference in the office portion of that.
MR. ABDOO:  But, the office, the ratio and the size of the office that were given will probably change as the rate of traffic is not.
MR. PEHNKE:  The other part of the database is what we find as traffic engineers is that there is a variation in the rate of traffic generation as the    generally the size of the use, whether it's residential, a smaller residential use portion would generate higher traffic and as the community gets bigger you have more internal interactions   
MR. ABDOO:  So it's not linear.
MR. PEHNKE:  I'm saying it's not linear.  And the same thing happens with offices.  The same thing happens with retail the larger it is the logarithmic  
MR. ABDOO:  Okay.  You explained it.
MR. PEHNKE:  While, I'm talking, I guess you asked about, have we ever gone back in to research.  The answer    the answer to that is it's not a common practice, but many of us have had opportunities to revisit projects because of expansions or changes of those projects over our careers and I've certainly had that opportunity. I've also had the opportunity to go out and research projects with a need to develop data and add to the ITE data. And the two things I've seen is when I have gone back on projects, I have found the ITE data actually is very strong indicative to the traffic generation characteristics in New Jersey. So, I've generally found it to be very close.  The other side of that equation is a lot of the traffic data that is in the ITE documentation has been generated by professionals in New Jersey, including myself.  So, it is indicative of New Jersey type development.
MR. ABDOO:  Actually, I guess what I was saying it's kind of    since you can't get a granularity down to a certain address, there are obviously assumptions being made, you're doing it in a proper analysis.
MR. PEHNKE:  Correct.
MR. ABDOO:  What's the, kind of, standard error, based on your granularity? 
MR. RAE:  A standard of error. 
MR. PEHNKE:  Correct.
MR. ABDOO:  What is a standard error? Just a question, has no one ever done a survey?
MR. REA:  Statistics, you know, standard deviations and stuff like that, that's all built into the regression equations and the others that ITE allows us to use, but just to second what Mr. Pehnke said, especially with regard to residential trip generation.  I know I've had an opportunity to go back and actually put some traffic hoses out and do some counts at some existing residential projects that I wanted to get some research data.
MR. ABDOO:  Apartment buildings.
MR. REA:  Apartments, townhouse, yes, correct, because all of us can sit up here; we continually get questioned by people.  Well, if there are 100 units and each unit has two cars, you're going to have 200 cars going out all at one time. They don't all go out at the peak hour.  And that's what our counts have shown. If you put    because some people leave for work as early as 5:00 in the morning, 6:00 in the morning, 7:00 in the morning, 8:00, 9:00. I mean there's probably a five hour window that in the morning and afternoon when people leave for work and get home in the afternoon from work. 
And, so, during the concentrated peak hour the numbers are a lot lower than you think, but the long and short of it is, yes, I know, as Mr. Pehnke, has done, I have done some follow up traffic counts and particularly with respect to the residential numbers, they are right on target with the ITE here in New Jersey. 
MR. ABDOO:  Got it.  And you mentioned that based in the assumption there was a standard of error, I assume you don't know what this is, I guess, you don't.
MR. REA:  It depends on the land use, and the number of data points and a lot of different factors.  That's why they smoothed the curve out and give you that regression equation.
MR. ABDOO:  Okay.  Great.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No further questions? 
MR. ABDOO:  No, that was all three.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, great.  Anyone else?
MR. LANDINO:  I do.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  How many questions will you have? 
MR. LANDINO:  Probably two.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's fine.  The reason that I'm asking is that we have a small turnout, we can stick to the three questions, but you could have some more flexibility.
Please state your name   
MR. LANDINO:  John Landino.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     spell it please for the reporter.
MR. LANDINO:  John J o h n, Landino L i n d i n o.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Would you please provide your address please. 
MR. LANDINO:  84 Ridge Road.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  You can ask the questions all together, first.
MR. LANDINO:  Sure.  One of the things that concerns me is we're talking about the traffic patterns, the increased traffic patterns based is statistical data. What about the condition of the roads?  What are you going to do for concerning hundreds of additional trips per day to your current roads which are already in horrible shape, by the way. How are you going to do to current condition of the roads.  And how do we address keeping these roads up to date with these additional cars coming through. I mean, I live here.  I ride my bike here.  It's not just this it's the entire road system going out to 17, going out to Route 208. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Is that your only question? 
MR. LANDINO:  I think so, yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, great. 
Why don't we start with, Mr. Pehnke, with you? 
MR. PEHNKE:  Sure, I think there's two answers to that question.  I don't mean to turn my back to you.
MR. LANDINO:  That's okay.
MR. PEHNKE:  There are two answers to that question.
One is starting with the conversation we're having this evening itself.  The traffic generation contributed to the road systems from the properties. And certainly at the election of the township, should they look to rezone these properties from the traffic data that has been developed, it sounds like in almost all cases here the amount of traffic being attributed to the roadway system would potentially be reduced from what may have been generated from the properties in the past and what could be generated under the existing zoning in the future. So, that goes directly to what could the potential future additional impact on the roadway would be.  And the township would be in selecting, at least in my opinion, to rezone the properties, would be taking a positive, proactive step to manage additional traffic impact to the roadway. 
The second part of that question actually is a different part of this process and that's addressed at site plan time when any property in the township is underdeveloped it comes before the Board, traffic impacts are certainly evaluated at the time of the site plan.  And at that point in time definitive solutions are developed based upon the relative traffic impact from the individual property.  In the case of these properties, I would suspect that we would mostly be looking at solutions that improve driveway connections, reduce curb cuts, improve sidewalks along the frontage of the curb line and may be some pavement improvements on a consolidated basis that may be a different discussion that the township takes on, in terms of a government overall approach to how to deal with, you know, multiple projects as they continue to be redeveloped.  Not just these projects, but the whole township.  That's a bigger issue that the municipality may or may not elect to take on in terms of developing a way to continue to address impacts on roadways. 
MR. REA:  I don't have much to add to what Mr. Pehnke said, other than the Board and the Village does have its own traffic engineer, who's well qualified to take a look at the cumulative impacts that these projects may have on the Village roadway network. 
And I think as our attorneys have indicated, there's a likelihood that when site plan applications come in front of the Board that there will be some off site traffic mitigation that will be required in order to help mitigate the impact that would be generated from these projects.  And that happens all the time.
MR. LANDINO:  I understand.  And, again, my point is the current condition is poor.  So, we're going to be adding extremely    more influx of drivers coming in and out of our town. So, I just, I see the statistics here, but I don't see    we're already behind the ball in trying in clean up our roads I don't    I don't see where all the traffic will be controlled.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Landino. 
Are there other questions for tonight's witnesses from the public? 
Please come forward. Dan, I will get you at the end, after, the Board.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Thank you.
MR. SOLOMIN:  Dave Solomin, 36 Heights Road. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Your address, please.
MR. SOLOMIN:  My address is 36 Heights Road.  What I wanted to know, one of my question is regarding visitors.  There has been a lot of talk about potential residences for empty nesters, people who want to stay in town, selling their houses in town.  People in the town homes have a lot of kids, a lot of grand kids, a lot of extended family.  That's extra parking. I've been in the real estate business.  I've managed properties from Long Island, out to Lehigh Valley to Massachusetts, where you have more affluent properties, larger apartments, we see more cars, more visitors, more visitor with cars. Have you calculated that in?  How would you quantify that? 
MR. KLEIN:  We used the Residential Site Improvement Standards, when we figure out the parking requirements.  And there's visitor spaces factored into that. The majority of the apartments that, I think that we're proposing are one bedroom, some two bedroom.  I don't think there any three bedroom apartments. So, we're not looking at, I don't think, large units, if you call them, with a lot of visitors.  I don't think people are going to have Thanksgiving dinner in these apartments, I'm not sure, but...
MR. SOLOMIN:  So, this is to encourage people to sell all of these large houses and move to one bedrooms and not have families over? 
MR. KLEIN:  I am just saying that   
MR. SOLOMIN:  I'm trying to figure out what the case is?
Mr. KLEIN:  Well, we've got state standards, Residential Site Improvement Standards that include factors for visitors. We do have the municipal lot, it factors    if visitors come in   
MR. SOLOMIN:  In addition I think if you did study the town   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let him   let him answer the question, please. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
MR. KLEIN:  If visitors come in during the weekend, the office parking spaces are empty.  Overnight, the retail and the office are empty.  So, there's    there's more than enough parking, in the overnight hours.
MR. SOLOMIN:  Are you allowed to use private property apartments and office spaces and retail.
MR. KLEIN:  Well, it's all part of the same development.  
MR. SOLOMIN:  They're all part of this development?
MR. KLEIN:  Yes, they are. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.  And the municipal lot, have you looked at the municipal lot and how over parked they are.
MR. KLEIN:  We have not done a comprehensive study of the municipal lots.
MR. PEHNKE:  No, and just to supplement it, we are not relying on the municipal lots.  The properties are proposed to be self sustaining with regards to parking, meeting standards that are established to accommodate and handle the daily typical parking characteristics of a residential development that includes all of your visitors, users, homeowners and so forth.
MR. SOLOMIN:  So, for these apartments, if you have couples that are selling a home, suppose and there are one bedroom, we're talking about that talk about targeting empty nesters in Ridgewood or our singles and also with young couples and when you say that they're going down to one car from two? 
MR. PEHNKE:  They may.
MR. REA:  Some may, some may not.  Yeah. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Some may not.  So    so if they don't, you can, you know, estimate our best case scenario as far as parking, but if it not a best case scenario, is there enough overflow    you are covering yourself if it doesn't work out like you plan.  Not    maybe not even the worse case but not your best case scenario.
MR. PEHNKE:  That's what the standards are set to do, yes. The standards are set to address, a    you know a typical mix that occurs on sites like these, based upon actual, factual data gathered at similar facilities and parking standards are designed to be conservative.
MR. SOLOMIN:  So, now when you say "similar facilities" you're talking transit oriented facilities.
MR. PEHNKE:  No, actually on transit oriented facilities we know that the parking actually would likely be less than what the RSIS.  That will be a conversation with the Planning Board as we bring those proofs to the Planning Board.  But the RSIS standards have been set statewide to be conservative to address everything from the McMansion to the suburban area, to the high rise building in Jersey City.  And based upon lots of studies that were done, I think it was by Rutgers as well as DCA and various professionals in the industry that contributed to the standards that were developed as well as national data.
MR. SOLOMIN:  And as far as standards you're talking about in New Jersey, are you also making sure in your analysis that you're not just going out in a broad statewide, but you're looking at demographically and    and economically similar communities and type of developments?  These are proposed as high end, high end rental developments, where you would expect people to be able to afford more than no cars.  Are you just looking at a broad view statewide?  That one of my concerns with things like with scholastic data that's been looked at, looking at    I know you looked at transit oriented developments, but if you looked at something which was studied and done many years ago at that time a transit oriented developments had no towns similar, you know, demographics or scholastic levels as Ridgewood.  They're very different    different type of community.  You can't really use that data.  It's not accurate.  You can use it, but it's not accurate as far as accuracy.  Having looked at the type of demographics in the studies that you've used to generate these numbers do you think they match what you might find in Ridgewood?
MR. KLEIN:  I think we did a conservative approach by using the Residential Site Improvement Standards and not taking into account the fact that we're near transit.  So people may move in with two vehicles and we're going to be able accommodate them because we're using Residential Site Improvement Standards as people's vehicles break down or they decide you know what, why do I need that car parked there all week when I only use it once on the weekend maybe I'll just get a Zip car.  They may sell that car and people start to downsize. I mean there was an article in the Star Ledger over the weekend about how even young people are trying to get into the cities.  And I don't think people want to maintain vehicles any more.  Trying the kept their    their lifestyle more simple.  But, again, we were conservative.  We took into account the fact that they may have two cars.  If anything they're going to start to    you'll see over time that they may not want to maintain two cars. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I'd be careful about that, that assumption around here.
MR. KLEIN:  But again, we took into account the fact that they may have two cars.  We've got a ratio of 1.94 parking spaces per apartment unit, almost two per apartment unit.
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.
MS. PETERS:  I    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Solomin, thanks for your questions. 
Are there   
MS. PETERS:  Yeah, I feel like I did not see in The Enclave that you were    I    I didn't see in the floor plans, all right.  I didn't see in the floor plans that were provided to us that there was the ability of 1.9 per each of the residential units, what did I miss?
MR. KLEIN:  We did our calculations.  I think the site plans or   
MS. PETERS:  They're a blueprint, but there are more floor plans that were given to us, did not show that.  There aren't that many.
MR. KLEIN:  Again, that could be something that we take into account during site plan    I'll take a look at the plans again.
MS. PETERS:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:  But that's what our study say so... 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We'll come back to that.
Are there other members of the public who have questions for tonight's witnesses? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  None? 
Last call.
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  A motion to close for public questions.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Motion to close.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Second please.
MR. REILLY:  Second. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anybody opposed?
(NO RESPONSE.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We're closed for public questions.  At this time why don't we begin with the Board.  Michele, maybe you can start, Any questions for tonight's witnesses? 
MS. PETERS:  Yeah, I    I do think points that Mr. Slomin was making are very important to the Village of Ridgewood, it's not a city.  And I think important to us is that we're trying to maintain the Village and development that would be in keeping with the Village, itself.  I know it's very, very challenging in our changing society and working with developers wishing to develop and the needs that they have along with the needs of what is our job that we have in front of us.
The question    I just have a general question about when we receive a traffic report, is that all of these projects are proposed as rentals.  And the    except for Chestnut Village then followed by The Dayton, then The Enclave, is that rentals are transient and they tend to move on a monthly basis.  And I haven't seen clearly the accommodation for the moving in and moving out of these large moving vans.  Is that something that I just missed?
MR. PEHNKE:  It's something that's relevantly addressed at site plan when we actually layout plans, provide it to the township professionals for review truck turning templates, show how we operate the trash and so forth. So it is absolutely an important part to the design of this facility and does get addressed in a lot of detail when the design plans are actually considered and will be before the Board.
MS. PETERS:  Because I would think that they would affect the traffic very much so.
MR. PEHNKE:  In terms of traffic generation all our numbers consider that    that type of activity and any impact associated with a multifamily development, moving in and move out, that is part of the facts and data that we gather and included in our analysis.  So from that standpoint, the Board's consideration of the zoning aspect of this with regard to traffic generation, that information is before the Board.  The details of how the site works, where the doors are and so forth is a site plan situation that comes back before this Board for consideration at sometime in the future, should the Village elect to move forward.
MS. PETERS:  Yes.  Thank you.  Thank you.  And I thank all the presenters.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Michele.
Wendy?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  I'm sorry I don't remember all your names, so I'm just going to start with The Dayton.
MR. PEHNKE:  I'm right here.
MS. DOCKRAY:  You're The Dayton.
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes.  My name is Karl. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Sorry.
I actually read these report, are we not supposed to do that?  I mean how are we supposed to treat the reports?  Are we supposed to ask questions based on? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You should be asking questions as it relates to the report, regarding his testimony tonight.
MS. DOCKRAY:  But just    what about the reports that were submitted. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, they're marked into the record. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If    if    if it relates to traffic, yes.  But if it relates to something other than traffic   
MS. DOCKRAY:  No, no, no, but I'm talking about the traffic report. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Are we allowed to ask questions   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     about these reports   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     even if there was no testimony   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     tonight on them?  Okay.  That's   
MR. REILLY:  You mean the 2011 report? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Pardon? 
MR. REILLY:  You mean the 2011 report?
THE COURT REPORTER:  Can we please take a bio break? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, that's a good suggestion    
MS. DOCKRAY:  What's that? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  She wants to take a bio break.
So why don't we do this   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's 9:25, let's resume at 9:35.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I don't have that many questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Don't worry.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  But we have others who will.  So it's a good time.  Five minutes, we'll resume at 9:30. 
Thank you, Laura.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We're going to resume our meeting.
Chris, can you do role call please?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bigos? 
MR. BIGOS:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Mr. Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  And Ms. Peters? 
MS. PETERS:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Wendy, you were  
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes, I only have a couple of questions.  I won't be here too long with my questions. 
On the apartment information that you took from the ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition to estimate the peak hour and    peak hour trips, can you just confirm with me that the apartments were in, again, suburban areas, is that correct?
MR. PEHNKE:  The    the database that ITE uses is a mix of suburban, semi urban and urban areas.  The urban areas tend to be the high rise so it actually has a whole separate database.  So for the most part, the multi family apartment buildings, which in ITE is termed garden apartments, one, two or three level apartments, are suburban type facilities, correct.
MS. DOCKRAY:  All right.  But it is some combination?
MR. PEHNKE:  It's a combination of data that's been submitted over the years and then they try to isolate it for low rise, single story, mid rise, high rise and then they call out particular sites that were actually in the city and so forth, but the date    the majority of the data is based upon suburban locations.
MS. DOCKRAY:  But it's a mix?
MR. PEHNKE:  There is a mix in it. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  I wasn't clear on that.
And then on your more comprehensive report, I just have a couple of quick questions.
With regard to table four which, South Broad    intersection of South Broad and East Ridgewood Avenue, I see in one direction it's an "A" and in a different direction, the opposite direction it's a "C" and "F".
MR. PEHNKE:  Right.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Why is that?
MR. PEHNKE:  It's basically    South Broad and Ridgewood Avenue is where it's unsignalized and the analysis takes into    takes into account the particular volumes in the area, the approaches and how they interrelate with the opposing volumes.  So what this table is telling us is that in the morning peak hour, the problematic approach is that southbound approach.  And it's probably a combination of the left turn, having difficulty making the left turn, mixing with the opposing traffic on the northbound approach, that's causing that problem in the morning.  At least that's what the analysis suggests as to what may be occurring out there. So, you know, what you see during various peak hours is the approach    the approach level of service may change as the traffic pattern demands change and the availability of gaps or the traffic streams change. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay, thank you. 
Did you investigate the incidence of accidents at the intersection of Broad and East Ridgewood at all?
MR. PEHNKE:  No, we did not take this study to a traffic accident investigation.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  And you didn't look at pedestrian safety issues or anything as well?
MR. PEHNKE:  Not at this level, no.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Those are the questions I have for you.  Thank you. 
Moving over to Chestnut Village.  Okay.  Mr. Rea?  Right?  Do I have that right? 
MR. REA:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I got it right, okay.  Thank you. 
With regard to your written report, you seem to focus mostly on Chestnut and Robinson.
MR. REA:  Correct. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  My concern is actually more Robinson and Oak or Chestnut and Franklin.
MR. REA:  Okay.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Can you comment on that please?
MR. REA:  Yes, the reason why we focused on Robinson Lane and Chestnut was because that intersection is right there and our access points are going to straddle the intersection, one on each side of the intersection.  And it was clear that that would be the intersection that we would impact to probably the greatest degree of any because almost all of our traffic is going to go through that intersection, if not all of it. So, that's why we focused on that location.
In terms of the other off site intersections, when we come in for a site plan application if that's something that the Board or the Board's expert, Mr. Jahr, wants us to take a look at, those particular intersections, we would do that.  We would take a look at our impact on those locations, again it's our expectation that at some point in time the Village is going to have some kind of a traffic improvement district or some kind of a plan to improve those intersections that each one of these projects impact and that we're going to have to pay some kind of an off site traffic mitigation cost in order to mitigate our impact. So, it's not that we dismissed our impact at those locations, but we're really going to save that for site plan to see, you know, what the overall plan is that the Village wants for those intersections and what percent impact we have on those locations and what our fair share is to fix the intersection. 
We haven't dismissed it   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.
MR. REA:     at this level.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  All right.  So, you know, my whole   
MR. REA:  No, no, no.  Understood. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  It's not    you know my impression is there isn't a huge amount of traffic at the intersection of Robinson and Chestnut, but there is a lot more traffic at the other two locations. 
So I think that there would be more concern in terms of those other two locations.
MR. REA:  Understood.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  And then, Mr. Klein?
MR. KLEIN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Let me just find your    can you tell me what "temporal" means. 
MR. KLEIN:  Say again? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  "Temporal".  You used the word "temporal" throughout   
MR. KLEIN:  Yes. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Pardon? 
MR. KLEIN:  Time of day. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Time of day?
MR. KLEIN:  For the distribution of the trip    of the amount of people that are parked throughout the day, temporal distribution.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I see.  Okay.  On table 4.5 in your temporal analysis, you have residents, at the top, residential units, I'm just trying to understand this, it's going to take me a little bit.
You have residential units, you have 52, and then at 7 a.m. you have, it looks like 63, is that correct?
MR. KLEIN:  Correct.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Is that the number of spots you're actually going to be providing for those 52 units?
MR. KLEIN:  That's how many spots we think will be occupied at that time, based on the data from the Institute Transportation Engineers Parking Generation.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Well, how many    forgetting that, what would be the RSIS standards for these 52 units?
MR. KLEIN:  At the bottom.  The combination of the number of bedrooms is 1.94 on average per unit.
MS. DOCKRAY:  So, it would be closer to 104. 
MR. KLEIN:  That would be occupied overnight.  So as you see   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:     if you go down the bottom.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.  So, what happens between    before 7 a.m. that 40 or 50 people are gone? 
MR. KLEIN:  Look at    wait, say that again?  Before 7 a.m.?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes, because it starts out at 63   
MR. KLEIN:  Yeah, before 7 a.m.   
MS. DOCKRAY:     I'm trying to understand.
MR. KLEIN:  Right.  We didn't    they don't normally collect data before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. 
So, after 10 p.m., if you go to the bottom of the chart, 93 people are parked.  And then if you were to go probably maybe the next hour, 11, there might be that whole 100 and    what did you say it was, 102? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  It's 104 whatever, right. 
MR. KLEIN:  Right.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.
MR. KLEIN:  But in the morning, as I think Mr. Rea even said, people get up at four, five, 6:00 in the morning, they have to get out.  So we're saying by 7 a.m., there'd be 63 people parked for the residential portion.
MS. DOCKRAY:  So, 40 people are going to leave before 7 a.m.?
MR. KLEIN:  Roughly.  
MS. DOCKRAY:  Or 45.
MR. KLEIN:  Roughly, yeah.
MS. DOCKRAY:  That seems like a lot to me.  Okay. 
I need to think about this one.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Are you finished, Wendy? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.  Oh, I am.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Not too bad, right?  Not too many.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Kevin? 
MR. REILLY:  Nothing? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Richard? 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I guess on Chestnut Village and The Dayton, have any comparisons been done, I mean you did where this apartment and office or commercial, has anything been done where it's parking any maybe    I mean commercial underneath and then two residential on top?  Does that affect the numbers in any big way or does it kind of just fall in between the two? 
MR. PEHNKE:  On The Dayton, it depends on the mix, but I think your    what you just said is probably about true, probably fall someplace in between, you know, maybe if your retail or commercial is a very small component you might end up being a wash basically.  So it's going to be anywhere from a wash to maybe someplace in between.
MR. REA:  I would agree with that, it depends on how big the commercial space is that you can fit there, and how many floors above the commercial you do.  Is it one floor above, two floors above, how many residential units    it would really depend on the mix and depend on what kind of commercial use that you got on the ground floor, was it a high traffic generator?  Something moderate?
So, it could be a little bit more, it could be a little bit less, we'd have to have more detail as to what exactly the commercial use was. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Say, extrapolating from the downtown, say little specialty stores underneath and then two residential on top?
MR. REA:  Well, specialty retail stores, as you've described them, generally generate less traffic than places like Starbucks or, you know, a convenience store or something that has a high turnover.
So certainly a specialty shop would probably generate a little bit less traffic, I would agree with that. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  So if it was a specialty store and two residential on top, would that be less than what's proposed here?
MR. REA:  Well, it all depends on    I mean with respect to Chestnut Village, I think our building is four stories as well. Okay.  So we would still probably have three stories above the retail, we would still probably have something on the order of, you know, 36 to 40 units above the retail. Quite frankly, I think that would be a higher    or commercial.  The number of residential units you would lose on the first floor is so insignificant in terms of traffic generation, in most instances the commercial aspect will take over and generate more traffic. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And for The Enclave, I guess on that chart, is there 52 exclusive parking spaces, I guess, to the residential?
MR. KLEIN:  That's what we're proposing, that we reserve 52, so everybody would have one parking spot. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  I was just curious.  Okay. 
No further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Richard.  I have a couple of questions.  And the first set of questions will lead into the latter questions.  I noticed that in the reports, each of you had different peak hour p.m. timeframes.  And I was curious why that was, if it was relative to the location or a different way of figuring it out.
MR. REA:  I think because they were different intersections, we all counted too and they may have    for example, Robinson Lane and Chestnut, peak on the afternoon was 4:30 to 5:30.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you describe how you did that?
MR. REA:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  How you counted, each of you can do that, and then help me understand   
MR. REA:  Sure.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     why there would be a difference.
MR. REA:  What we do is we have a person sitting there with a manual count board that counts all of the turning movements at the intersection and then the four highest consecutive 15 minute intervals are the peak hour. Sometimes it happens between 4:30 and 5:30, it may happen at another intersection between 4:45 and 5:45, but what you will find if you look at the raw traffic count data, which I think we've all included in the appendix, is that there's very little difference in most instances between 4:30 and 5:30 count, compared to 4:45 and 5:45 count, but what we try to do is take the highest four consecutive 15 minute intervals to get that peak hour, so we do a conservative or a worst case analysis and then we assume that our peak hour traffic generation coincides with the highest peak hour on the street.  It's another way of us trying to be good engineers and factor safety into the analysis. 
So, it might very well be that    the intersection Mr. Klein and Mr. Pehnke counted weren't the same intersection I counted, they may have had a peak hour of five to 6 p.m. But I think if you look closer at the numbers, there wouldn't be a lot of difference between five to six and 4:30 to 5:30.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So, it's possible then    and, again, it may not be a big deal, but I'll get to the reason I'm asking the question in a moment.  So, it's possible then that the peak hour activity of each of these developments could change the peak hour in that neighborhood? 
MR. REA:  That is very highly unlikely given the amount of traffic.  If you have an intersection for example    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I just   
MR. REA:     it's got out on Ridgewood and at some    like I think Mr. Klein's intersection Ridgewood and Maple, it might    1700 cars going through the intersection during peak hour, his project is probably going to add about 2 percent, 1 percent, one or 2 percent impact at that location.  For his traffic to change peak hour at that location would be almost unheard of.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Right.
MR. KLEIN:  But    but I thought you were going to hint    what you were hinting at was because you're near a residential location you may have an earlier peak, people get up early to leave   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's right.
MR. KLEIN:     and then you have another wave of people that come in at later hours.  What we did was we put worst case scenarios, we took the worst hour of the intersection, we took the highest generation of the hour for office and the highest generation of retail and the highest generation of residential and combined them.  One might be seven to eight, one might be eight to nine and they never even see each other. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I just noticed that, again, one is 4:30 to 5:30 and 5:30 to 6:30 and one right in the middle between the two.  So there's all    they're all within    and the reason I was asking the question, it comes back to a concern about safety for children during walk   
MR. PEHNKE:  School hours.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Exactly.  And, you know, there are two areas logically that would concern someone for The Dayton, for example, Orchard School is the elementary school.  They    people, I would assume, would walk down Broad Street onto Ackerman and cross Ackerman to get to Orchard Street to the school.  And Ackerman is kind of a crazy intersection.  There's a crossing guard but it's a difficult intersection for children. Have you taken any of that into consideration?  Do you have a concern for that relative to The Dayton?  As far as The Enclave and also Chestnut Village, I believe Ridge School is the elementary school which is on the other side of the tracks.  And you're on the north side where there is no sidewalk to cross under the tracks.  So children would have to cross Franklin Avenue during a busy time or parents would be taking children to school.  And the reason I ask if this would change, even though the numbers are small in your calculations for school children, if parents are indeed taking kids to school, that has an impact on peak hour, because, again, that will be a flow in that direction. 
And the third question that relates to that is do you see the movement of traffic during peak hours going to 17 to 208 or different directions and does that have any impact on school children?
MR. REA:  I think I'll take a shot at the first couple of questions.  I think the need for some off tract improvements, perhaps additional sidewalk or a safe pedestrian path for a local school for any one of these projects is definitely something that, you know, can be raised at a plan application and definitely something that we would address. It's a serious issue, one that needs to be taken into consideration.  And I think getting back to what our attorney was saying we know that, you know, we're going to have an impact on the Village's road network and that impact has got to be measured, and if mitigation is required such as sidewalks or an improvement to pedestrian crossing at an intersection, that's definitely something that we have to step up to the plate and take care of at site plan application.  As far as what my expectation is for where motorists, commuters are going to want to go in the morning, I think some people are going to avail themselves at the train station and bus service that's available.  But if you're in your car, you're probably going to want to go down to Route 17 as fast as you can.  And I know from the Chestnut Street side, Chestnut Village location, my expectation is that people would probably go down Robinson Lane, make a left on North Maple and take Linwood Avenue out to 17, because it's a little bit less congested than Ridgewood Avenue, that would be my expectation.  But traffic flow is very much like water flow, it tends to find the path of least resistance, that's what we've found so...
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Anything to add?
MR. PEHNKE:  No, I think Mr. Rea has really hit that pretty solid.  I mean the projects, even in the cumulative sample, they're not going to change, you know, the peak hour traffic counts that exist in the area.  And it's very typical from intersection to intersection to see a variation on a 15 minute basis.  And we look for the highest volumes of data so that we're doing that. You know, basically, in terms of how things were addressed at the time of site plan that is the appropriate time for discussion as to how the project looks for the sidewalks, what the sidewalks look like and so forth.  So I agree with Mr. Rea on that, from that standpoint. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
And, Mr. Klein, last question, you know for you, probably going to be one, you indicated that the entrance to The Enclave from Franklin is a gated or carded entrance, that intersection between Franklin and Maple and crossing over, it's pretty    it's pretty hairy.  It's a pretty intense intersection. 
As you get down towards that intersection coming down, coming east, do you feel that with the gated driveway it could pose any kind of back up problem during peak periods that would increase the stress in that area?
MR. KLEIN:  When I looked at the site plan last, I saw that I think there was a spot for two vehicles, one    actually, there were three?  Okay.  Two or three vehicles could queue into the driveway.  So the chances of more than three vehicles coming at one time, pretty slim.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And if, by chance, it turned into a problem is    would the plan have opportunity to extend that lane, if need be? In other words, it could be designed where that could be moved if it had to be. 
MR. KLEIN:  I mean, again, that's probably a site plan issue, we could probably work something out.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  And prior to public hearing there was some discussion about the left hand turn and the intersection coming from Maple Avenue driveway, the consolidated drive. 
Anything you want to add to that intersection there in terms of concern with discussion about extending the left turn lanes.
MR. KLEIN:  For the northbound people   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:     left into the site? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:  It    I have to look at the queue analysis again to see if we can accommodate it, but the volumes are very, very low making a left turn into it.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So you don't see any issue with that?
MR. KLEIN:  No, one car    queuing for one vehicle. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you. No more questions.  Thank you.
Nancy?
MS. BIGOS:  Thank you, gentlemen, I am most grateful for your time, your knowledge and your expertise this evening. The one question    or two questions I have, most recently this Board approved the Franklin Avenue area as a redevelopment zone. That is adjacent, Mr. Klein, to some of your property.  Gentlemen, it's just blocks away from yours. Do you    this site is proposed to have a parking garage and residential units enclosed, does this redevelopment impact the results that you have prepared for us this evening?
MR. KLEIN:  We included a background growth percentage for our existing volumes.  I'll have to go back and take a look to see the number of trips that this other development might generate.  If it's more or less than a percent we may have to add another percent to the background numbers.  But I don't see it being a significant impact as far as traffic goes. 
MS. BIGOS:  Okay.
MR. PEHNKE:  With regard to The Dayton    I'm sorry.  With regard to The Dayton, going back to the conversation we had when I testified, the consideration from a zoning standpoint is the actual traffic generation potential from the site under your existing zoning versus the proposed on it.  So regardless of what else is occurring in the area, if we bring down the traffic generation or even in worst case, similar traffic generation, it would either improve the situation on the roadways ultimately in consolidation with that other project or worst case, maybe similar traffic. So from that standpoint from the zoning consideration standpoint, the approval of that project really has no influence with regard to my conclusions on what the zone change would do for this particular property.
MS. BIGOS:  Okay.  My other thoughts are, Mr. Rea, in your report you mentioned that Chestnut Street and Robinson Lane are assumed to be urban local roadways. Can you speak to me a little bit about the national trends in traffic?  Many of us, we all live here, your findings are clear, they're common sense.  We're familiar with the traffic and with the patterns and the peaks and the problems.  I mean this is our life. What is going on a national trend or even a statewide level that might affect these urban local roadways that we're addressing this evening.
MR. REA:  Actually the trends in terms of traffic congestion have been favorable.  One of the things that's happened since I published my report in 2011 to today, 2014, I just looked at the 2011 report.  Back in 2011, the NJ DOT's historical background traffic growth rate data for roadways such as Robinson Lane and Chestnut Street in Bergen County showed a 2.25   
MS. BIGOS:  A 2.25   
MR. REA:     percent per year growth rate, they've just updated their growth rate projections for these roadways.  And it's down to 1 percent per year.  So the rate of traffic growth in New Jersey    
MS. BIGOS:  Decreased.
MR. REA:     I don't know about    I don't know about nationwide, but in New Jersey the rate of traffic growth has been decreasing or flat over the     you know, probably has a lot to do with the recession we've been in, I'm sure, but the trend has been down.
MS. BIGOS:  Do you agree with those findings? 
MR. REA:  It depends on the part of the state that you're in.  And I know traffic volumes apparently on the toll roads, on the Turnpike and Parkway apparently have been down over the last couple of years.  But in certain specific locales where there's been a lot of growth, the growth's probably been a little bit higher, it depends on your location. But these growth rates, this historical background traffic growth rate data is basically published for each county.  And it looks at urban and rural areas and, quite frankly, in Bergen County, the DOT assumes that there are no rural areas, so it's all basically consistent.
I think probably most parts of Bergen County, the growth rate has been    I've done quite a bit of work here in the last 20, 25 years, the growth rate has been slowing down.
MS. BIGOS:  Okay.
MR. REA:  Whereas in some of the counties down in south Jersey it's been increasing, maybe a little bit greater than what the DOT projected.
MS. BIGOS:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Nancy.
Thank you, Nancy.  Okay, at this time I'd like to invite questions from our professionals.
Why don't we start with you, Blais? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I assume that    this is for everyone, that the    when you did the comparisons of trip generation between different uses, that the size of the other facilities, with the exception of the self storage facility.  Which I understand was a use variance, the others I think are based upon    just upon the zone's maximum floor area ratio to that use, is that    respond? 
MR. PEHNKE:  That would be correct.
MR. KLEIN:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay, so here's the question.  If, for example, the actual    there was no real site layout, and this was asked of me too, so I would like to get it on the record, but if the actual development could not achieve the floor area ratio, would it change the conclusions in your report?
Karl, I'll use the one example in your report of the shopping center, 52,000 square feet.  I don't exactly remember the acreage of the site, but I think it was around two and a half, 2.6 acres?
MR. PEHNKE:  Yeah, I believe that's about the size.  Correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  So, a little over 100,000.
MR. PEHNKE:  Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  So 52,000 is 50 percent, so be 104, applying the normal traffic ratio to a supermarket of let's say five per 1000 or even four 4 per 1000, and then how much square feet per parking space, I applied a rough factor of 350 square feet counting the spaces in the aisles, and my analysis indicates that for a supermarket, which is typically a one story building, it'd be very difficult to get a 50 percent FAR and have adequate parking. So I guess    I understand, I have no problem with the office because that could be multistory, with that    if that were to happen, obviously, there would be less traffic generated, but would it change the conclusions in, the overall conclusions that the traffic being generated by these proposals would be comparable to or less than other permitted uses?
MR. PEHNKE:  From The Dayton standpoint, given the size and so forth, I would say no and, for instance, if you took the supermarket or called it just a retail and then if you were to cut the size in half based upon the factor that you were thinking about, you would still be looking at    even under that type of assumption, twice the amount of traffic that would be generated by the apartment.
But the broad conclusion that we're reaching is that as a general finding, permitted uses within that zone, on that property are of such a nature that they would be generating more than 106 units, or in worst case similar.  But at the end    there's definitely, you know, nothing in there that says that the retail    residential use on this property would be generating more than the use of that property for commercial use. So the general conclusion that's being considered from a zoning standpoint would not change.  The magnitude of it may change, but the general conclusion would not change.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Either of you gentlemen care to add or change   
MR. REA:  Yes, the only    I just looked at the estimate for a medical office of 21,700 square feet.  I went over this with Mr. Lapatka's office, our site engineer, and we basically came to that number looking at comfortably how we can get the parking on the site and meet the ordinance requirement for parking.
And so I think it's a pretty accurate number.  But, again, as Mr. Pehnke just said, even if we cut that in half, cut it down in half, since 21,700 square feet of medical office is generating twice as much traffic as our residential proposal during morning peak hour and more than twice as much during the afternoon peak hour, even if we cut it in half, it wouldn't change my conclusion that the residential use is still, comparatively speaking, a pretty good use given what could be built on the property.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right.  That's what I expected.  I just wanted to make sure. 
The other side of this is you know all of your traffic studies have been project specific, what your client's project is proposed to be, but the zoning that the Master Plan would endorse is not specific to your client's projects.  It's more general.  Conceivably someone could propose something different, all residential, than what your clients are proposing. Did you look at what hypothetically could be built under the proposed Master Plan and whether that would change any of the conclusions? In other words, I know you're looking at apartments in one case, apartments and some townhouses, I don't know whether you looked at maximum densities or different types of residential to see whether they would generate different amounts of traffic than what you're proposing.
MR. PEHNKE:  Well, from    from The Dayton standpoint, I think the 106 units on the site given the    how the parking and access would work, really, you know, indicates a build out of that site.  I don't see how you intensify that, changing it to townhouses you probably looking at a bigger project, you'd probably lose units, so while townhouses tend to generate a little more traffic, you'd have a drop in the unit count, so I think the general level of traffic would end up being about the same as    as you played with a mix of different residential types.
MR. REA:  As far as Chestnut Village is concerned, I would reach the same conclusion, we have to comfortably fit a number of parking spaces in there that will support the number of units that we're looking for.  And the plan that I've been presented with is a comfortable fit for the property.
You know, I guess potentially it could vary by five or ten units in one direction or another, but not by a number of units that I think would have any kind of a significant impact, maybe a little bit more, a little bit less.  But the overall magnitude of the parking and traffic generation for the site, it's only a little bit over an acre, it's going to essentially not change that much that it would change my conclusions.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  So let's say the same or a different developer were to come in with smaller units, but more units, I don't    again I haven't done the math myself, just tonight   
MR. REA:  Well, I know the Chestnut Village site is 40 of the apartments are one bedroom units.  I don't know how much smaller they could get, you know, so...
MR. BRANCHEAU:  My recollection was that they were fairly large because they were expected to be higher end units.
MR. REA:  Yes, that may be true.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Maybe if, you know, they were 1400 or 1500 square feet and instead were reduced to 1,000 square feet, and less expensive, but more units, would that significantly change the conclusions in your reports, I guess that's where I was going with the question?
MR. REA:  I can't see it happening because even if the size of the units were decreased, I mean how many more units could we get on a site that's as small as this?  And probably the same holds true for The Dayton and as Mr. Klein said, I just don't see how you could squeeze that many more units on the property that it would be something that would significantly change our conclusions.  I just    I don't see how that would be possible.
MR. PEHNKE:  Similar to the discussion you were having before about how you calculated the size of commercial use on the site, the controlling point becomes how many surface parking spaces   
MR. REA:  Right.
MR. PEHNKE:    you can put on the site and, you know, from the plan that I reviewed, we pretty much maximized the surface parking.  So that really helps as a controlling feature in the design.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay, that's all I have. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais.
Chris?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  I'm going to look at this from a different perspective.  I'm going to take a trip down memory lane. 
Let's start with Chestnut Village.  Once upon a time it was the inspection station.  Do you folks have any counts as to what, like, peak    peak traffic volume would have been or was at the time it was the inspection station   
MR. REA:  I don't.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:    that we can compare with what is proposed from the proposed development? 
MR. REA:  I don't, but I can tell you from my anecdotal experience sitting in the line about a month ago with my wife's Honda Ridgeline, I think it probably would be, where was I, at the Freehold station, the inspection station, I will tell you that they had three lanes open on a Saturday morning and they were probably generating substantially more traffic than the Chestnut Village residential project would generate.  I couldn't tell you exactly what the number is, but probably close   
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  You didn't have your counter with you.
MR. REA:     probably close to, you know, to 75 or 80 vehicles an hour.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay, but you wouldn't    you don't think there's any data available?
MR. REA:  I don't have any data on the inspection station.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay, I would just like to compare it to the historical past use with what is proposed, so everyone could see how that may    your use may be a betterment in terms of traffic flow.
MR. REA:  I think it would be, but I just don't know to what degree.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  You don't have any hard data on that.
MR. REA:  I think the inspection station probably generated a healthy flow of traffic, you probably had some people queued up on Chestnut Street waiting to get in.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  More than just Chestnut.
MR. REA:  Yeah.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay.  For   
MR. REA:  Creating other issues, yeah.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  For The Enclave, would there be any data from when Sealfons was in that location and an active department store?
MR. KLEIN:  We looked at trip generation for specialty retail, we looked at trip generation for shopping center.  So we just did it compared to trip generation numbers because we didn't have any actual counts from back then.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  From back when Sealfons was   
MR. KLEIN:  Correct.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay.  All right.  I'm striking out. 
Let's try for The Dayton. 
MR. PEHNKE:  Strike three.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Well, yeah, would you have from when like it was an active car dealership with a very busy service component?
MR. PEHNKE:  We don't    we don't have actual counts on the Brogan Cadillac. Certainly the size of the building it can be probably related to ITE similar to what we have done, but we do have an actual figure on how the site is being used today, as a commuter lot.  And I testified to that.  So today it's generating about 62 trips coming in and out of the morning peak hour and 55 in the evening, which again is higher than what the residential use is.  So today it's an active site, it's    I guess you can call it commercial because he's selling spaces.  And it's generating traffic that's higher than any residential use on the site would be.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  And that's where I believe you had said for the 90 spaces that are currently there.
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes, I believe the number that my client was able to obtain was that he is parking about 90 vehicles on that site.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  So, the current parking use of the site at that location generates a greater peak traffic values than the proposed residential would in your estimation?
MR. PEHNKE:  That's correct.  Based on what we actually    that's based on actual counts that were done at the driveway.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen.
Nothing further. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Chris.
John? 
By the way, John is the Board's hired traffic consultant for this project.
MR. JAHR:  Well, after Chris's questions I think that clearly spells out what we've had some discussions on previously with regard to the fact that these sites potentially are going to generate less traffic than if they were developed as of right, which is an important part of our evaluation in this application.
I actually have, you know, a number of questions, but in considering the hour, I would like to just focus on a few things.  For the sake of the record, Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Rea, could you please individually answer, neither of your studies took into account Saturday traffic.  I know the answer to this, but I'd like you guys to both put on the record why you did not take into account Saturday traffic in your reports. 
There is, you know, a significant amount of traffic here on Saturdays.  It is a concern to the Village and I'd like to make sure we have, on the record, what your guys opinion is with regard to your projects and how they're going to affect Saturday traffic in Ridgewood. One at a time.
MR. REA:  I'll go first.  No, we did not do Saturday analysis.  We did the traditional morning and afternoon peak hours. I can understand why there might be a need for a Saturday analysis given the proximity to the businesses, you know, along Ridgewood Avenue and the downtown core, if you will.  And I think that's a legitimate question for a site plan application.  But what I will say is going back and look at the ITE numbers, my recollection, and maybe Mr. Pehnke or Mr. Klein can support me on this, the peak hour traffic generation for a residential unit on a    during a Saturday peak hour generator, is approximately equal to a weekday p.m. peak street hour, if I'm not mistaken.  It's pretty close. 
So the number, I thought I remembered that, so it's something that we can look at during the site plan submission for, you know, a Saturday analysis, we understand things are very busy downtown on a Saturday.  And it's something we can do, but I wouldn't expect that our conclusions would be all that different because the numbers of broad traffic volumes, cars being generated, are still going to be relatively low.  And you're talking about essentially the same traffic generation as we have during p.m. peak hour, but we can certainly look at it during site plan.
MR. JAHR:  Well, that really wasn't where I was hoping you'd go.  Actually because your two developments are all residential only, would you say that your traffic generation on a Saturday would be less than if it were a retail?
MR. REA:  Yes.
MR. JAHR:  And would you say that NJ DOT does not typically require any Saturday analysis for residential uses for that particular reason, in that traffic on a Saturday would typically be less than the p.m. peak hour, and I think we   
MR. REA:  Yeah, NJ DOT typically does not require a Saturday analysis for a residential application.  And the thought process there, as Mr. Jahr is right, on a Saturday I think people have, in general, not all the time, but in general, people have a little bit more latitude as to when they want to leave their house and go out and run their chores, their errands, do their shopping.  They have a little bit more latitude than they do during the week when they've got to leave the house at a certain time to deal with the traffic to get to the office on time, to get to work on time.  So there's a little bit more latitude there on Saturday.
MR. JAHR:  For the sake of those two developments, I don't really see the need to require you to do a Saturday analysis. 
MR. REA:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  But I want to make sure is that I clearly have it on the record why we're taking it off the table.  For the other development, they do have a retail component and    and other components that are not residential, therefore, the Saturday is    is still, you know, a requirement for the Board and, again, just following procedures set forth by DOT and ITE with regard to this matter. 
Do you agree, Mr. Pehnke?
MR. PEHNKE:  Yeah, with regard to The Dayton and your question, Mr. Rea hit it solidly.  You know the residential certainly has a generation component to it on Saturday may actually, in the Village setting, have a higher pedestrian generation with people enjoying entertainment, the restaurants, shopping activities in the Village as opposed to getting in their car and driving to a mall.  But, comparatively, to the permitted uses in the zone, and even office when you look at service office could be occupied, realty office and so forth, it's probably similar more or less than, again, like the weekday's traffic generation.
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  I think that answers, you know, at least it makes it clear why we're not doing that for those two developments and why we are doing it for the other.  I didn't want that to get lost in the translation.  What I would like to do is I'd like to have some time to absorb all the testimony.  With regard to the report prepared by Omland, there is some discrepancy between    it's minor, there is minor discrepancy between your testimony and the trip generation in table 3 in the report. What I would like you to do is, I would like you to review testimony and review table 3 and maybe resubmit an updated table 3.  I would like to do a written report on each one of your firm's reports and distribute that prior to the next meeting, so that you can come and answer specifically questions that I have about your reports on each one of your individual projects, if you guys would find that to be acceptable?
Yes, no, maybe would be a good response. 
MR. REA:  I hope it's not raining the next time I come up to Ridgewood on the Parkway.
Mr. Pehnke feels the same.
MR. PEHNKE:  I feel the same   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I didn't see that comment in the traffic report. 
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  With regard to Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Rea, I don't need    at this particular juncture, I believe that your testimony answers most of my questions and your reports are filed and adequate at this point. Quite frankly, my comments are going to be similar to what I've written before, we're going to go back and dredge through a couple of finer details just to make sure we have everything on the record. With regard to Mr. Klein and the Omland report, I do need that updated table prior to me writing my comments or if you like you can call me or e mail me to discuss the matter further if you're not clear of my concerns.
MR. KLEIN:  Specifically, the square footage is incorrect on the table? 
MR. JAHR:  You're    you're    yeah, It's not clear.  I'm confused.  I'm not clear between the testimony and what's in table 3.
MR. KLEIN:  Do you remember what numbers I said wrong, because I just went through my testimony notes and I have the same numbers.
MR. JAHR:  I would suggest we went through it off line.
MR. KLEIN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  As opposed to boring people with square footages and minor notations between 55 trips and 54 trips.
MR. KLEIN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  And things of this nature.  I would just like to have the record clear and accurate for all three of these studies.  Okay.  That's my goal.  And I guess last, but not least, there was another application I wanted to make sure that I question the Board, and that is has there been anything further on the Ridgewood Station project is that completely   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's not part of this proceeding.
MR. JAHR:  So that is no longer part of the discussion.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. JAHR:  Albeit.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  In terms of the specific application and the location is still part of the proposal, but there aren't applicants.
MS. RAZIN:  Right. 
MR. JAHR:  See from my point of view, I now have, you know, four, I mean if I count that study, I have four rather comprehensive traffic impact studies that encompass a significant portion of the Village downtown.  And I think that part of my charge here is to try and be a little bit more global in my review and not be so focused on any one particular development.  Of course I have to review each development on its own merits and its own impact and evaluate that, and come up with, you know, some commentary with regard to how I think that's going to impact the Village, but I think that one of the questions I've heard over and over again from public outcry at some of other meetings we had is they want to know how all of these things together are going to affect the Village.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  So I think we need to continue to keep that on the forefront of our discussion and how we're going to approach that moving forward. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, John. 
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  So that's all I have for this evening, if that's acceptable to the Board.
MS. RAZIN:  I'm sorry.  I missed that.
Go ahead.
MR. JAHR:  I said and that's all I have for this evening, if that's acceptable to the Board. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, John, thank you.  Are there any follow along questions from the Board.
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  That concludes our questioning for this evening.  Oh, I forgot, I apologize, Dan.  At this time we have Counsel cross, Dan?
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Yes, for the record again Daniel Steinhagen from Beattie Padavano on behalf of C.B.R.
Gentlemen, I'm going to ask a question I guess they're directed at all of you.  They're general in nature.  So if    answer where appropriate.  Is it fair to say that on behalf of your clients all you reviewed was the traffic generation for the projects that your clients are proposing? 
MR. REA:  No.  If I read your answer correctly    your question correct that we haven't considered each other's projects?
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Right.
MR. REA:  Well, we included, as I mentioned before, I know in my report, background growth rate that's more than twice what the growth rate is now that's been published by the DOT.  But I do think that at the end of the day it's Mr. Jahr's charge to put all of the numbers together from these projects and I guess for projects not part of it now, but to the extent that he may have a different conclusion, he is the Board's expert.  And we will live by it.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  So    okay.  If, hypothetically, all of these projects come on line at the same time, is that going to be accounted for in the 2.25 or one percent growth rate or is that going to be a bigger percentage at one time, like a big hit, that the traffic is going to surge based on X hundred number of units.
MR. REA:  Well, I can say based on the location of the other projects and the intersections that are in proximity to Chestnut Village site I think probably the 2.25 percent per year would cover it because I don't see a lot of their traffic coming up Chestnut Street unless they're looking to visit somebody in the garden apartments back there or whatever. 
But, again, I think that's Mr. Jahr's charge to put these numbers together.
MR. PEHNKE:  I would    I would concur with that, but then I would also bring the Board back to the fact that all three properties exist, all three properties can be developed under existing zoning. 
MR. REA:  Right.
MR. PEHNKE:  And you're facing exactly the same scenario.  So it's, you know, an impact analysis is different than a zoning consideration as to the traffic generation potential for the site that creates the impact.  And I think the    the story that you've heard today from the factual analysis and testimony is that all properties, as proposed, for the rezoning would result even in a cumulative status, a reduced potential traffic impact on the Village. So that scenario exists whether you not you rezone the properties independently or all together. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  But, so, Mr. Rea is it your position then if Mr. Jahr is going to be the one to synthesize all of the data that you should be looking at all the traffic throughout, not necessarily all the traffic, but you should be looking at potential impacts throughout the downtown area based on each development with the other properties that are going to potentially be rezoned.
MR. REA:  I think that's what he's indicated his charge is, so I would agree with that.
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Mr. Klein, do you agree with that?   
MR. KLEIN:  Yes, I agree with that.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.
MR. KLEIN:  And actually I misspoke on page seven of our report we also used the 2 percent background growth.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  Mr. Klein, you referred    you mentioned developments of the type proposed here in towns like Westfield and in areas like Union County.  Did you do any studies of    gentlemen, also to you, did you do any studies about the number of residents in similar types of developments as to what's proposed here, who take a train the work, don't have a car, or is it you're just relying on NJ DOT studies for    statewide? 
MR. KLEIN:  Well, to be conservative we didn't discount our trip generation based on the proximity to the train or mass transit. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  But   
MR. KLEIN:  We took a conservative approach.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  But are we relying in part on the ITE numbers    this is for parking also.  This is    we're going to rely on the ITE numbers for parking generation, rather than the RSIS to some extent? 
MR. KLEIN:  No, no, we used the RSIS for the residential.  And we used the ITE numbers instead of the Village numbers for the shared    just for the shared parking    actually, no, I'm sorry. No, we still    we used    if you go to our such table IV V.  We still used for the retail and the office, we used the    the Village requirements.  We just used the different percentages of occupied parking spaces throughout the day to develop a shared parking analysis.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  Bear with me one second. 
Just so I'm clear.  I'm not    do all of these    as you proposed I mean in your report do you    are you presenting compliant RSIS parking numbers.
MR. KLEIN:  Yes. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  That's yes for all of you?  
MR. KLEIN:  That's yes for me.
MR. PEHNKE:  It's not a formal site plan before this   
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Right.
MR. REA:  Right, but in my analysis I used the numbers from RSIS.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Right.  Well, Mr. Rea, on page 5 of your report you say that 82 spaces are going to be sufficient.
MR. REA:  That's my opinion that it be sufficient, yes.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Is that    are the 82 spaces in RSIS compliance   
MR. REA:  Technically   
MR. STEINHAGEN:     based on the numbers that you're proposing   
MR. REA:  Technically, the RSIS requirement for our bedroom mix is 98, if I'm not mistaken, but in my opinion because of the proximity to the train station, and please bear in mind also the RSIS has a specific section in it that gives a board latitude to adopt another standard in certain circumstances like when you're within walking distance of a major the train station and major bus routes on Ridgewood Avenue. 
So in my opinion that technical shortfall of 16 spaces from the technical RSIS requirement is nothing to be worried about.  In my particular situation, I actually think the 82 spaces, the 1.5 ratio we have is going to be    we're going to have a comfortable surplus. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  I understand that.  But when we're talking about    figuring out what's the appropriate density, shouldn't we try to figure out how many parking spaces we can fit on the site and maybe back it into the density.  As opposed to   
MR. REA:  That's   
MR. STEINHAGEN:     this is the density we want and we think we have sufficient parking? 
MR. REA:  Well, all I know is the site plan that I've looked at I think Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Klein will second that for their sites, our parking comfortably sits on our site without squeezing it in anywhere.  The parking aisles are sufficiently sized.  The parking stall sizes are correct.  So I can only tell that you 82 spaces comfortably fit on the Chestnut Village site. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  Dan, my apologies again for missing you earlier.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  No problem.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  If there are no further questions from the Board I think that concludes our questions for you gentlemen this evening.  Thank you very much for coming.
MR. REA:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you very much for your report.
MR. REA:  Thank you.
MR. KLEIN:  Thank you.
MR. PEHNKE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  We're going to talk about scheduling? 
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, so just in terms of going forward, I know that our office had sent out some contacts to the other attorneys regarding scheduling going forward and before we confirm the first, unfortunately we just have to go through some attendance and membership issues and just confirm that we're okay.  We're hoping it may be the 1st, it may be a week or two after the 1st.  We're hoping for the beginning or middle of July but we will have to renotice.  So I apologize for trying to get everybody, but we just have to confirm, I think, on our end some logistics before we confirm a date.  So we will renotice for the next meeting. 
MR. WELLS:  Is the Board reorganizing? 
MS. RAZIN:  That's one of the issues, right so we're just    and certain members may not be present so we're just trying to get everything set and so that we're properly hearing your matter.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And it's possible also that we will have concluded the Valley hearings by the 1st of July   
MS. RAZIN:  Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     as well so that our schedule will be able to be focused more on these proceedings moving forward.
MS. RAZIN:  I think anticipated it is    we could return to the planners' cross by the attorneys which is one of the remaining things that has to be done. 
We can speak, I think, off line with Mr. Jahr about whether and when or if he would like your traffic witnesses back.  It seems like    well, we can figure that out.  And we'll be in contact with you.  I know that we finished everything.  But I don't    it seems that you wanted them present to review your report, John, so that may be a necessity at some future date.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  They may want to be present.
MR. WELLS:  In all due respect to Mr. Jahr and in terms of the it seems foolish to bring the traffic witnesses back to be honest with you and I think in terms of the overall importance of the project, and the process you're in. 
But if he has additional questions, he wanted to provide them, you know, we will certainly try to answer those.  But just in terms of moving this process along   
MS. RAZIN:  No, I know.  Well, that's why we're going to    we'll speak off line and just see what    what's intended from his position going forward.
MR. JAHR:  I suspect strongly they will be able to respond in writing and we may not have to have them come back.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. WELLS:  That we have no problem doing. 
In terms of the process, do you anticipate that Mr. Jahr will be producing a report and testifying.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Exactly.
MR. WELLS:  And Mr. Brancheau? 
MS. RAZIN:  I think at the next    hopefully the next meeting if we can conclude the planners' cross by the attorneys, which I think is the only outstanding smaller issue, we would likely move    unless anybody else has any other expert witnesses, we may move to certain of the Board's professionals, including Chris and John and any of the    we also put out "asks" to the Village agencies about their input and we would ask if they wanted to attend or participate that that would be the same    done in the same evening.  I don't think we received any response, and out board secretary is not here this evening, but we can    so we'll follow up on that.  So that would likely be, I think, the anticipated next meeting.
MR. WELLS:  I would suggest, I mean I certainly can't speak for the other Counsel, but I don't anticipate extensive cross with respect to that I would be doing so.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.
MR. WELLS:  So I would hope we could schedule it. 
MS. RAZIN:  That's what we anticipate    we're not    yes, I don't think we would just schedule    we certainly wouldn't stop at that point.  We would move forward.
MR. WELLS:  I would also inform the Board that I think it would be helpful for the Board and the public that as we end this process that I ask the principals of my two clients to speak to    to address the Board again, you know, given what they're trying to accomplish here and give them the benefit.  They're not expert witnesses, but I think it would be very helpful because they've heard the whole process, to the speak to their project.
MS. RAZIN:  And I've spoken to    I know we spoke earlier today and I did mention that to Blais and to Gail so I think   
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
MS. RAZIN:     that's absolutely a possibility.  And I just would want to run it by the rest of the Board.
MR. WELLS:  Obviously, I as Counsel, would give a closing argument kind of wrapping things up, but it could be done at the same meeting or what have you.
But I don't anticipate that the principals would need extensive cross examination, but I think it would be helpful if they could give a statement in terms of where they are.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.  Sounds like a good suggestion actually.
MS. RAZIN:  So we will renotice, but in the meantime we will confirm our schedules with all counsel and just    but that's the anticipated   
MR. WELLS:  At this time you're not going to announce a night for the 1st because you don't know for sure   
MS. RAZIN:  Correct.
MR. WELLS:  Excuse me.
MS. RAZIN:  Correct, we are not going to announce    confirm the 1st    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It will be done as soon as possible. 
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
MS. RAZIN:  We will just renotice.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We will renotice as soon as possible. 
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Tom.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're welcome.
(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date.  Time noted 10:46 p.m.)

11:05 p.m. – Resolution of Approval – Cerf Amended Subdivision; 436, 440, 448 Farview Street, Block 1702, Lots 21.01, 22.01, 22.02 – The resolution was adopted as drafted.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.10 P.M.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: 10-06-2015

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 9, 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 7:40 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: Gail Price, Esq., and Katie Razin, Esq., Board Attorneys; 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 the Board received correspondence from Mr. Drill dated June 6, 2014.
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:  At the last meeting we concluded the public comment portion of these hearings and tonight we're going to hear rebuttal from Mr. Drill for The Valley Hospital and then summations from the attorneys, followed by instructions from the Board's Counsel for the Board. 
So before we begin, I'd like to ask Gail if she could address some housekeeping issues from the last meeting.
MS. PRICE:  Just one, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the public statement submissions that were made both at the May 20th meeting at the June 2nd meeting there's a couple of updates Mrs.  Ringel who provided her document on May 20th and she was contacted and advised that certain edits needed to be made to her statement same to correspond with the verbiage contained on the transcript.  And she did make those changes, so I would advise the Board that her statement, as revised, can be moved into the record tonight as P 4. 
And that would leave the two that are officially in the record right now as Janet Daly's and Mrs. Ringel's.
(Whereupon, Statement of Marcia Ringel is marked as Exhibit P 4 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE:  In addition there were two other parties, Mrs. Tuomey and Mrs. Reynolds who were contacted with minor edits, they were provided the minor edits and were told that if they accepted those minor edits that their statements could be accepted.  Katie just spoke with both of them and I understand that they're both agreeable to just putting on the record that the revised statements that matched the statements on the record are acceptable.  We just need to do that on the record since we didn't receive an e mail copy back.
So if Mrs. Reynolds and Mrs. Tuomey would just come up to the microphone so we could just get that to record that would be great. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Janet    Janet Tuomey, 59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey.  I accept. 
MS. PRICE:  Thank you, Mrs. Tuomey.  So your statement will be marked as P 6 for the record and with tonight's date.
MS. TUOMEY:  Thank you, yes.
(Whereupon, Statement of Janet Tuomey is marked as Exhibit P 6 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE:  And, Mrs. Reynolds? 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi, yes, Lorraine Reynolds 550 Wyndemere Avenue.  And that's fine, I accept that.
MS. PRICE:  So your statement will be mark as P 8 for the record. 
(Whereupon, Statement of Lorraine Reynolds is marked as Exhibit P 8 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE:  The other parties we have not    Jane, we have not heard from anyone else through your office in connection with getting revised statements back, correct.
MS. WONDERGEM:  No.
MS. PRICE:  So I would advise the Board at this point, there's no harm in terms of any statements that have been received on the record both on the 20th and on the 2nd.  The statements were received verbatim and were taken down by the Court Reporter.  They're contained in the transcripts and they're part of the official record.  So I would counsel the Board that other than P 4, P 6, P 8 and P 11, that the other statements be as reflected in the transcripts of both May 20th and June 2nd.
Okay?  And that's all I have now other than the instructions later on.
I would just like to note, Mr. Chairman, for the record that I've provided the Board Members work product documents tonight, part of work product from our office, as promised, with summaries of all of the transcripts of the hearings to date to be utilized in connection with the Board's deliberations.  They provide the date of each hearing and the witness or witnesses in some cases, who testified during those particular hearings.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Gail. 
MR. DRILL:  We have a couple of housekeeping items also.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So before your rebuttal? 
MR. DRILL:  Right. So, as Jane mentioned, I had sent a letter to the Board on June 6th, 2014.  I just think just to dot the "i"s as cross the "t"s that we should have that admitted as Exhibit A 37.  And that is the June 6, 2014 letter where the Hospital proposed further revisions to the proposed Master Plan Amendment that had been drafted by your planner, Mr. Brancheau, specifically to respond to his recommendations number three, number four, number five and number six contained in his March 31, 2014, report to the Board. That's our first housekeeping item. 
(Whereupon, Letter of Mr. Drill dated June 2, 2014 is marked as Exhibit A 37 for  Identification.)
MR. DRILL:  And then there's a document in the record as a Board exhibit, which is Exhibit B 5 which is the 1983 Village Council Resolution.  And that was entered into the record on October 22, 2013. 
At that time I had cross examined, actually, Mr. McKenna on that, who acknowledged that it had been reversed by the Superior Court.  And I just think, again, to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s I'm willing to put it in as an A exhibit, but maybe it belongs in as a B exhibit, but I have a copy of a Planning Board Resolution, it’s entitled "Supplemental Preliminary Site Plan Approval Resolution 1985", and it's captioned in the matter of the application of The Society of the Valley Hospital for off street parking deviation relief, variance relief and preliminary site plan approval as to Lot 51 in Block 5301.  And it's indicated that it was adopted on February 11, 1985. What I want to put it in for is on the second page, the Planning Board makes two findings of fact:  Finding A says subsequent to the adoption of the original resolution by this Planning Board the Village Council modified the determinations of this Planning Board set forth in said resolution with respect to exception of deviation relief from off street parking requirements of the Village Code as to the minimum number of on site off street parking spaces required to be established by the Applicant on the premises in question and with respect to the granting of variance relief from the maximum land coverage requirements of the Village Code.
The Planning Board then said in the following paragraph, said modification action of the Village Council thereafter was reversed by a trial judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who reinstated the determination of this Planning Board as set forth in said original resolution thereafter the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the decision of the trial judge and also determined that the Applicant no longer required variances relief from said maximum land coverage requirements of the Village Code.
So I would like to put that in.  Again it's your preference if it goes in as a B exhibit, it would be B 20, if it goes in as an A exhibit, it would be A 38. 
MS. PRICE:  Well, let's    I mean it's a public document   
MR. DRILL:  Right.
MS. PRICE:  So it could be received into the record.  I would think we'll put it in as B 20 since the underlying is in as B 5 which is the '83 resolution.  So to keep it consistent we'll keep it as a "B."
So that 1985 Planning Board Resolution would then be B 20.
(Whereupon, 1985 Planning Board Resolution is marked as Exhibit B 20 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE:  And do you have copies, Mr. Drill, for the board? 
MR. DRILL:  Well   
MS. PRICE:  Can you provide that? 
MR. DRILL:  Yes, I have an additional copy I can e mail it to you tomorrow.  I have an extra one for tonight, I have B 20 for Jane.  And then I have an extra copy of which I am going to hand to Blais to hand down to Ms. Price.
MS. PRICE:  And you'll provide copies and then we'll also post that on the on the website as we have with all the documents which have been posted.
MR. DRILL:  Right.  And then just to totally close the loop because that resolution B 20 refers to the prior Planning Board Resolution which has been reversed, I also have a copy of the prior Planning Board Resolution which is even thicker than that resolution. So I would propose to have marked as B 21 the 1983 Planning Board Resolution which is in the matter of the application of The Society of The Valley Hospital for variance and deviational relief and preliminary site plan approval as to Lot 51 in Block 3301.  And the resolution is entitled, "Resolution Reflecting Intention to Grant Deviation Relief, Variance Relief and Conditional Site Plan Approval".  And this resolution indicates that it was adopted by the Planning Board on August 16th, 1983.  And this resolution is referenced in the Village Council's resolution of 1983 as being reversed.  And then the 1985 resolution references that being reversed, affirmed by the Appellate Division.  And this underlying resolution reinstated it.  And that's why   
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:     I think just to complete the loop, we should admit that as B 21.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  So that will be B 21 the August 26, 1983, Planning Board Resolution. 
(Whereupon, August 26, 1983, Planning Board Resolution is marked as Exhibit B 21 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE:  And B 5, B 20 and B 21 can all be reviewed collectively.
MR. DRILL:  Again, I will e mail those two resolutions tomorrow.  And that's all the housekeeping that I have.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Drill.
Mr. Kates, you have no housekeeping matters?  
MR. KATES:  No, I don't.  I don't keep house.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Drill, are you ready to begin your rebuttal? 
MR. DRILL:  Yes, as my sole rebuttal witness I have Joe Burgis who was previously accepted as a planning expert by the Board and was previously sworn. And Mr. Burgis has a PowerPoint to present.  And we do have extra copies of the PowerPoint so if anyone wants copies you can hand them out.  And we also have a number of extra copies in case anyone in the public wants them. But, I assume, the Planning Board Members want them.  I am just going to ask Blais to take one and pass it down. If anyone in the public wants one I'm going to put this   
MS. PRICE:  Mr. Drill, you're going to mark this as a    let me just get to the list   
MR. DRILL:  I'm going to    Jane's going to take the whole folder and put it near the podium.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Marla, do you have a question?  Mr. Sherman? 
MS. SHERMAN:  I do.  I do.
MR. DRILL:  And just for the record the PowerPoint is not a document that we seek approval for so it did not have be on file 10 days before.  There's an expressed provision in the MLUL that says we don't even have to hand out a copy if we don't want. 
The June 6th letter, just to play it safe, we submitted that ten days before.  So this would be our Exhibit A 38.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  A 38.
(Whereupon, PowerPoint Presentation of Joseph Burgis is received and marked as Exhibit A 38 for Identification.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Drill, before you begin a member of the public did have a question.  I assume it's a procedural question? 
MS. SHERMAN:  It is.  It is, housekeeping, I guess.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All right.
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm just not sure I understand, I thought that there were no more documents allowed to be entered into the record? 
MR. DRILL:  After tonight.
MS. SHERMAN:  So I    I mean we were told that we weren't allowed to    to enter any more new documents into the record.  So I was just wondering. I don't know the procedure so I'm just asking.
MS. PRICE:  From a procedural standpoint, this is the part of the application or part of the request; it's not an application, part of the request that is referred to as rebuttal. So it's a limited response by the Applicant for    it’s their opportunity to basically address any open issues that they saw following the conclusion of what the Board raised, what the public raised, anyone raised.  And this happens on any application or any matter.  So it is not meant to be extensive.
Mr. Drill, you understand that this is not meant to be an extensive proceeding? 
MR. DRILL:  Right.
MS. PRICE:  In rebuttal.
MR. DRILL:  In fact this is not rehash.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:  And this is not new.  This is rebutting issues that have been brought up.
MS. PRICE:  All right.  I just want to    since I'm explaining what the rebuttal is, I just want to confirm that. It’s meant simply to basically be the final, let's sum it all up before the attorneys, per se, get to do their summations. And as long as I'm explaining that, the summations are not evidence.  The summations are the attorneys' response to what they think the case is and what they think, how the case went in. But the Board doesn't consider what the attorneys said as evidential.  It’s just their story.
But the rebuttal is an opportunity to be heard on open issues.  So as I understood Mr. Drill's letter it was in response to a couple of specific issues that Mr. Brancheau raised in his report that Mr. Brancheau revised the Amendment.  And it’s limited to that.  And I anticipate that this document, although I haven't seen this document yet, is going to be used to walk us through that. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I was just    because you said    actually Mr. Drill said this is not rebuttal, this is housekeeping.  So I was just wanted wondering   
MS. PRICE:  No. No, the marking of   
MS. SHERMAN:    whether we, you know, because you asked us if there was any    you asked    I'm sorry    CRR   
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MS. SHERMAN:    if there was any housekeeping so I just wondering whether they had also   
MS. PRICE:  No, this is marking   
MS. SHERMAN:    submitted any documents.
MS. PRICE:  This is not housekeeping, the marking of A 37, B 20 and B 21 was housekeeping.  This is rebuttal. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  So there's a line. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  I didn't hear that line.  Thank you.
MS. PRICE:  Okay. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Sherman. 
Mr. Drill?
J O S E P H   B U R G I S, Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:
REBUTTAL DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DRILL: 
Q. Mr. Burgis, you've prepared a rebuttal presentation?
A. I have.
MS. PRICE:   Could we have, are both mikes on?  I don't know oh, now yours is.  Okay. Can everyone here Mr. Burgis in the back?  Yes?  Okay. 
MR. DRILL:   Let me give him the more powerful mike.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Burgis, can you also note for the Board when you change slide so we don't have to    
MR. BURGIS:  Oh, certainly.
MS. PRICE:  Oh, much better.
MR. BURGIS:  This is much better? 
MS. PRICE:  Much better, much better.
Mr. Burgis, let me just remind you that you remain under oath this evening so   
MR. BURGIS:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:     you're not going to be re sworn but any of your testimony is also sworn testimony.
MR. BURGIS:  I do understand that. 
MS. PRICE:  Is my head in way of that? 
THE WITNESS:  You could see a little. 
MR. DRILL:  Now it's not. 
MS. PRICE:  How's that good?  Okay.  I really would like not to move   
MR. BURGIS:  Just the top of your head.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  Oh, that looks comfortable.  Okay.  We can begin.  As Jonathan had indicated my purpose here this evening is not to reiterate or rehash the facts of this proposed Master Plan Amendment.  I believe everyone in the room fully well understands what the issues are that are at stake.  I would like to take my time to address a few specific issues, however, in rebuttal to some of the statements that have been placed upon the record. You know I have taken the opportunity to cull through all 25 transcripts at this point.  There is a total of some 4200 pages, and I also realized there's a total of 83 hours of testimony to highlight the many recurrent themes that were testified to by the public, their experts and Board's experts. We are on now slide number two, for the record.  And I would like to use that testimony and those issues as a springboard to discuss where we disagree with some of what's been said.  And why we feel from a planning perspective that there is substantial merit to this Master Plan Amendment request.  I'm not going to review each and every issue that's on slide two, the matters raised.  But if I focus in on the most commonly cited areas of concern, and I will say that I intend to limit this discussion to eight particular issues, although eight I'm going to combine some of the issues that are on the slide of number two into single categories. But by discussing how they're addressed we can hopefully provide both a focus and a framework for the Board deliberation and hopefully with sufficient clarity for the Board to vote in the affirmative. So I think maybe we should just get to it, going on to slide number three.  The first topic is one that I think has found more common conversation than any other of these during the pendency of this application, that's the issue of size, scale height and intensity of use. 
For those that don't have copies of this PowerPoint in front of them there are a number of page breaks throughout just introducing new topics.  So I'm going to go through, so we do move onto the next slide number four.  Now we have heard a lot about this issue.  And what I have done is taken a number of quotes.  And I could have taken any number of quotes, which I believe exemplify the areas of concern on this matter.  The first comment on slide number four that I've identified regards the issue of the bed count and the rationale for it.  And a number of people have talked about the bed count and why there are 454 beds.  This one bit of testimony by one member of the public at the very last meeting, I think really summarizes it nicely: "I understand there is a need to modernize, but," this person indicated that they didn't understand the need for 454 beds because when Valley says they need this number to accommodate a large elderly population, that seemed to be based on very questionable assumptions.
The second comment was    expressed a similar concern about the sheer size of the application.  And that was that it's simply completely out of proportion with the size of the property and in which Valley is located. This theme was actually refined to a certain degree when the C.R.R. Planner, Mr. Steck, attempted to define those actual characteristics that reflect his perception of the over intensive nature of the proposal when he said that this proposal is more intensive because it's too tall, the buildings are closer the side lot line and the parking garage is also taller. 
We have a number of responses to these comments.  Our response is actually offered within the context of four very specific facts.  They relate to first, the changing demographics of this community and the region at large.  The second is related to the space and concern about the need to encourage a balanced hospital system that adequately serves the area.  Thirdly, it relates to the changes that we've made to the plan to address this issue and how the project size is specifically driven by the value of single room beds and the value of enlarged operating room space.  And then, finally, it relates to the site improvements resulting from the proposal and the benefits that accrue from those improvements. 
First, I simply want to say, quite frankly, I do note that the issue of an increasing elderly population represents a questionable assumption. 
On slide number seven we quote from John Downes, our hospital facilities expert where he said that while Valley service area, overall population is expected to remain static and flat, the age 65 plus cohort is going to grow between the years 2012 and 2017 by nearly 11 percent. Well, simply put, this is only one aspect of this issue of the aging population because the issue of the aging of our population is very real. And turn to slide eight.  I don't want to offend anybody who is aging here because I know none of the Board Members are, but the Baby Boom Generation and that represents those born between 1946 and 1964.  And they've represented the largest age group cohort in this country's history.  And this age cohort is aging at a dramatic rate.  And this does, in fact, have obvious implications to our healthcare system as people live longer than ever before.  And this reflects the fact that in 2011 the first Baby Boomer hit the age 65.  By the end of this year all Baby Boomers will be 50 years age and older.  By the beginning of year 2015, half of all Baby Boomers will be aged 60.  And by 2016 the first Boomer hits age 70. Now the reality is that while some people have testified here and suggested that the elderly are all moving to Florida, the reality is that's not happening.  And that's why we see this significant uptick in the number of age restricted developments in northern New Jersey, that's why we see a significant uptick in the number of congregant care facilities being built in northern New Jersey.  That's also why we see a substantial uptick in the number of assisted living facilities and nursing home facilities throughout northern New Jersey. Now interestingly, the State Department of Health has voiced their position on this issue of bed count that supports these conclusions. If we turn to slide nine    oh, but getting back to slide eight for a moment, we also provide some statistics also indicating the increasing age characteristics of this segment of the population.  Between 2010 and 2020, the age 65 plus cohort is expected to increase by 27 percent.  Between 2020 and 2030 an additional 27 percent increase is going to occur in that same age cohort.  And between 2010 and 2030 when one looks at the 85 and over age cohort, that population cohort is going to increase by fully a third, by 34.3 percent.  By 2030, fully 20 percent of all New Jersey citizens are going to be at least age 65.  And this obviously has implication for our Health Care system in the way we handle treatment for these older residents. But looking on, let me turn to this next slide.  As I started to say, the state Department of Health has voiced their position on this issue of bed count that supports these conclusions.  
In slide nine you can see where in 2013 the Commissioner of the State Department of Health said that even when considering the reopening of Pascack Valley in Westwood: "Any suggestion that any other Bergen  County hospital should eliminate beds solely because of the pending opening of Pascack Valley is not supported by the data... and would clearly upset the balanced hospital system that...” the Commissioner was striving to achieve, which she mentioned when she made her decision.
Now but moving on, looking at the size and scale of the 2013 plan in relation to the 2000 plan, I would    or 2010 plan, I would also say that I do not agree that the reduction in floor space is nominal as so many people have suggested. If we turn to slide ten.  Slide ten identifies the reductions between 2010 and the 2013 Master Plan.  It shows the reduction in floor space as measure by a variety of indices, for example, it shows a 22 percent reduction in floor space excluding rooftop mechanicals.  It shows a 50 percent reduction in below grade hospital space.  It also identifies an 11 percent reduction in rooftop appurtenances and a 41 percent reduction in the number of at grade parking spaces. In addition to that, it also shows a 5 percent reduction in above grade hospital building and atrium space. When I look at these reductions, I believe it’s clear that they are, in fact, substantial. 
And the obvious question is how can I come to that conclusion? Well, there is the Municipal Land Use Law and case law behind that conclusion. First with respect to the Municipal Land Use Law.  When you say legislature decided what overage above a required building height would be so egregious they would mandate the applicant to appear before a Zoning Board with their more onerous statutory burdens and voting procedure they choose a ten percent factor as the critical cutoff point and the critical measure. Secondly, in terms of case law there is case law and it pertains to the issue of res judicata that also informs my conclusion.  Here the Court was asked to decide if the magnitude of a change in building plans was sufficient to allow an applicant to file a new application for development of a site and not be precluded from submission because the plans were similar to a previously denied application.  The lead case, which is the Tenafly case here in Bergen County said that in that matter that the reduction of building coverage from 18 to 12 percent and the 20 percent proposed increase in nonconforming setback was sufficient to conclude that there was sufficient change in the plan to allow the new plan to be heard by the Board. 
MR. DRILL:  For the record that's the Russell versus Tenafly Board of Adjustment case?
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct, yes.
In our case what we find is that six of the seven indices are being reduced by a minimum of 11 percent.  The range of change ranges from 5.3 percent to 50.7 percent.  The overall age is 24 percent, and based on all of that, I conclude that this is consistent with the holding in the Tenafly case and allows for my conclusion. What's interesting, however, is what's actually driving this expansion.  You previously heard a number of the experts talk about the need for single room occupancy and expanded operating room space.  I'm not going to go through all that again in any detail. But if we turn to slide 11, there's some interesting information being presented here regarding the proposed distribution of floor space in contrast to what was previously provided. And this slide just focuses on the change to single rooms and operating space.  And as you can see, fully 62 percent of the proposed floor area's increase is due to going to single bed rooms.  And this results in improved infectious disease rates as you heard others testify. In fact, fully 79 percent of the proposed increase is devoted to patient and operating room space.  And you previously heard from others about the need for this expansion with respect to those two issues. 
Finally, in light of record that this would add to intensity of use, but there's a way to soften the visual impact of the proposed site development I offer slide 12.  This slide depicts what the proposed Master Plan would generate in terms of additional landscape amenities and buffer planning.  As we all heard, upon completion of Phase I, 67 percent of the site would be encompassed by impervious coverage, upon Phase II completion that would be reduced to 64 percent.  The significance is that the end result is 36 percent of the site encompassing 5.5 acres of the slightly less than 15 acre site would become landscape amenity. And because of these setbacks along North Van Dien Avenue and Linwood Avenue where we would now have physical buffers of 100 to 200 feet, we have a substantial area to provide a substantive landscape plan to enhance the aesthetic character of the site. I would suggest that this represents a significant improvement in the site conditions today which only have a nominal landscape feature along the perimeter of the property.
Next, moving on to the second issue and that's a critical area of concern that's shown on the slide before you now and that's the issue of quality of life.  Now, the term quality of life is really a state of art term.  It's admittedly subjective, although I know we all feel very strongly about the philosophy behind it. We've heard a lot of strong opinion from a lot of the residents who have spoken. The Village Master Plan, interestingly enough, doesn't define this term.  But Harvey Moskowitz, one of the most well respected planners of his generation, defined it in his Development Definitions Handbook.  And his definition is set forth in slide 14.  Simply says: "The attributes    that quality of life is: "The attributes or amenities the combine to make an area a desirable place to live". And in his associated commentary he does, in fact, list a number of attributes which I tend to agree with.  And, in fact, from a planning perspective they've been voiced throughout the course of these proceeding, he references the issues of traffic, visual impact, noise attenuation.  There's also the issue of impact of construction vehicles in the neighborhood, which is not mentioned by Mr.    Dr. Moskowitz and, therefore, environmental concerns associated with construction. We already addressed each and every one of these issue in turn.  But if addition to these impacts, I do believe it is imperative to also consider the matter of enhanced healthcare as a quality of life issue. Dr. Moskowitz agrees because in his commentary one of the items he references is the physical health of people. 
Now, in contrast, and if you turn to slide 15, what we have often heard, with an implication that improved healthcare wasn't a part of this discussion.  At best it either the existing conditions could or should remain or only at best there should be a much more modest expansion at the end result of this process. Now there's a couple of responses to that.  One, we have Mr. Evers, one slide 16, identifying the reasons for single bed rooms.  I'm not going to go through the details of what he said, but the highlight of what he said he specifically talked about decrease in infection rates, decreased length of patient stay, increased family participation and care, increased patient control over the environment, enhanced sleep, fewer medication errors, and enhanced patient confidentiality, that all serve as significant benefits to this single bed occupancy. He also pointed out on slide 17 that there is a desperate medical need for infection control.  And he also said, pointed out how some hospital borne infections are so devastating and treatment for them is lacking, that the first    the one thing    excuse me    about infection control that contributes to reduced hospital stays is having single bedded rooms. 
Following him, later on in the course of these proceedings, we heard Mr. May, the Village Architect concur with Mr. Evers.  And, in fact, the two of them concurred that if Valley was going to remain competitive and continue to provide a high level of care as a 450 bed facility, which as you had heard earlier, the Commissioner of Health supported as part of the overall regional healthcare system to adequately address the needs of the service area, this is the amount of space that is necessary for Valley to properly function. Mr. May actually went so far as to say that Valley seems to have done everything it could to reduce the size of the facility and still operate as a 450 bed facility. 
The next issue that I would like to touch upon is traffic.  This issue has also caused a lot of consternation and concern.  A lot has been said about traffic during these proceedings.  And this next comment on slide 19 exemplifies the concern.  Basically it says the street network can't handle the traffic now and it certainly won't be able to handle it during and after this project is completed.  And we've heard variations on that theme many, many times during these proceedings. Well, this simply doesn't jive with the fact and conclusions of the two traffic experts that testified. In slide 20 we have the Valley traffic consultant's conclusion that his analysis indicated that there will be reduction at all peak hours of 430 trips daily resulting from this upgrade. And slide 21, we have the Village Traffic Consultant essentially concurring with Mr. Olivo, the Valley consultant, with the proviso that outpatient services, we discussed, does in fact occur. But to point out while there have been many statements claiming their conclusions are wrong.  There has not been any factual testimony refuting their analysis, their methodology or their conclusions. 
Now, the fourth issue is the issue of project duration.  Now here there are always legitimate    serious legitimate concerns about the duration of any construction project and its associated impact on a community. One resident comment effectively summarized the feelings of many on slide 23: "The proposed hospital expansion will seriously and permanently hurt my family and community both during the construction period  and over the long term after the construction project has been completed". 
Again, when it comes to this issue there are many quotes that I could have chosen.  And simply put, there is no getting around the timetable. As Phil Centineo, our construction manager, indicated on slide 24, he did point out that    this is a six year construction timeframe, however, he did point out that two and a half years of that total will be solely indoor activities where at least the impacts of the development will be less    lessened to a certain degree. His schedule was presented in his testimony and is repeated on slide 25, actually an abbreviated version.  It points out that the initial 14 months will, in fact, be all outdoor activity.  And that's followed by a combination during the next eight months of indoor and outdoor activity.  But this is followed by a little more than two years, 26 months, where there is solely indoor construction activity taking place. And so at the end of the process it culminates, the last six months being solely indoor work. 
Now, I don't mean to minimize the impact of the six year timeframe.  It's a long period of time. 
But when you contrast the needs of the region's healthcare system as exemplified by the comment by the Commission of Health, this is necessary in order to make this happen. Mr. Centineo also presented similar information for Phase II which we've shown on slide 26.  Although, he did point out that it wasn't known when Phase II would actually be implemented. In his testimony he talked about and he highlighted the fact that he and his firm have employees with a range of appropriate professionals to run a job of this scale and have substantial experience of it, they are the ones responsible for preparing and implementing the appropriate safety and related mitigation programs to minimize the impacts to the extent possible. He also worked with others on The Valley team to make certain that happened.  His impact mitigation plan resolves around a number of specific elements that he described in detail.
And I want to focus on two on slide 27.  And I also want to talk about health related issues that were raised during the hearings.  The two issues that relate to Mr. Centineo's testimony regard his plans to address the impact on school children and pedestrian movement and the impact of trucks on the neighborhood. With respect to pedestrian movements, he presented a detailed plan that would assist in directing people to street crossings and controlling student crossings in the area, identified a signage plan to identify the construction zone and the coordination with the school board with respect to early dismissals, half days, holidays, et cetera, to ensure that the Board of Education is fully aware of what's taking place and can respond to what's taking place on the    on the site and on the street. With respect to truck impacts, while we cannot do that much about the number of trucks being generated to and from the site, in an effort to keep the streets clean he identified a variety of methodologies to ensure that the amount of dust, et cetera are kept to a minimum. 
Now, with respect to the issue of the impact on the schools.  Turn to the next page on slide 28; you can actually turn to slide 29.  Aside from the construction, construction affecting the school children, there was also a lot of comment about shadow impacts and about air pollution.  In fact I'm going to address all of these issues during the rest of this presentation. The comments on slide 29, I believe, adequately summarize some of the concerns raised, two pertain to shadows on the BF property and the other pertains to air pollution. Again, in response to those comments that are on slide 29, the fact is that Mr. Evers presented detailed evidence to refute much of this. In the following slides 30 through 38 I presented some, but not all, of his slides which indicate there's only one time of the year and one particular time in the midday that shadows actually impact the area in question. 
Could you start with slide    okay.  Now Mr. Evers identified the impact of shadows in the summer, spring and fall and if we could focus on slide 38 we find that's the only time of year, December, in the winter of the year, that the shadows actually extent on to the ball field of BF and the driveway portion of BF. Slide 38 shows the shadows at 4 p.m. and hear you can see where a good portion of the field is covered at a time when the school is not in session.  It’s very cold, reducing the likelihood of people playing on the ball field. As for the proposed North Building blocking sunlight to melt snow, the shadow studies in his testimony indicated that up until close to 3:00 p.m. when the winter sun would be strongest, no shadows affect this property. This is the winter sun and the winter shadows at noon (indicating).  And the next slide shows it at 4:00 p.m.
Now moving on to the issue of environmental air monitoring, in response to public comment, we turn to slide 39 Shannon Magari our environmental expert testified about how we will monitor air quality to address the concerns about impact on the adjacent school.  She said, as you can see on slide 39, that she stated action levels for each contaminant which if exceeded trigger an action on behalf of the hospital.  As she stated, the action level are set below state and federal standards and if you hit her predefined action levels, that are below, again, state and federal standards the entire job will be shut down.  It's evaluated.  And work doesn't commence again until the work practice is modified. The next slide is slide 40, identifies her placement of air monitoring because there was a question of concern.  She recommends three specific locations for air monitoring. They would be at the point source, at the defined work zone, and then at property lines. Her testimony was that this was the best placement of the air monitoring and control devices because it provides a warning while any contaminant is still on site and allows time for immediate reactions to stop activities if the contaminants don't rise above the applicable standards. You may recall that she was actually asked if it would be appropriate to place additional air monitoring devices on BF ball field.  Her answer was that you could, but it wouldn't serve any purpose because you want to be able the react before it reached somewhere off site of the hospital. 
She also identified the process to put into place    that would be put into place, if contaminants exceeded the applicable standards. And I indicated the action levels for contaminants were lower than the federal and state standards to give added protection and warnings if something was amiss. 
Finally, to complete to issue about the concerns of the project impacts on BF, we do have the testimony of the school board president.  She was pointedly asked, if you could turn to slide 41, whether: "If terms of the sizes of the proposed buildings, in terms of the impact on the space and the air and the ball fields   just the visual impact   does the board have any concerns about that". And her response is an emphatic no. When she was asked: “Do you think that the children of Benjamin Franklin Middle School will have the same learning experience as the children at  George Washington," she had also an emphatic response, and that simply was a yes. Then in response to a question from Mr. Drill, on slide 43, she was asked about the impact of the second floor construction about classrooms that were in that school and she said: "Yes...some of the work was done in the summer.  And then the bulk of it was done during the school year," and extended into the next summer.  In response to a question about the impact of construction on the quality of the children's education she utilized that experience to indicate that quote: "...a very high quality educational experience," was maintained there. And she expected the same here. 
The sixth issue regards the issue of local versus regional implications here.  This issue regards the matter of if only six percent of Ridgewood residents avail themselves of Valley service, why should Ridgewood bear the brunt of providing this regional service. And a number resident have, in fact, commented on this as exemplified on slide 46 where it was specifically suggested that the number of beds at Valley could be reduced because only six percent of the Ridgewood population used Valley. Well, the reality is a much larger percentage of Ridgewood residents use Valley in any single year.  We've reviewed with Valley the number of Ridgewood residents that use this location in any set year, and not just those who had an overnight stay here, which happens to reflect that six percent figure. But, when you count all those who come to Valley having broken bones set, to have an X ray or use their ER, but don't stay overnight the figures present a dramatically different picture of local usage.  And that's reflected on slide 47 because this slide depicts the number of residents who were cared for at Valley in the last    two years ago, 2012. These roughly 6400 people, and there is no double counting in this figure, represents 25 percent of the Village's 25,205 residents. Another interestingly fact is the fact that 71 percent of all Ridgewood residents who are hospitalized anywhere overnight were hospitalized at Valley. Now that 25 percent figures is a far cry from six percent.  But, quite frankly, it doesn't really matter.  And I say this because all municipalities are obligated to recognize that certain uses by their very nature as stated by your own planner serves areas larger than a single municipality. If you thought otherwise it would mean that every municipality would have to have its own hospital, would have to have its own airport, would have to have its own college or university.  Otherwise, for example, the City of Newton    Newark would be telling us that their healthcare was going to be scaled down to only meet the needs of their citizens or Princeton University would be telling us that    the City of Princeton would be telling us that they’re going to see their university reduced in size to meet only Princeton's citizens needs.  But, fortunately, it doesn't work that way. 
Beyond that, slide 48 indicates that the Municipal Land Use Law mandates that municipalities consider regional type uses. For example, in it's opening purpose section it says you can't impose restrictions that conflict with the needs of surrounding municipalities. The second purpose says that it's your obligation to consider the needs of all New Jersey citizens in your planning efforts. And the third purpose says that you should consider ways to coordinate your planning efforts to encourage the most efficient use of land. Having each municipality provide for its own hospital is far from the most efficient use of land in this state. 
And moving onto the last two matters.  One in regards to the ranking of inherently beneficial uses which is the page break on slide 49, moving on to slide 50 this application impacts two inherently beneficial uses.  And the question by a resident at the last public hearing and as noted during my initial testimony I pointed out that the Municipal Land Use Law defined inherently beneficial use as follows: "A use which is universally considered of value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare.  Such a use includes, but is not limited to," and they give a number of examples, "a hospital, school, child care center, group homes", and solar facilities. Now, in the ranking of inherently beneficial uses, which is prescribed by the Sica test in Sica v. Wall Township inherently beneficial uses are to get ranked based upon the magnitude of how compelling is their public purpose.
And I would offer that the public interest in hospitals, simply the saving of lives, it implicates the promotion of the public health and safety in a direct manner that affects each and every one of us and serves the very basic life issue, our health.  As such, hospitals represent the most compelling public interest. 
Public interest in schools is the education of our children, so they could become productive members of our society.  And as such, schools represent the next most compelling public interest.  But it is a step down from saving lives.
Therefore, the issue of what takes precedence when one is dealing with these two inherently beneficial uses is clear.  Hospitals rank above all other inherently beneficial uses and are to be treated accordingly. 
Now, finally, there's been a lot of question about what are the benefits of this hospital expansion to Ridgewood?  That's the page break on 51.  There are a number of people that have questioned what benefit does this proposal pose to the Village.  For example, as noted on slide 52, one citizen asked:
"What specifically will be the good only for Ridgewood?  Not for the community at large," meaning not for the region, "... but specifically for Ridgewood?" Now I believe this does, in fact, deserve an answer because there are a variety of benefits, some direct and some secondary, that should be noted.
For example, moving on to Slide 53, the most obvious benefit resulting from the application is ensuring that Valley continues to provide the highest quality of care for Ridgewood residents, and others, as it has been historically known to do, while continuing to remain competitive with the regional healthcare community. Well, there have been a lot of suggestions that Valley will continue to maintain its high quality of care irrespective of whether they get this approval or not.  The reality is, is that in all likelihood is not the case because in order to remain competitive in the high    and keep the same high standards that it's been known for, they need to constantly enhance their facility. Another benefit is knowing that because Valley is here, doctors want to have their offices here.  And ensure that we all have great and easy access to them. In point of fact, 401 of the 800 doctors with privileges at Valley do, in fact, from offices in Ridgewood.  These doctor offices also generate substantial spillover effects to the Ridgewood community.  From the simply buying of office supplies, using our restaurants, keeping our office buildings occupied and the like. 
Now another issue to consider is the fact that Valley expends approximately $6.3 million on the local community including expenditures to Ridgewood vendors, and such programs as the Ridgewood only events that they provide on other programs at Valley that are open to everyone besides Ridgewood residents, on Their Lives Touch program and on other programs in the region including health education, health fairs, exercise classes, support groups and health screenings. All on these things play a apart in indicating Valley's historic and continued and ongoing support for the Ridgewood community and the region. In addition, something that has not been mentioned is that Valley contributes $1.7 million in property taxes to the Village from some of the properties they own. There are, of course, secondary or spillover jobs in retail trade expenditures associated with the Hospital and with Valley's doctors' offices that are located in Ridgewood. 
And, finally, there is that fact that 25 percent of Ridgewood resident use Valley on a yearly basis. 
And all of this, in addition to the site improvements that I mentioned earlier, would in fact give everybody a broad understanding of Valley's position and broad understanding of the benefits.
And that ends my presentation.  And I thank you for your time.
MR. DRILL:  I have no further witnesses.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Drill.  Thank you. 
Do members of the Board have questions at this time for Mr. Burgis and his testimony? 
Paul, do you want to?  This side?  You want to start this side?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Charles, I have lots of questions and I'm kind of surprised that some of this data that's brought to our attention    some of this is new   
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We can't hear you.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Sorry.  I think some of this is new data.
MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's go through the questions.
MS. PRICE:  It's not new testimony, it's just   
MS. DOCKRAY:  And    and, you know, I'm not that some    you know when I see a lot of data like this, I like to think about it and I'm kind of taken aback that I have been given such little time to do that, to be really honest so...
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  This is his testimony; you have an opportunity to ask him questions with regard to it.  So why don't we begin with Paul.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  And by the time you get down here maybe I'll have   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You might have some time, yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     I’ll be    I'll be in a better place.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure.  Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation, I just have a few sort of scattered questions, I was making notes as we were going through it.  So these are in no particular order. Just on slide 17 you have a quote from Steve Evers in the country there's a desperate need for infection control.  You've heard some of these    you have the quotes there, infections that are hospital borne so devastating that there's no treatment for them.  One thing about infection control that contributes to reduced hospital stays is having private rooms. Is Mr. Evers a medical doctor?  I mean this seems like a strange quote to have from an architect and to highlight.
MR. BURGIS:  I could have used quotes from Dr.    from Mr. Downes as well, he's the hospital facilities planner.  Mr. Evers is not a doctor, but his practice is related solely to hospitals and hospital care.  And I felt that this substantially encapsulated in the position of the hospital for the reason    and the reasons for that facility.
MR. DRILL:  Just for the record   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure.
MR. DRILL:     Mr. Evers' statements were based on the regulations from the FGI which was the group and it was submitted into the record.  And as an expert Mr. Evers is entitled to rely on data to form an opinion.  And Mr. Burgis is entitled to rely on the same data.  He can also rely on other expert opinion unlike a layman.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure.  And let me actually back up a second.  I guess some of my notes that I made during this    and I wasn't planning on asking any questions, I was just sort of planning to listen, it seems like some of the information here, with all due respect, seems somewhat selective.  And I think    and this is just in one second example because while Mr. Evers    and I don't recall the testimony, might have been referring to someone else's expert    you know, expertise in this area, he's an architect.  And you highlight this one quote, and it seems like a very compelling quote, but he's an architect not a medical doctor.
MR. DRILL:  Again, through the record, we went through extensive testimony on this point.  This is April 2nd, 2013 transcript at page 81.  I mean just to keep this as short as possible   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:     he took out one representative quote.  If you want I can start reading his testimony into the record and he testified extensively on this.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  I think that    and I provided the Board Members with summaries of all the transcripts so they'll be able to go back and, you know, review all   
MR. DRILL:  I just took a quick look at them several   
MS. PRICE:     the experts' testimonies.
MR. BURGIS:  Okay.  Mayor, I understood that I had a limited amount of time, so I couldn't quote as extensively as I would have otherwise liked from not only Mr. Evers, but Mr. Downes as well and then from the documents that Mr. Evers is relying upon.
But this is supposed to be a, you know, a rebuttal only not to reopen the entire testimony.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  And I appreciate that.  I was trying to listen to it in that spirit. 
But I can't help but sort of reopen some of these discussions we've had.
For instance, slide 9, of course, the now oft quoted comments from the Commissioner of Department of Health concerning the need for beds. Again, this is in itself a compelling quote, but it was used to discuss another compelling quote from the head of the Hospital that we had discussed that there was too many beds in Bergen County.
MR. BURGIS:  Well, actually, if you want me to quote only from the Commissioner, she's in that    in a previous letter predating that letter that I quoted from, she specifically had pointed out that there that Valley had used earlier data and that was superseded by more recent information.  And that was the most compelling information and appropriate information to use to inform her decision. I mean it relied on that data which was initially relied upon by Valley which was in the year 2000 and 2006. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  But it was in a letter dated 2012, right, or I don't remember the letter now from    from Audrey Meyers.
MR. BURGIS:  No, it was earlier    it was earlier than that, but her letter from 2012 and 2013 maintained a position that maintained Valley's 450 bed hospital was the appropriate number to ensure that regional healthcare system was functioning appropriately.
MR. DRILL:  And I think you'll recall when we had a back and forth on the issue.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I remember.
MR. DRILL:  I had explained that Valley's position from that litigation was based on valid data from 2006.  By the time it got all the way up to the Commissioner there was new data. So even though their positions seemed inconsistent, when the new data came out, their position changed.  And that's what the new data submitted was stating and that's when    when Mr. Burgis was referring to Commissioner O'Dowd's prior letter, that was the letter issuing the certificate of need to reopen that hospital. 
And we had this discussion back then; again, it's all in the transcript.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure, I know.  I'm in the process of reviewing all the transcripts again.
MR. DRILL:  It's two different sets of data, one that led the Hospital to take a certain position and when the data changed Commissioner O'Dowd specifically said when she issued the certificate of she relied on later data.  Then she submitted this letter, apparently, just to clarify for the Board so they would understand.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure and I am going    we're all reviewing the transcripts, and I appreciate that. 
One of the things I do remember, and I'll go back to clarify this, was that with respect to Audrey Meyers letter it was suggested that she was talking about another part of Bergen County, that she wasn't talking about our area.  And I thought that was    that was sort of the rationalization.
MR. DRILL:  Whatever, again, I didn't go   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Okay.  I'm going to go back I'll look.
MR. DRILL:  I didn't look at that part before tonight, I knew this one would be an issue so I looked at that part.  But whatever it says in those transcripts it says.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  And, again, I really don't mean to nitpick.  My    my thinking going into this evening was I just going to sort of take it in, but as you can appreciate the Board here has been hearing a lot of information, sometimes it seems conflicting information and so sometimes what    at least from my perspective, when I see just selective quotes and selective things taken out, I'm wondering like what    where's the other side to this where it seems like it’s    it's sort of purposely being left out of this discussion.
MR. BURGIS:  Mayor, in my reading of all the background information and my reading of the transcripts, on this one particular issue I thought it was very straight forward. Now the Commissioner of the Department of Health is in a very defined position indicating that it is appropriate to have Valley at a 450 bed facility irrespective of Pascack Valley's reopening.  And that's a very straight forward comment.  And if you    when you go through the transcripts and if you also go through some of the background information you'll see how the Commissioner came to that conclusion, even if it was, you're suggesting, was a reversal of prior   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  And just with respect to the issue of number of beds, and I don't think it necessarily goes to this, and maybe I shouldn't ask it, but just for point of clarification because we're talking about a nearly doubling the size   
MR. BURGIS:  Yes.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:     of the overall size of the Hospital.  And it had suggested that one of the compelling reasons, the rationales for that is and need to go from double beds to single beds.
MR. BURGIS:  Yes.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  But, correct me if I'm wrong over a third of the beds at Valley Hospital are already in single room; is that... 
MR. BURGIS:  It's somewhat less than that, but there are    there are   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I thought it was Mr. Evers' testimony that it was about 37, 38 percent.
MR. DRILL:  Put it this way, again, whatever the transcripts say    let's assume for argument's sake   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:     that your figure is correct.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  We'll go back   
MR. DRILL:  Assume for argument's sake   
MR. BURGIS:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:     the Mayor's figure of 37 percent is correct.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  And I just wanted a clarification, I wasn't making a point in that because I think the assumption is if we're going to    you know we need to go from double rooms to single rooms so it almost suggests a doubling in the size of the Hospital. 
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  No, no. 
MR. BURGIS:  Let me bring you back to Mr. Evers' testimony   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure.
MR. BURGIS:     because while he talked at length about infection, infectious disease rates declined by virtue of going to all single beds occupancy he also took great pains, the identify the fact that at present all of the rooms at Valley are constrained in terms of size.  If you recall in his presentation he identified to fact that when one wants to move one patient out of a room, they have to move the other patient first, just to get out the door.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  In the double rooms not in the single rooms.
MR. BURGIS:  In double    double rooms   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:     obviously.  And that is the overwhelming majority of the rooms, that's a huge inconvenience   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure.
MR. BURGIS:     it's a huge inconvenience not only for the patients, but for any family members visiting, beyond which there's not much room at present for families to   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Right.  I'm sure we've all experienced that.
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, everybody in this room has had that experience   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I was just looking for clarification   
MR. BURGIS:     but he's not only addressing the issue of infectious disease rate reduction, he's also addressing the issue of the inappropriateness of the size and scale of the rooms themselves.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure.
MR. BURGIS:  And beyond which he also did point out and it's a known fact that having the ability the allow patients' families to stay in the rooms, also tends to help patients get better quicker   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:     and that was all part of his presentation.  And it went on for a long time.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  A long time.
MR. BURGIS:  Right.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Yeah.  My last    my last point of clarification with respect to the presentation on    let me get my glasses. On slide 11, talking about the proposed distribution of floor space, and you talk about 60 percent    62 percent of the proposed increase is devoted, is this 62 percent, when you're talking about the increase, you're talking about what exists today? 
MR. BURGIS:  In comparison to what existing today. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  And the reason I got confused on that is because one slide earlier you're not comparing the proposed 2013 plan to what exists today, you're comparing it to 2010, what was adopted. And this goes to an issue that I and I think other have raised throughout this that sometimes it seems, you know, and I apologize, it sometimes seems like it's convenient to compare 2013 to 201o and other times it's comparing 2013 to existing.  And I know for all along have asked repeatedly throughout this if we could stay consistent maybe we can look at existing, 2010, 2013.  But here it's    on back to back slides you're doing two different comparison.
MR. DRILL:  The 2010 plan allows more than what the Hospital is applying for in the 2013 plan.  The whole reason we got into this was   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Which slide are you talking about?  I'm sorry? 
MR. DRILL:  No, I'm saying the 2010    if you take a look at slide 11   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Uh huh.
MS. PETERS:  Slide 10 and 11.
MR. DRILL:  If you look at the 2010 plan, there's more square footage in it. This remains the same.  The only reason that we got into this whole issue that's on slide 11 during the merits of the case is because a couple of the Board Members, including yourself, wanted to know why    what's the big deal about the single bedded rooms. We got into that whole issue, in fact if you recall I was not planning on calling Mr. Downes as an expert.  We brought him in to address that issue.  So there's    you can't compare this to 2010 because 2010 there's even more space.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  No, I appreciate that.  I think I've made that    maybe I wasn't clear. 
So 2010 I mean in 11    slide 11 that's useful.  2010    I mean excuse me the slide ten, on the changes between 2010/2013 it would help me if I had what exists right now. 
MR. DRILL:  You do have that.
MR. BURGIS:  You do have that.  We    I presented that   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  But I don't have it here   
MR. DRILL:  That's correct.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:     in this latest presentation.
MS. PRICE:  Well, can I answer that question, Mayor? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Gail.
MS. PRICE:  Let me, I'm going to try to bring this all together because   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you raise the mike.
MS. PRICE:     I am just not on. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  There you go.
MS. PRICE:  Now I'm on.  And I think from Wendy's question and some of the questions that you're asking and I don't know if this is the answer, but I'm going to try to short circuit this, one reason because my hip is throbbing and I have to stand up in a minute.  But I think, although I think it was very long winded, I must say, Blais asked for a response. And, Blais, I love you, but Blais wanted to hear what the benefits and detriments were in rebuttal in response to his last report.  He wanted to understand as the planner because the last document the Board has before it is Blais' revised Amendment.  And it was Blais' thought that he did not fully understand or fully get from the Applicant, closure; let's use that word, closure on the benefits and detriments per se on the 2010 Amendment versus the proposed Amendment.  So he asked for clarification on that, together with some other issues, and those other issues are addressed in the letter which was marked as an exhibit.  But Mr. Burgis' testimony, as I understand it, was addressing Blais' in a battle of the planner, in terms of length of verbiage, request. 
So I think, and tell me if I'm wrong, but   
MR. DRILL:  No, you're absolutely right.  We just think we were more direct than Blais, that's all.
MS. PRICE:  Oh, I don't know about it tonight, let me tell. I think what they were trying to do is respond to that and they're entitled on rebuttal to try to make their case however they want to make it.  It's up to the Board to say, "I believe you", "I don't believe you".  And that's what you're going to do next week.  You're going to say, "Mr. Burgis, I don't believe a word you said", or "Mr. Burgis, I think you're right". 
You know and after we go through all of the instructions and you know the    how you apply the burden of proof we'll    you know, the Board will more fully understand that.  But I think that's what the applicant is trying to do.  And I hope they're close to being done with that. 
MR. DRILL:  We're done. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure, I appreciate that.  But   
MR. DRILL:  We're finished   
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:     we're just answering questions.  We're finished with direct.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  But I just wanted you to understand and the rest of the Board what they were doing.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  And I appreciate that.  And if that's the case that could be useful perhaps, but this is under a section called "size, scale, height and intensity of use," and it's followed by a bunch of resident comments.  And so it doesn't look like it's responding to Blais.  It looks like it's responding to the residents. And then in that context it seems very selective because it doesn't talk about what exists today.  And so the numbers in that last column would be very different if we compared 2013 proposed to what exists today. 
MR. BURGIS:  Right.  But, Mayor, I previously gave that information to you.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I know but I'm talking about your presentation this evening.
MR. BURGIS:  Okay.  But the purpose of this evening's presentation was just to rebut those issues that we felt   
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BURGIS:     were rebuttable. There are certain issues that I didn't touch upon because, you know, there was no need to.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Okay.  
MR. DRILL:  I think out it this was we    the Hospital believes that the relevant comparison is to between 2010, because that Master Plan is in full force and effect, although we agreed not to do anything about it during the pendency of this proceeding, and the proposed 2013 plan. The Hospital doesn't believe that a comparison between now and 2013 is relevant.  We've submitted it because you asked for it, but if we don't think it's relevant then on rebuttal we're not going to bring it up because we're not going    because that's what we think relevant, that's basically the essence of it. 
MR. BURGIS:  And beyond that, Mayor, when it comes to this change in floor space, if we were comparing ourselves to 2010 there would be nothing to compare because we would simply say we were allowed more in 2010. And the discussion was the room sizes, you know, the amount of floor space   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  But that seems to be    again, I don't want to belabor the point, this is my last and then I'll    I'll cede the floor   
MR. DRILL:  Yeah, I think   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:     but just on that, you're comparing 2013 to 2010 because it looks favorable.  It looks like there was a   
MR. BURGIS:  Well   
MR. DRILL:  Actually we believe it is favorable.
MR. BURGIS:  It is.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I know, I know, but that's not want he's saying   
MR. BURGIS:  It is very favorable.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I understand but   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yeah, so   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I know that's not what you're saying, again, I    I appreciate    I do appreciate your testimony.  I just think the way this is being presented tonight is somewhat disingenuous because it seems very selective. 
MR. BURGIS:  Well, okay, this was   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Well, Paul   
MR. BURGIS:     this was designed to   
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BURGIS:     to rebut some of the issues that have been raised during the course of 25 other hearings.
MR. DRILL:  For the record, we don't think its disingenuous.  We think we presented the relevant   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. DRILL:     data.  You might disagree   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes. 
MR. DRILL:     and you might vote differently and state your reasons    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And let's move on now   
MR. DRILL:     there's nothing we could do.  We don't agree with    with the underlying   
MR. BURGIS:  Premise.
MR. DRILL:     correction of the    of your position on that.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's    yea, let's move on.  And I think it's important to also note Gail's comment.  We can interpret this information as we see fit as we review the material and out notes. 
So, Paul, I think if you have issues go through that as part of your   
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I understand it.  But I thought the point of this was for me to ask questions and get clarifications and that was   
MS. PRICE:  It is.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:     exactly what I was trying to do.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, absolutely.  No disagreement. 
MS. PRICE:  It is.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Just trying to move on. Mayor, do you have any more questions?
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  I have some more on that.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Do you have other questions other than that?  
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Nancy? 
MS. BIGOS:  No questions, Chairman.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay. Richard?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Let's see on slide 47, where'd those numbers come from for the utilization? 
MR. BURGIS:  Slide 47 is from the public information, provides the information indicating that 25 percent of individual Ridgewood residents have been cared for at Valley in 2012 and 71 percent of any Ridgewood resident having any overnight hospital stay, anywhere.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Is that self compiled by the Hospital or is it    
MR. BURGIS:  It's self compiled by the Hospital and...
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And with respect to number 54   
MR. BURGIS:  Pardon? 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Slide 54 was the reference to expenditures and the taxes where are those numbers from the   
MR. BURGIS:  That also came from Valley. 
MR. DRILL:  We have    there's a stack of data that we have that's about an inch and a half thick and we had it purged just in case anyone wanted to ask, we took all of the Social Security numbers out of it and all of the personal information.  And if you wanted to see the underlying data on which this is based we could submit it as an exhibit. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No, I just seeing what the basis was   
MR. BURGIS:  It's more like four inches thick.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah.  No, I have no interest in doing that but I was just seeing how it was complied because, you know, that's relevant.
MR. DRILL:  And, again, you know just for the record let me just ask Mr. Burgis, are the facts and data that you relied upon in coming to this conclusion in testifying as you did with respect to slide number 47, is that the type of data that is reasonably relied upon by experts in the planning field? 
MR. BURGIS:  All the time, yes.
MR. DRILL:  Have you relied on this sort of data in prior occasions in forming your opinions and testifying to either boards or other clients.
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, certainly. 
MR. DRILL:  And are you aware of any other planners who have relied on data such as that to from their opinions?
MR. BURGIS:  All planners rely on planning information.
MR. DRILL:  The only reason I ask this question is because he's an expert   
MS. PRICE:  That's okay.  That's okay. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  On slide 54 the 6.13 million was that self compiled too? 
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, it was.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And for the 1.7 you said that was property taxes, do you know what    the properties that's paid on?  
MR. BURGIS:  I can give you the block and lot numbers.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right.
MR. BURGIS:  I don't have that information with me, but we can   
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  That's for physician offices that aren't part of the Hospital proper or    
MR. BURGIS:  I'm sorry.
MR. DRILL:  He wants to know if those are physician offices or if there are other services of the Hospital.
MR. BURGIS:  All of that and more, whatever they own.  That they're not yet    they're not paying taxes on.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  But that's not like the    the Hospital, itself, doesn't pay any taxes? 
MR. BURGIS:  Not on the Hospital 14 plus acres, right.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:  We'll give you, if you want, we can submit that the Hospital doesn't pay taxes on this particular site, the Hospital pays taxes on its other properties.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:  We could give you a list of all those properties.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right.  Well, I just wanted to gather and have some insight on what's generating the property taxes on it.
MR. DRILL:  And just for the record, those property don't necessarily have to pay taxes.  The Hospital has not sought tax exemption for them, just want to make that clear for the record, if the Hospital wants to seek tax exemption for them at least on some of them, maybe    I don't know how many of them the Hospital could, but they haven't.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right.  And with respect to slide 50, I guess inherently beneficial use, I guess it's our task to kind of balance what the breaking point is, would you    would that be fair to say?  It's not like a free pass if something's inherently beneficial, we still have to do the balancing for it.
MR. BURGIS:  Well, now I was here when Blais went through his balancing test.  That's a use variance test. I understand that it could help you inform your decision to a degree but it's not the test per se that I believe you should be following in a Master Plan Amendment.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  What's the test we should follow? 
MR. BURGIS:  It's as set forth in section 40:55D 28(a) where it talks about promoting the general welfare.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  So but something that promotes the general welfare, just because it does that, does not mean it's automatically granted.
MR. BURGIS:  I would agree with that.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  All right.
MR. BURGIS:  But I think the question was relating to when you're balancing the issues of two different inherently beneficial uses, you know, one    there was a suggestion that one takes precedence over the other.  And when you go back to the Sica inherently beneficial    the lead inherently beneficial use case, it specifically says you must grant these uses.  And in terms of the ranking and the issue always is what's the most compelling of inherently beneficial uses. And what I suggested was that in terms of saving lives I would say a hospital is the most compelling of all inherently beneficial uses. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  Schools aren't far behind, I'd rank them as number two, but they're not number one.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  No further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Richard. I have one follow on question which I'll take this moment to   
MR. REILLY:  You're the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     I'm also wary of statistics and how they're used.  And I just wanted a point or clarification. In slide number 47 where you represent 6,395, 25.4 percent of individual residents are those individual visits or are those individuals, separate people who've attended the Hospital.
MR. BURGIS:  Individual    that's why I used the word "individual."
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yeah.
MR. BURGIS:  There is no    and that's what I said, there is no double counting in this.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  So it's   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So there's no double counting? 
MR. BURGIS:  Correct.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you for that clarification. Kevin?
MR. REILLY:  Those were both points that I    I thought were unclear, both the taxes and what seemed to be like Ridgewood was storming the doors of Valley every year to be treated, again glad those cleared up. I'll just go with an observation here, selective of course in the quotes you're selecting from the residents.  I    I just received this a short time ago so I have to go back and review for the Concerned Residents case because you're rebutting their case, but I notice that you spend valuable space open the issue of shadows on the BF driveway.  I don't recall that being a particularly significant point.  It came up, but to me it's not a particularly significant point whether it's ten feet or 20 feet as I see    I see your diagrams here. But one thing that has caught my attention all along, let's see where I marked it, and I think it's    it's important, on slide 19 you're quoting a resident talking about traffic and ten years of construction.  Well, maybe it's going to be six years of construction, but there's going to be a lot of construction, I realize it's phased, but again a lot of construction.  I see that you differentiate between the interior and the outside construction, I can understand the difference, it doesn't mean inside construction is impact free.  You're still going to have the truck coming and going, but you're responding to the question of traffic with the number of trips, I guess employee trips they're going to be reduced but there's another major component to traffic and that's the trucks coming and going. And I remember the numbers were enormous on a daily basis.  And, again, I know it's not 365 days of the year.  It's phased.  But it is over a very considerable period of time.  We've got a lot of truck traffic.  And there was a lot of discussion, not so much on rebuttal, but I remember a lot of discussion on the    that the routes that the trucks would be taking and you had dust issues.  You had particulate issues.  You had all sorts of issues coming up.  And you addressed the reduction in    the proposed reduction in employee trips, certainly a valid issue. What about the truck traffic though?  That's traffic. 
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, there's no getting    as I said in my testimony, there's no getting around the fact that, you know, construction does, in fact, have an impact. If you recall from my original testimony, I addressed that point to the extent that we looked for the truck route that would have the least impact on residents.  And we have a truck route, if I recall correctly and I believe I am, that will pass fewer than 60 dwellings or 50 dwellings on their route to Route 17    on their route to Route 17. We looked at a number of other alternative routes, none resulted in having as few a number of dwellings as that. 
MR. REILLY:  I remember your testimony and I remember the different routes that were discussed.  And it's a way to mitigate what's a definite impact.  It's not eliminating it, it's mitigating it.  It's still cumulatively an impact, though. 
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, I'll    and I'm not    I don't think anybody here is saying that's not the case. 
Now this is a large development.  And it will generate trucks.  You know we look at the end result as a substantial benefit to the community and to the region, in terms of enhanced healthcare because all that you've heard has indicated that in order to maintain the high quality standards that Valley has become known for, there is a need to improve those rooms, improve operating rooms and all the other things that you've heard discussed.
MR. REILLY:  Okay.  Thank you.  No more. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thanks, Kevin.  Michele? 
MR. REILLY:  You're on.
MS. PETERS:  Wendy? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You want to go last? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  No, no, no, no, no, actually   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All right.  Go ahead, Wendy. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Actually Mayor Aronsohn stole my thunder.  I had the same questions.  I was very confused about why you were seeing a comparison between the 2013 and 2010 plans in some places and in other places we were comparing the 2013 plan with what's existing now.  I think it goes back and forth, back and forth through the whole document.  So I was confused as well. I do have one question in that regard on slide 20, I don't know if you know the answer to this, but you said on a daily basis there would be a reduction of 430 trips. And I need to know is that comparing the 2013 to the 2010 Amendment?  Or is it comparing to 2013 to what exists now? 
MR. BURGIS:  No, that's comparing it to the 2010.  And I would also point out that if you go through these slides you will find that    I think that only that one slide is making that comparison to the existing conditions.  And that's because that is the only relevant comparison in that one issue.  It doesn't make sense to make a comparison to 2010 because there is no comparison because in 2010 you allowed even more floor space. 
MR. DRILL:  I mean just, again, on this whole traffic thing, it's because of the Hospital's proposal to take the highest traffic generation outpatient services away from the Hospital.  That's what results in that 430 trip reduction. On a separate, but some might say related issue, the number of parking spaces, this chart accurately reflects the difference 2,000 parking spaces allows with the 2010 Master Plan Amendment and 1700 now, but that figure, again, is less than existing, but we don't think that the existing comparison is relevant.  So we didn't put it in there. As Mr. Burgis said there was one area where we could make that comparison because there's nothing else to compare it to.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  I think in fairness to the residents, some of their comments were with respect to taking the 2013 and then comparing it to what is happening now and what's here now.  And then   
MR. DRILL:  We understand that, that's their argument and our position is   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let her    let her finish. 
MR. DRILL:  Okay.
MS. DOCKRAY:  All right.  No, I'm just saying.
MR. DRILL:  We understand.
MS. DOCKRAY:  You know they have that concern too.
MR. DRILL:  Right.  We believe that that's not an issue that is properly he before you. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay. 
MR. DRILL:  We believe that the issue is the 2010 to 2013.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  I guess    I get where you're going. All right.  I just have one other question, Mr. Burgis you talked about the uptick of assisted living and nursing home facilities in the area as being evidence of the aging of the population.  Isn't it true it's also evidence of the fact that hospital stays are getting shorter and those patients are being discharged to nursing homes and assisted living facilities which are less expensive than hospitals? 
MR. BURGIS:  I'm not   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Isn't that a part of the trend.  I'm not saying it's all the trend    
MR. BURGIS:  Yeah.
MS. DOCKRAY:     isn't that part of the trend? 
MR. BURGIS:  I'm not sure how much that would be reflective of the nursing home construction, which is a small part of the assisted living, the over age 55 constructions, and congregant care facilities in general. I mean there is a lot that has been happening throughout northern New Jersey over the past five to seven years.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Wendy.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I'm done.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Michele? 
MS. PETERS:  Yes, a rare moment when I feel I've been voiced already by the other members that are here. But I do view this as a rebuttal.  And I see it as strictly that.  And I have very much in mind, all the testimony that's been given. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Michele. I have a general question as it relates to Wendy's question about the use of the Baby Boom data, is that generally true in other regions besides Bergen County, that there is a correlation of healthcare needs and hospital facility requirements to the fact that there are more of us in that generation consuming those service?  Are other hospitals planning the same way?  Are other regions planning the same way? And if you're able to answer the question, is it true in other parts of the country.
MR. BURGIS:  My practice is concentrated in the New York Metropolitan area and while I can talk a very little bit about other areas we go to national conference and the like, I'm not sure how definitive that would be. 
MR. DRILL:  Why don't you state, for the record, where do you get, what data source do you get the information you put on slide eight?
MR. BURGIS:  Well, slide eight data comes from various New Jersey Department of Health, Office of Aging and the like.  That's where all that information comes from.
For example, some of the data comes from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Work Force Development, there's projection of New Jersey population and labor force by the New Jersey Labor Market View which is a standard planning publication that's used.  That's where most of that information. But the question related to around the rest of the country, I assumed. 
MR. DRILL:  For the record those data sources are also reasonably relied upon experts in the planning field.
MR. BURGIS:  Oh, certainly.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Are they, if you're able to answer this question, are those figures used by the business interests of any hospital in terms of their resource planning or are they specifically used in this case, you know, for your analysis?
MR. BURGIS:  No, this is more of a planning tool.  Recognizing the changing demographics, I am certain for hospital planning, Mr. Downes uses such information.  He touched upon some of these kinds of statistics when he testified.  So it is used. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Burgis. Any follow on questions from the Board before we move on to professionals? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No?  Okay. Chris is not here. Gail, do you have any? 
MS. PRICE:  No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Blais?  
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Excuse me, I got it cranked here. 
Page five, slide ten, the comparison between the two plans, my figures have a few discrepancies from them, I don't think this change the overall conclusions, but I just    because they do effect the content of the plan I wanted to go through the differences between what you show and what the plan shows. 
First of all the total hospital floor area excluding rooftop mechanicals, the 2013 plan you have as 910,000, I have in the plan as 900,000, 10,000 square foot difference. And I'll just go through all of them because I think they all have to do with this 10,000 square foot figure. 
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The above grade hospital buildings and atrium you have as 695,000 in the proposed plan, we have 685 in the proposed plan. 
MR. DRILL:  Can I just, that 10,000, just right there you got it.  One goes up and one goes down.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Right.
MR. DRILL:  That 10,000   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  In the rooftop would go up by the 10,000.
MR. DRILL:  Right.
MR. BURGIS:  That's correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That's the reason for that difference.
MR. DRILL:  That's right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That's correct.
MS. PRICE:  I thought that that was corrected on the record. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm sorry.  
MS. PRICE:  I thought that that was corrected on one of the previous records.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes, it was but it was never corrected in this    
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It probably didn't get corrected on this.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:  It was corrected but never made it on here.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
Lastly on the number of surface level    not lastly, but on the table the number of surface level parking spaces, and the comparison.  I looked in both plans and I couldn't find any figures of surface level parking in either plan. So I'm asking is this what the hospital was computing internally as what that would be versus    because I don't see anything in the plan itself that deal will the non surface level parking, only coverage.  We talked about total parking on site and we talk about be impervious coverage, but there's nothing in the plan that talks about number of spaces   
MR. DRILL:  I believe there is a document that we've submitted which answers that question maybe we can just for now go to the next question   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right.
MR. DRILL:  Let me see if I can find that document.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right.  The    the    the largest question that I have relates to items one and two in my March 31st report.  And it had to do with at which phase of development these figures are representative?  Is this at the completion of Phase II?  At the completion of Phase I?  Is it some from each?  What    what does this reflect and in both plans? 
MR. BURGIS:  In many instances it's Phase I.  In some instances it is Phase II.  It varies depending on the scale, for example, if we look at the amount of landscape amenities, in the Phase I there's a 67 percent impervious coverage factor.  At Phase II it drops down to 64 percent, just to cite one example.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  In 2010 or for today?
MS. PRICE:  2010 or 2013?
MR. BURGIS:  2000   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Because the 2013 plan the   
MR. BURGIS:  Those figures re the 2013 plan.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  2013 plan says 70 percent and whereas in   
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     in 2010 it was 60. 
MR. BURGIS:  You're talking    you're speaking of the ordinance requirement, if you recall.
What I'm speaking to is the design, the actual design as presented by Mr. Evers. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I'm comparing the plans, and that's    I guess if we're going to be doing a comparison, I think A, one, needs to be an apples to apples comparison.  I need to know that that the columns being compared are both referring to the same phase of construction.  And then, secondly, because Phase II is out there and may never happen and that's, you know, on the record that it's something that while it's planned it's recognized that it may not happen.  And, so, I think Phase I should be certainly called out.  If we're going to be comparing Phase I under the original and Phase I under the proposed because if Phase II never happens then the comparison is sort of...
MR. BURGIS:  Right.  And that's why in many   
MR. BRANCHEAU:     not there.
MR. BURGIS:     of these instances we talked about Phase I. If you would look I can get you a letter this week detailing that.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes, I think that would be helpful. That's all that I have.
MR. DRILL:  Blais, to answer your other question, when I submitted my March 6, 2014 letter which formally revised the Hospital's application to incorporate the Master Plan Amendment that you had prepared dated February 28, 2014, I also submitted to you and to the Board office, as part of the record, a February 27, 2014 memo responding to questions. So those parking questions were on the memo, there's a colored chart, so we're not going to be able to do it now but I'll have    we'll check and if those numbers are wrong we will correct them based on this chart which we know is correct.
MS. PRICE:  But for Blais   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It's not in the plan, is my point.
MS. PRICE:  But for Blais' purpose the information should be on February 27th memo? 
MR. DRILL:  Yes, for your information it's part of the record, on the February 27th, 2014   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So let's leave it.
MR. DRILL:      you said it's not part of this plan, there is no site plan.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  No, I mean it's not part of the Master Plan.
MS. PRICE:  What is? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The number of surface parking spaces.
MR. DRILL:  It wouldn't be.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Is not a policy in the plan. 
MS. PRICE:  It's just a total number. 
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Pardon?
MS. PRICE:  It was just a total number of parking. 
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, there's a total of 1700.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The total number is the only thing   
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     that's in the plan.
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BURGIS:  Exactly. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  What   
MR. BURGIS:  The point is what I was trying to point out that by virtue of this redesign we have, in fact, reduced the number of on site spaces which allows us to increase the amount of landscape amenity on the property.  And I thought that, from a planning perspective, was an important distinction.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  And I guess    and I hear what you're saying.  I mean the table was titled "changes between 2010 and 2013 plans", so I was looking at the plans.  And I wasn't seeing number of parking spaces.
MR. BURGIS:  If you look at that February correspondence   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I know it's    that's why I asked whether this is a hospital calculation, not a plan policy that    that was recommended.
MR. BURGIS:  To allay your concerns, this week I will get you a letter detailing all this and where it comes from.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right.  And    and the other thing is, I'm seeing a reduction of 217 surface parking spaces and yet at the same time the improvement coverage between the two plans has gone up.  And I'm not sure of the reason for that.  There may be other factors involved in that, and I think that was in my March 31st report as well, that I still have some confusion as to whether there's an apples and apples comparison going on.
MR. DRILL:  All those questions were asked and answered   
MS. PRICE:  Are in the record.
MR. DRILL:     in this memo dated February 27, 2014. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I'll check that memo again.  But, again, this was in my March 31st, report which was after that.  So I'm   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     I'm just saying if we're going to be comparing plans and showing how this is an improvement on that plan I think, you know, some of the item are still unclear, to me anyway. 
MR. BURGIS:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:  Which specific items are unclear to you?  I want to   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  What the numbers are at each phase.  In other words, are we comparing Phase I with Phase I or are we comparing Phase I with Phase II?  Are we comparing two Phase II plans with Phase II a    I don't say conjectural, but an uncertain event? And I think we should be comparing, you know, the immediate development which is Phase I.  At the very least    I think we should also compare Phase II, don't get me wrong, but I think we should have a Phase I comparison because if Phase II never happens, Phase II comparisons are meaningless. And then the reduction in surface parking, I understand and I think we've asked in the plan for a 300 square foot total reduction on site, and I understand some of that is below grade, not reflected in the surface figures, but the question remains about the improvement coverage in between the two plans.  It's actually gone up.  These    this would lead one to believe that it would go down because of the loss of 200 plus surface parking spaces.  And yet the percentage of improvement coverage has gone up in the plan.
So I'm unclear as to the precise reasons for that and which phase we're talking about in    in the these figures. 
MR. DRILL:  I understand the information you want, I believe most, if not all, is answered in that February 27th, memo.  At the break we can take a look at it, if you still a questions they're not answered in this memo we will submit answers.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Blais, are those all of the question? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Great.  So maybe you can review those with Mr. Drill during the break.  We're going to take a short break now and then conclude your observation afterwards.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a ten minute break.  We'll resume at 20 minutes to ten, at which time, at which time we'll allow cross exam from Mr. Kates representing C.R.R. and then we'll open to public questions for Mr. Burgis' testimony. 
We'll see you again at 20 minutes to ten. 
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's start.  Okay.  Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to resume our meeting, would you mind, please take your seats.  Thank you.
Jane, roll call, please? 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mayor Aronsohn?
(NO RESPONSE.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Bigos? 
MR. BIGOS:  Here. 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Joel?
MS. BIGOS:  Can't hear you, Jane.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Start from the beginning. 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mayor Aronsohn? 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Bigos? 
MR. BIGOS:  Here. 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY:  Here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY:  I'm here.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Peters?
MS. PETERS:  Here.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Jane.
Blais, are you good with Mr. Drill?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Uhmmm.
MR. DRILL:  He's good to the extent that    we are going to revise that chart to correct any errors that he already pointed out the 10,000 square foot error, the parking figure error.  We're going to revise that. 
And he asked for some additional information about the breakdown of other things between    other than parking between Phase I and Phase II.  And we're going to submit it. 
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:  Correct? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Correct.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais.
MS. PRICE:  Just for the record, can I just confirm that it's non substantive issues in terms of just additional data that you're looking for? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It doesn't affect the word or the language in the plan. 
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Assuming, again, that 10,000 is corrected.
MS. PRICE:  Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Kates, do you have any questions for tonight's witness? 
MR. KATES:  No.  We are satisfied with the Board's interrogation. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Kates. Okay, at this time I'd like to ask members of the public    how many of you have questions for tonight's testimony? Okay, great.  Again your questions need to be specific to his testimony tonight and not historical.  So anything within the presentation or that was stated this evening. Please state your name, spell your name, provide your address.  And if you could ask three questions first and if you can ask all three in sequence, that would be easier.
MR. VOIGT:  Sure, is this on? Jeffrey Voigt, J e f f r e y V o i g t, 99 Glenwood Road, Ridgewood. 
One of the reasons for the single bed rooms, I'm not sure this isn't in the past, but if one of the reasons for the single bed rooms is to help decrease infection, is that    is that correct?  And that's the main reason for    for doing so? 
MR. BURGIS:  That is one of the reasons. 
MR. VOIGT:  Is it the main reason?
MR. BURGIS:  Is this on?  Can you hear me? 
It's not the only reason.  If you're going to rank them, I guess one would say that    that it is the first reason, but equally important is the issue of inadequate size of rooms. If you've been to Valley in those rooms, you know, they need a significant upgrade in terms of the size and dimensions of the rooms to adequately care for the patients.  That's also very significant. 
MR. VOIGT:  So     
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Voigt, can you ask the remainder of your questions and let him answer.  
MR. VOIGT:  Sure, all    all the questions I have and then he can answer them?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. VOIGT:  Okay. So I'm just curious, what's the infection rate at Valley and what's the infection rate at Valley as it relates to the double rooms?  Do you know what that is? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It was not part of your testimony, Mr. Burgis    
MR. VOIGT:  Is that historical? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We have that information.
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct.
MR. VOIGT:  You do have that information? 
MR. BURGIS:  That's not part of my testimony.
MR. VOIGT:  Okay, so you can't answer that.  No? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  He's not obligated to answer the question if he doesn't have the information.
MR. VOIGT:  All right.  Do you happen to know how Valley ranks as it relates to infections versus other hospitals in New Jersey and nationally.
MR. BURGIS:  No, that also was not part of my testimony. 
MR. VOIGT:  You're not obligated to answer that, huh?
MR. DRILL:  That's correct.
MR. VOIGT:  Okay.  Is that in the history at all?  I mean anywhere? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Do you know if there is any data in that with previous testimony?
MR. DRILL:  No, there is not. 
MR. VOIGT:  It is not?  It just seems to me that, you know, one of the reasons why they're increasing the size in the single rooms is this infection rate, and if the infection rate is not an issue, then possibly the reasons why they're increasing all of that space may not be an issue.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, if you    there was testimony on a number of facts, I think if you go back to the records you can actually see testimony as to why they're being changed to single rooms and why this space.  I believe there is testimony, I can't speak specifically to that necessarily.  
MR. DRILL:  But the record will reflect that is not being done because The Valley Hospital has an infection problem that's different than any other hospital   
MR. VOIGT:  I'm not saying that.
MR. DRILL:  The record should reflect that it's being done because it’s part of the standards per the code.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. VOIGT:  No, I'm not saying that they have an infection problem.  I'm saying that if there really isn't an infection problem then maybe that's a reason why   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  So this is a reason why questions are limited to tonight's testimony   
MR. VOIGT:  Understood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     in rebuttal   
MR. VOIGT:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     because a lot of this information has gone through the process by other witnesses throughout the process over 25 weeks.
MR. VOIGT:  Understood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So I would recommend if you are interested you can take a look at some of the transcripts. 
MR. VOIGT:  But it sounds like you don't have that information anyways.  I'm just    no?  That's okay.  All right.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. If I can just remind everyone, again, these are questions that relate specifically to testimony tonight during the rebuttal. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Thank you, I have three questions, Mr. Burgis. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please if you will state your name   
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     spell your name and provide your address.
MS. TUOMEY:  Janet Tuomey, 59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey 074    if you don't know that we're in trouble. Am I sworn in now? 
MS. PRICE:  No, you don't have to be sworn in.
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh, I don't have to be sworn. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  These are questions, again, they're not comments. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And if you can ask your three questions together   
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     please Ms. Tuomey.  Thank you.
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes, I will be quick with them. 
Mr. Burgis, the questions that you wrote down that were quotes from our school board president, Sheila Brogan, you wrote them down and they seem very positive in favor of construction, generally speaking.  But I must ask you, do you know the length of each of these construction projects that you quoted her about? 
MR. BURGIS:  It was in the record.  Quite frankly, I don't recall.  I believe   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Burgis if you could, if you can let Ms. Tuomey ask her three questions.
MR. BURGIS:  Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  All three together?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. TUOMEY:  Thank you.  Okay.  Mr. Centineo, page 21, let's see, is he page 21 you ask    okay.  Oh, no, Dr. Magari on page 20, the environmental expert that you quoted    
MR. DRILL:  What slide is that?   
MS. TUOMEY:  It's 40, 39 40 on page 20. Dr. Magari is a principal owner of her company and works for Valley and has for many years, of course you know that. But she did not do an environmental impact on the neighborhood   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you pose that in the form of a question? 
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh, yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  In the form of a question and then you have one more after that.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  Did you know she did not do an environmental impact on the neighborhood and that her area of expertise is worker safety and patient safety and visitor safety and it took a little urging when I spoke with her and asked her a question to say children, neighbors and seniors in the neighborhood? 
MR. DRILL:  What's the question?
MS. PRICE:  Did you know that she did not do an environmental impact    
MS. TUOMEY:  Did you know that she did not do an environmental impact in the neighborhood?
Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And the third.
MS. TUOMEY:  And    okay.  Oh, I had more on that one. On, Mr. Centineo, he's at page    
MR. DRILL:  Tell us the slide please.
MS. TUOMEY:  I'm looking.  Here he is, the slide 24 and it's important to note that phased construction project includes two and a half years of interior construction which represents 45 percent of the overall project duration, and what was your purpose in stating that?  Is it    do you think that it limits the amount of air pollution that would be generated having indoor construction?  Because in my book it still requires maybe thousands of vehicles still arriving at the construction site.  And by the way, Mr. Centineo, when I   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  They have to be questions. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You gave your three.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So, Mr. Burgis, you can answer those.
And then you can come back again if you have more.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay. 
MR. BURGIS:  The first question, did I know that Ms. Magari didn't do an environmental impact assessment of the entire neighborhood? Yes, I'm aware of that.  I'm also aware that this is not site plan approval.  It's a Master Plan Amendment.
MS. TUOMEY:  No, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let him finish.  Let him answer the question. 
MR. DRILL:  Let him answer the questions you asked.  Thank you.  
MR. BURGIS:  As a Master Plan Amendment, her responsibility was more in the context of explaining how she would go about doing her analyses, not did she do the analysis.  Okay. 
With respect to Mr. Centineo, I thought it was pertinent to bring up the fact that he had testified that there's two and a half years of solely interior construction because it does, and I said, to a certain degree, limit environmental impact in terms of the surrounding neighborhoods.  I certainly didn't suggest that it eliminates environmental issues completely. 
And then   
MS. PRICE:  The third one was do you know the length of the construction   
MR. BURGIS:  Oh.
MS. PRICE:     project that Sheila Brogan testified about? 
MR. BURGIS:  That was testified to at the hearing, and if memory serves she talked about, or someone talked about roughly a two year period.  But I don't recall   
MS. TUOMEY:  Every project that you   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let him answer the question. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  I don't recall if it was she who made that statement or someone else.  I recall someone talked about a two year period.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  Well, you don't know that.  Okay.  But that's quite different than a six to ten year period, of course.  Thank you.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you very much. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anybody else with questions? Again, please ask your three questions   
MS. BENSON:  I only have one. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     succinctly.  Okay.  Thank you.
MS. BENSON:  Cathy Benson, 572 Fairway Road. 
Could you put up slide number 37? Sorry.  Okay.  There was a comment about shadows why he put so many in. My comment, which is quoted here: "The BF driveway would not see the noon day sun for five months out of the year". And how dangerous it is to have a driveway, that's a main driveway to our school and is on a slope, I know my front driveway is not in the sun in the winter and no matter how much ice melt I put down there, its ice.  It is in shadow.  The only slide that you show of   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms.    Ms. Benson   
MS. BENSON:    of one of the five months.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ask the question, please.
MS. BENSON:  The slide    the question is coming is slide 37 is at 12 noon, December 21st. Could you tell me what is in shadow there on BF? 
MS. PRICE:  On slide 37?
MS. BENSON:  On slide 37, is the BF driveway in shadow? 
MR. BURGIS:  Is that your only question? 
MS. BENSON:  That's my only question.
MR. BURGIS:  A portion of it is, yes.
MS. BENSON:  There you go.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Benson. 
Please state your name, spell your name, provide your address and if you can ask all three questions together first?  Thank you.  
MS. PALACIOS:  Diane Palacios, D i a n e P a l a c i o s, 342 North Van Dien Avenue.
Yeah, I have a question concerning your projection of rooms, how many beds you'll need in the future. 
You said that you project that people over 65 like myself, I'm going to be 71 pretty soon, will be using Valley Hospital in a great degree and that that is what the future projection is for the beds. Well, from the people that I know, and from my own experience, senior citizens who live in this climate do one of three things.  They move to warmer climates, it doesn't have to be Florida, it can be Virginia, for example.  I mention Virginia because I have family there.  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you pose the questions?
MS. PALACIOS:  Oh, yeah, I will. Well, the question is how do you know, because senior citizens go to assisted living, they go    I'm telling you what they do.  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, this is the time for   
MS. PALACIOS:    They go to Heath Village. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ma'am.  Ma'am this is     
MS. PALACIOS:  How do you know that those projections are valid?  Because there are many suggestions about many topics that are not valid.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ma'am, this is the time to ask him the questions so if you can form them into questions   
MS. PALACIOS:  The question is how do you know that senior citizens will be using Valley Hospital and to a large degree and how long will they be using it?  Like one person, how long will that one person be using it? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  Is that your only question? 
MS. PRICE:  So just    wait, Mr. Burgis   
MS. PALACIOS:  That's my question.
MS. PRICE:     just wait, Mr. Burgis, Wait. Just for the record, let me see if I can help you.  I think you're referring to the testimony that Mr. Burgis gave regarding   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The Baby Boomers.
MS. PRICE:     the Baby Boomers and the stretch   
MS. PALACIOS:  Right.
MS. PRICE:     the stretch of the seniors   
MS. PALACIOS:  Uh huh.
MS. PRICE:     and when people are going to turn certain ages? 
MS. PALACIOS:  Yeah, and how long will they be using it, right.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  All right.
MS. PALACIOS:  The whole thing.  Why is it valid?  And who    where does that information come from? 
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  So, Mr. Burgis, the question is with specific reference to the testimony that you gave to the Baby Boomers and particularly those who are at 65 or over, how do you know, what's the basis for your testimony this evening, in terms of the information that you compiled?  Does that reflect your question, ma'am?  Mrs. Palacios?  Is that what your question is? 
MS. PALACIOS:  Uh huh.
MS. PRICE:  The basis of his    that's what you want to know, right? 
MS. PALACIOS:  Right, what's the basis of it.  Right. 
MS. PRICE:  Do you understand? 
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, I do.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  And that information presented on that slide does not tell you that information.  
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  Mr. Downes, when he testified, talked about this issue. 
I was just trying to respond to a  
MS. PALACIOS:  Well, who    who   
MR. DRILL:  Please. 
MS. PRICE:  Let me just    let him answer and then we'll come back.
MR. BURGIS:  I was just trying to respond to the suggestion that everyone moves south.  And the reality is that's not the case.  We're an aging population and not everybody has the economic wherewithal to move south.  Many people stay here and that is why we have these large numbers of age 55 and over developments occurring throughout northern New Jersey.
MS. PALACIOS:  How do you know that they're going to be going to the hospital rather than an assisted living and nursing home? 
MR. BURGIS:  Again   
MS. PALACIOS:  They don't. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Palacios, let him answer the question.
MR. BURGIS:  And, again, that is what Mr. Downes testimony talked about.  I was not presenting this demographic information for that purpose, I was just simply pointing out that the age of this population is aging rapidly. To respond further, not everybody has the economic wherewithal to move.  And hospitals have to respond accordingly.  There's a lot of people between 65 and 95 that stay in this area.  And we're seeing that by virtue of the fact that the large number of all types and all manner of age restricted developments that are occurring throughout northern New Jersey.
MS. PRICE:  And you're basing that information on your planning history? 
MR. BURGIS:  I am, because I have represented many such applications.  And Mr. Downes' testimony supported the suggestion that a lot of these people do end up needing nursing care    excuse me    hospital care. 
MS. PRICE:  So, if this resident wanted to read more information it would be necessary, in your opinion, to go back to Mr. Downes' testimony and read that transcript.
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  So Mr. Downes is the witness who testified during the hearing about those numbers.
MS. PALACIOS:  Well how    how does he know about them?  Who's Mr. Downes?  I mean what's his position? 
MS. PRICE:  He's   
MS. PALACIOS:  What's his profession? 
MS. PRICE:  Well, Mr. Drill you can explain who Mr. Downes is without me putting words, Mr. Drill.  Mr. Drill? 
MR. DRILL:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:  Could you explain Mr. Downes' title for this resident? 
MR. DRILL:  Yes.  I'm going to   
MS. PRICE:  No, you don't have to give a formal title, just explain who Mr. Downes is. 
MR. DRILL:  He's a hospital facilities expert.  And that's what he does for a living.  And we got him qualified as an expert and apparently you must have    
MS. PALACIOS:  Yeah, expert. 
MR. DRILL:     you must have missed that hearing because he testified   
MS. PRICE:  All right.  All right.  All right.  All right.
MS. PALACIOS:  I have a third question. 
MS. PRICE:  Wait.  Wait. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please hold on.
MS. PALACIOS:  I have a third question.
MS. PRICE:  Wait, hold on.  I want to help you make sure we understand this because the information that you testified to, Mr. Burgis, in the slide, those percentages, it's my understanding that those percentages were pulled from the New Jersey Department of Health and the Department of Labor and other sources that you relied upon, correct? 
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct.
MS. PRICE:  But if this resident or anyone else wanted to look for specific additional testimony, he or she should go back to Mr. Downes testimony which, if you just give me a minute I'll give you the specific date so you can go back and look   
MS. PALACIOS:  I'd like to ask the third question.
MS. PRICE:  Okay, you can do your third question, but I want to make sure you have the right date so you can go back and look at the record. 
MS. PALACIOS:  I'm not going to go back because I don't believe it. 
MR. DRILL:  One follow up to the first question   
MS. PALACIOS:  But I want to ask my third question.
MR. DRILL:     there is a follow up and can you, for the record, give an indication of which municipalities you have testified in, in support in age restricted housing applications, just for the record.
MR. BURGIS:  Just in the past three years, the firm has been involved in age restricted development in Woodcliff Lake, just a month or so ago I testified on the expansion, excuse me, of a large congregant care facility located in both Wyckoff and Hawthorne.  And we've also been involved in a number of other development applications, just within the past three years. 
MS. PALACIOS:  Yeah, I have a third question now. 
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  Let me just tell you before your question, the transcript date is April 29th, 2013, if you want to see that testimony.  Okay? 
MS. PALACIOS:  All right.  My third question is, where to you get the information that it is more expensive for seniors to live here and that they don't have the economic wherewithal to move?  It's cheaper to move.  It's expensive to live here.
MR. BURGIS:  In many instances   
MS. PALACIOS:  It's always cheaper to move.
MR. BURGIS:     in many instance of planning information indicates that for those that have paid off their homes and only have their taxes to pay, and they're not in the high tax municipality, some are in Bergen County but others are not. And the fact that they want to stay in the community that they raised their family in and have their friends in, they prefer to stay locally.
MS. PALACIOS:  But you   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Palacios    
MR. BURGIS:  And that's the information I've relied on   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You've asked your three questions.  I'm sorry. 
MS. PALACIOS:  Yeah, but you said it was cheaper    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Hold on, Ms. Palacios   
MR. BURGIS:  I did not say it was cheaper. 
MS. PALACIOS:  You said they don't have the economic wherewithal to move. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MS. PALACIOS:  That's not the truth, it's always cheaper to move    the whole Bergen County area is very high taxes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Ms. Palacios, you're going to have to stop.  Thank you.
Are there other members who have questions?  I'm going to have to remind you all, let me just say a few words here.  It's always uncomfortable during these proceedings when the public has opportunity to ask questions if they haven't heard a lot of the testimony before. So, tonight again, please remember that your questions should be directed towards Mr. Burgis with regard to his testimony tonight only. 
If it is not regarding tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to move on to one that is.
Please state your name, provide your name    your address, spell your name and ask your three questions.  If you have more you will have opportunity to speak again afterwards.
MR. O'BRIEN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you.  My name is Kevin O'Brien.  K e v i n O ' B r i e n, My address is 227 Bogart Avenue. I have three questions.  Particularly on slide 47, this was this was the local utilization of hospitals.  You indicated in 2012 that 6,395 people or 25.4 percent of the Ridgewood residents used Valley Hospital's services. 
First question is how many of those people who went there were going for services that could now be given off site or are going to be off site or could be off site. 
Second question is of those 6,395 people, how many of them were over 65 that stayed in the hospital, that's that six percent and were off sited, you know, people who could possibly drive to Paramus or something like that?
The next question I have is on slide number 54, and it was brought up briefly by one of the members of the Planning Board and that was about the 1.7 million in taxes.  Just wanted to confirm, could you please state whether that was for taxes for the property in question on the plan, because these are meant to be relevant to the plan, or were they for properties that are for profit making operations, that is for profit activities, at which point I guess that would make Valley a landlord? 
So if you could please just clarify where that is.  That's my questions. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Burgis, do you have the three questions?
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BURGIS:  With respect to how many of the 6,395 individual people use services will now can be off site, we did not do that analysis.  We also did not do an assessment of how many    the questions was how many   
MS. PRICE:  Were over 65.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Over 65. 
MR. BURGIS:     how many are 65 and over, we did not do that assessment.
And with respect to the 1.7 million in taxes that are paid, I can confirm that this does not include what I'll call Valley proper, which is the 14 plus acres the subject of this application.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  But they would include properties    I think the follow along part properties that the Hospital owns and leases to third parties? 
MR. BURGIS:  That may be.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  May be.  Okay. 
MR. DRILL:  I can represent that it    and a list can be submitted if you would like of the properties and addresses or I can give you that right now, if I can, 505 Goffle Road, 5  
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We can't hear you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you speak into the mike.
MS. PRICE:  Yes. 
MR. DRILL:  They are 505 Goffle Road; 579 Goffle Road, sorry 579 Route 17, 555 Route 17 plus four houses, all have not for profit status all    pardon me, so the three, 505 Goffle, 579 Route 17, 555 Route 17, not for profit and they pay taxes.
There are four houses where they're the landlord they pay taxes because they don't qualify and 1200 East Ridgewood in the Duck Pond building has some Valley but they're the landlord there. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Drill. 
Are there other members of the public who have questions?  Have you gone already? 
MR. DRILL:  Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, so we're    let's go through    let's go through people who haven't first.
Ms. Baney? 
MS. BANEY:  I realize it's getting late so I'll be quick.
Lisa Baney, B a n e y.  I just wanted to know regarding the focus that was given in tonight's rebuttal regarding the importance of conducting the proposal as designed for the purposes of infection control. 
I was    just wanted to know if you were aware that Valley had received for the fifth time in a row, an A.
MR. DRILL:  We can’t hear your question.
MS. BANEY:  You can't hear my question?  I'm sorry. 
MR. DRILL:  You're going too fast and speaking too low.
MS. BANEY:  Oh. 
MS. PRICE:  Lisa, just   
MS. BANEY:  I'm aware of how late it is. 
MS. PRICE:  Lower the microphone.
MS. BANEY:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  There you go.
MS. BANEY:  There we go.
MS. PRICE:  Much better.
MS. BANEY:  Thank you. Given the amount of focus that was given in the rebuttal this evening, relating to the importance of conducting the expansion as designed for the purpose of infection control related to whole patient rooms.  I was    my first question is I wondered if you were aware that Valley had, according to an announcement, a recent press release, received an A in a ranking in the country on a scale of A to F for five times in a row for patient safety which includes infection and injury and accidents and errors and only one of 300 hospitals in the country have received this award five times in a row.  So, that is the current status, as I understand it. And I was wondering if you could source in the document, earlier in this process, where one can see the role of sharing a patient room, as I understand blood line type transfusions and breathing masks and hygiene are frequently the more important things.  So I'd like to know where your sources are in that health expert, what the sourcing was on that?  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Baney. 
MS. PRICE:  So I think with regard to question one, that question can be answered, but I'm not sure if question two about sourcing.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Unless it was testified to earlier this evening. 
MR. BURGIS:  With regard to question two, I did not testify to that and I am not aware of what an answer would be. 
With regard to question one, I was not aware that Valley received an A for patient safety, it doesn't surprise me.  But, more importantly, that does not go to the heart of what my testimony on rebuttal was, in terms of the merits of this improvement plan.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Burgis. 
Wait, we have    Ms. Reynolds is on her way down.  Please state your name, spell your name, provide your address and ask your three questions together.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please state your name and spell you name and provide your address.  And ask your three questions together. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi, Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, Ridgewood. 
First question is slide 47 where you have 71 percent of the market share having an overnight hospital stay.  What is that, like the above thing the 25 percent you put an actual number to it, 6,395 people.  What is the actual number on the 71.4 percent of Ridgewood residents having an overnight stay?  That was question one. 
Then on, oh, slide 54 where it says contributes 1.7 million in taxes and Mr. Drill just mentioned the addresses, I didn't hear a Maple Avenue location.  I thought that was owned by Valley Hospital.  Is that?  And, if so, do they pay taxes on that property? 
And that's it. 
MR. BURGIS:  So just the two? 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Yes.
MR. BURGIS:  Okay.  In terms of the market share.  If memory serves, the number reflects the balance or close to 1,700. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.
MR. DRILL:  And Maple, I'll make that correction that you are   
MS. PRICE:  Use the mike.
MR. DRILL:  You're right on Maple. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Yay, I'm right about something.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Reynolds.  
MS. REYNOLDS:  And do they pay taxes on that?
MR. DRILL:  Yes.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.  And that's included in the 1.7 million?
MR. DRILL:  Yes.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. Are there other members of the public who have not had opportunity to speak yet?  Okay.
MS. DALY:  Good evening, my name is Janet Daly, 386 Ponfield Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey. 
Okay, I'm having a hard time putting this all together.  I'm sorry. 
MS. PRICE:  Just try and we'll help you.
MS. DALY:  I'll try.  Okay.  Slide 47, it says that 25.4 percent of the individuals, Ridgewood residents, are cared for, did you say that was outpatient or inpatient?  I'm sorry.  What was that? 
MR. BURGIS:  Is that your only question? 
MS. DALY:  No.  And then I    the original comment was that only six percent of The Valley Hospital    of The Valley Hospital patients are from Ridgewood, only six percent of total that use Valley Hospital are from Ridgewood. 
And my third question is talking about the region, couldn't the region be just as well served by a split campus, a Valley Hospital with a split campus, because the people have to come from other areas anyway to get here.  What does it matter if they come to Linwood Avenue and Van Dien Avenue, if they go to another town in Bergen County? 
MR. BURGIS:  In terms of the 25 percent, it included overnight stays as well as    as I said earlier, inpatient or anything from using the ER to having bones set or whatever it would be.
MS. DALY:  So how many are inpatients, though.  How many were    
MR. BURGIS:  It's 6,395. 
MS. DALY:  Oh, so it's   
MR. BURGIS:  In terms of    I didn't get your question about the six percent. 
MS. DALY:  Yeah, the six percent, the statement about that was that of the total people that go to Valley Hospital, only six percent are from Ridgewood. 
MR. DRILL:  We never made that statement.
MR. BURGIS:  No, we never made that statement.
MS. DALY:  You never made    
MS. PRICE:  No, there was a    there was a public statement, Mrs. Daly that    because I looked in the transcripts   
MS. DALY:  Yeah.
MS. PRICE:     to find out where that was this past week   
MS. DALY:  Uh huh.
MS. PRICE:     because I missed the last meeting.  And I wanted to see where that was. 
And there was    I think that there were two public comments raising that very question about the six percent.  But it wasn't a Valley comment, it was    that six percent was a number raised by two members of the public. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It was not in any of the testimony.
MS. PRICE:  It was not testified to by any of the experts. 
MR. BURGIS:  And that is why we thought it necessary and appropriate to rebut that figure because we knew it was wrong and when we went through the records we found fully 25 percent of Ridgewood residents have actually use Valley annually, that was for the year 2012. 
MS. DALY:  Uh huh.  Okay.  And wouldn't the region be served    also be served with a split campus   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's the third question.
MS. PRICE:  That's question three.
MS. DALY:  Three, question three.
MR. BURGIS:  My recollection was that in Mr. Evers testimony, he had indicated that for a variety of reasons it wouldn't function well.  But he offered that testimony, I have not and I didn't in my direct    I mean in my rebuttal. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Daly. 
Anyone else who hasn't asked questions?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  So let's go with round two, please now you can come back. 
MR. VOIGT:  Jeff Voigt.  I have a question on the     
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you spell your last name again please?
MR. VOIGT:  V o i g t, first name Jeff.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MR. VOIGT:  On slide 40, on the contamination issue.  And the contaminants exceeding a certain level, and this may have been talked about before and I apologize.  How is the public alerted to such issues if that, these contaminants exceed a certain amount?  I mean is it going to be    is the street going to be cordoned off?  I mean what    how does that work? 
MS. PRICE:  Can I    let me just respond.  The Village Engineer spoke about this when he    the night that we talked about the environmental, the Village Engineer actually participated in that conversation and said that it would be his recommendation that if this ever got to that point where there was an actual plan and a site plan application, that there would be very stringent monitoring requirements outside of what The Valley Hospital experts were proposing and akin to what the Board's environmental expert was proposing. So that    and that that would be handled in a developer's agreement, so that there would be on site    on site oversight by a Village rep, pretty much at all times so that there would be knowledge if anything occurred and then an opportunity for that trigger point to    
MR. VOIGT:  Can you    can you be a little bit more specific about that because if there is an   
MS. PRICE:  Well, there   
MR. VOIGT:  If there is an issue with contaminants that, you know, you'd certainly want the public to know about it. 
MS. PRICE:  Yes.
MR. VOIGT:  And this    it sounds very vague to me.
MS. PRICE:  Well, no, it's not vague   
MR. VOIGT:  And that's a little bit of a concern.
MS. PRICE:  It's not vague because there are DEP criteria that must be followed on certain issues.  So DEP regulations would govern depending on what was involved.  Local ordinances would govern on other issues. The main point of what I was just saying was not meant to be vague, in fact it was meant to go multiple steps away from vagueness because if anything, having someone on site, during construction, full time, is not something that's ordinary.  And   
MR. VOIGT:  So, let me ask you this, can there be a process put in place that the public is aware of if a condition like that happens so people know what to do?
MS. PRICE:  I'm sure that that can be readily accomplished.
MR. VOIGT:  Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Other questions, follow on questions for Mr. Burgis this evening? 
Okay.  Again, once again, please state your name. 
MR. JAMES:  My name is George James, 421 Linwood Avenue. 
Twenty five percent of the people from Ridgewood use the hospital, you're saying.  What are the number    what is the percentage of people of Ridgewood in comparison to the total patients or people who use the hospital?  That's what that six percent was, it's a six percent of a total number of people who come from the entire area and I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, someone did, and I don't know if it was you, when it was asked how many people from Ridgewood in comparison with the total population of your serving area, someone did say it was six percent. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  So, Mr. Burgis, can you clarify what the 25 percent is, how it was calculated?
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, 25 percent are those Ridgewood residents, the 6395 people, 6,395 Ridgewood residents avail themselves of Valley services during the year 2012.  That represents 25 percent of the town's population, the Village's population of 25,205, that's what that figure represents. 
MR. JAMES:  Do you    did you    do you have a figure of the percentage of people from Ridgewood in comparison with the total people who use the hospital?  
MS. PRICE:  No, I think that's what the figure is, the 25 percent.  Right? 
(Audience Outburst.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, the question    if I can interpret the question, the question is what percentage of people who use the hospital are from Ridgewood?
MR. JAMES:  That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yeah.  
MR. BURGIS:  And I do not have the total number of people that were served by Valley so I can't give the percentage of the Ridgewood residents represent.
MR. JAMES:  Thank you.  I just want to say that I do think somebody did say that, I don't believe it was a resident, any resident.
MS. PRICE:  Oh, no, I found it. 
MR. JAMES:  I think it was   
MS. PRICE:  I found it in the transcript.
MR. JAMES:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  It was a resident.  I can search    I can search it for you again and provide it.
MR. JAMES:  It was a resident that said that?
MS. PRICE:  It was a resident.  It was during public comment.  I don't know if it was on May 20th or June 2nd, which of the nights, but it was    it was during public comment. 
MR. JAMES:  You mean recently? 
MS. PRICE:  Excuse me.
MR. JAMES:  You mean recently?
MS. PRICE:  Oh, yes.  It was recently.
MR. JAMES:  I think back in one of the 25 sessions, someone got up and made    and asked this question and the answer that I think came from the Hospital, was that it was six percent of their total service area. 
MS. PRICE:  Well, we can search it again but we've searched multiple. 
MR. JAMES:  I think it's a relevant term. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. James. 
Please ask your three questions if you have them.
MS. BLAIR:  I only have two. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Great.
MS. BLAIR:  Beth Blair, B l a i r, 78 North Van Dien Avenue in Ridgewood. 
One question relates to truck traffic that Mr. Reilly had asked about the reduction in traffic and that question is, Mr. Burgis, when you talked about the proposal for truck traffic, you said that the route that was being proposed was a route that passed the least number of dwellings.  Have you done a calculation to figure out if there is another route, perhaps, that might pass fewer individuals? 
The other question is just about the tax question.  I'm just curious, if Valley Hospital were to pay taxes currently on this facility that we're adjacent to now, what would they pay. 
MR. BURGIS:  Is there a third? 
MS. BLAIR:  No.
MR. BURGIS:  Okay.  To answer your first, the traffic consultant, along with Mr. Centineo's office, did an exhaustive analysis of all different truck routes to determine what route would result in passing the fewest number of dwellings in the municipality.  Excuse me.  That was the route that was identified at one of the hearings and I believe the number of dwellings that would be passed was 59. The second fewest number of dwellings that would be passed by the next lowest    my highest route was, I believe, 126 dwelling. So, consequently, there was this one that they really focused on.  All the other routes contemplated had an even higher number of dwellings that were passed by the trucks. 
With respect to what would the Hospital pay in taxes on, again, what I will call Valley proper?  I do not know, I don't know if the municipality has ever made that analysis.  I just don't know.
MS. BLAIR:  And just as a follow on, I'm wondering did    was it ever taken into account that in passing this building, for the route to go around BF Middle School and out to the highway on Glen, that there are over 600 children that are here, in addition to all of the dwellings.
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, and that is why Mr. Centineo's testimony, at great length, he went though his analysis or his program, I should say, as to how he would set up the appropriate barriers and crosswalks and whatnot, in an effort to protect those children. 
MS. BLAIR:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Blair, you might note on the November 26th testimony by our consultant, Mr. Meth, he touched on that same issue as well.
MS. BLAIR:  Thank you.
MS. DALY:  Hello. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please state and spell your name again.
MS. DALY:  Hello, Janet Daly, 386 Ponfield Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey. 
Okay, my question is, how is it that Mr. Burgis presents all of this information without the experts tonight, yet when public came, we were told we had to have experts here so the experts could be asked questions and we're being referred back to all of this information that is just mind boggling.  I mean I'm going to have to go home and go through transcripts and to just try and figure out what Mr. Evers said. 
MS. PRICE:  I'll give you what I hope is a simple answer.  The New Jersey rules of evidence, specifically Rule 703, allows an expert to rely upon facts ordinarily utilized by others in his or her field of work or expertise and allows that information to come in. The purpose of tonight, and I think I may have, in a moment of frustration    I thought that the purpose of tonight was a limited one in terms of responding with some questions that Blais had raised.  It went a little bit further afield than I had anticipated, certainly.  I thought it was going to be an abbreviated response to Blais's questions and then we would hear summations and hear my instructions and I would be back in my PJs.  So    but in terms of his reliance, it's allowed because he is an expert and this is rebuttal.  So they're not offering any of this new testimony for the truth of the matter in terms of    they're not saying "here's new testimony and we're making our case upon it".  That's why they're referencing other sections of who said what in the record, because the Board    when I get to the point when I'm providing the instructions, the Board is going to be charged with going back through the 23 or 24 or 25 transcripts that the Board has and culling through those transcripts and seeing what the witnesses said and then assigning a weight to those experts and to lay witnesses and then applying the standards of proof and governing case law to those. 
So, although it seems frustrating tonight, it should be a very constricted rebuttal case and he's not doing anything out of the ordinary, even though it's frustrating.
MS. DALY:  Thank you. 
MR. DALY:  Edward Daly, D a l y, 386 Ponfield Place.  I just want to state for the record, that slide 47 is evidence that has never been presented before, why not take it out?  The information about taxes. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Are you asking if slide 47 was ever presented before? 
MR. DALY:  YES.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Is that your question? 
MR. DALY:  Yes.  And also the other slide   
MR. BURGIS:  It was    while not   
MR. DALY:  And also slide 54.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And slide 54.
MR. BURGIS:  The purpose of rebuttal is to respond   
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BURGIS:     to comments made at the hearing.
MS. PRICE:  Right.
MR. BURGIS:  There were specific comments about the six percent factor.  We wanted to disprove that.
MR. DALY:  You didn't disprove that and it's new information and you just said new information shouldn't be here.
MR. DRILL:  Legally we have a right to provide     
MS. PRICE:  Right, to rebut. 
MR. DRILL:     to rebut incorrect information that was given so the Board will not rely on them.  And it's our obligation to bring in an expert to correct that misinformation.  And that's what we did.
MR. DALY:  Let me just say that the    the specific   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let him finish.  Okay.
MR. DALY:  The statement was that six percent of the people that use the hospital come from Ridgewood.  The statement that 25 percent of the people that live in Ridgewood use the hospital is not rebutting the previous statement.  It's new information. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you.
(Applause.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  That's enough. 
MR. DRILL:  Just for the record, what did you find out about the six percent when you looked through the records? 
MR. BURGIS:  The only six percent figure that was defined related to the number of overnight for the percentage of overnight stays in the Hospital.  That's the only six percent factor that we could find.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you articulate what that means?  In other words, six percent was what of overnight stays?
MR. BURGIS:  No, the   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Of all hospital stays.
MR. BURGIS:  Six percent of Ridgewood residents.
(Audience Outburst.) 
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  No.  No.  No.  No.
MR. BURGIS:  That was the statement in the transcripts. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  So    
MR. BURGIS:  And that's   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Six percent of Ridgewood residents.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  That's not right. 
MR. BURGIS:  Stayed in the hospital overnight. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Overnight.
MR. BURGIS:  And that's the only six percent figure that we could find in the record in our analysis.
MS. PRICE:  So, wait, but   
MR. BURGIS:  What's interesting though is I also testified that in the end, this figure does not matter because, as I said, the Municipal Land Use Law mandates you give consideration to regional issues, case law mandates that you give consideration to regional issues and an Appellate Division case, I cited a few, but another one is in the Township of Brick where the Appellate division specifically said because zoning powers are derived from the State's general authority, a zoning decision must consider the welfare of all of the state's inhabitants not just the interest of the inhabitants in a particular locality. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  So, then why did you    why did you offer the 25 percent figure anyway then? 
MR. BURGIS:  To disprove the six percent.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  But you    but you weren't answering the question, though.  I mean this doesn't     
MR. BURGIS:  Mayor, I was    quite frankly, I was. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  No, but the question was   
MR. BURGIS:  The reality is the question   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
MR. BURGIS:  The question was how many Ridgewood residents use Valley and the suggestion in testimony was 6 percent.  And we found it's 25 percent.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  The question was    this doesn't seem that difficult.  The question was what is the percentage of the total population, the patient population    
MR. BURGIS:  That was not the question.  The question was   
MS. PRICE:  Okay. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  It doesn't matter.
MR. BURGIS:  It doesn't matter, but we wanted to correct the reference.
(Audience Outburst.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Hold on.  So, the question that is being asked right now is, is there    and I think you've answered the question already tonight.  Is there data that suggests what percentage of hospital guests are from Ridgewood?  I think that was the question that was being inferred earlier by everyone else. 
MR. BURGIS:  Correct.  Right, out of the total   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. BURGIS:     number of people serviced? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. BURGIS:  I am certain there is.  I don't know what that percentage is, but as I very clearly said, it really doesn't matter because of the Municipal Land Use Law and case law demands that you consider it.
MS. PRICE:  And that's    that's going to be in my instructions to the Board, but the six percent, my recollection in the transcript was the six percent was a generic reference was that six percent of the patients served by Valley Hospital are Ridgewood residents. So, when you just said you looked at the data, was the data that you looked at, did that indicate anything that reflected a number other than six percent, in terms of overnight, you know, ER, you know, whatever use of the hospital, in the available data that you had in order to prepare for your testimony tonight, was there anything that you had at your fingertips that demonstrated a number different than the six percent that was made reference to in the public comment.
MR. BURGIS:  No, I did not look at that question because in my reading of the transcripts, that was not the question posed.
MR. DRILL:  You know it's in the record, it's on slide 46 if you want you can reveal it's Joan O'Donnell's comment made June 2, 2014 at page 127 on the transcript.  She said: "Common sense would suggest if the Hospital is serving the community well with fewer beds, especially such a small percentage, six percent of Valley's patients are Ridgewood residents"    
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Right.
MR. DRILL:     that's what we are rebutting.  We couldn't find the six percent.  So we asked Mr. Burgis to look into the hospital records to see if he can find the six percent anywhere.  He found the six percent.  Six percent he found is what he told you and then he advised us if you look through the rest of the records that actually   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's a different number.
MR. DRILL:     it's 25 percent.
MS. PRICE:  But wait    
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  No, no.
(Audience Outburst.)
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  No, no. 
MS. PRICE:  Wait, wait, wait, let me just stay right there.  The six percent that you found in the record, in the records, that's what   
MR. DRILL:  In Valley's records.
MS. PRICE:     that's what I want to get clarified for the record because everybody's saying different things.  So the six percent that you found, after you went back after that statement, the six percent in the record was a Valley Hospital record, correct? 
MR. BURGIS:  Correct.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  Now, the six percent that you found in The Valley Hospital record, that was for overnights? 
MR. DRILL:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:  Okay. 
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  That's what I said.  I said that   
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  Wait.  All right.  Okay.
So the only thing that you were able to confirm, either confirm or disapprove or whatever, was that the only thing in the record was six percent of the overnight stays for what year?  Was there a year? 
MR. BURGIS:  2012? 
MS. PRICE:  2012, could be attributed to Ridgewood residents?
MR. DRILL:  Well, maybe we can ask   
MS. PRICE:  No, wait. 
MR. DRILL:     Ms. O'Donnell where she got the   
MS. PRICE:  Wait, wait, wait.  I want just an answer to that, is that accurate?
MR. BURGIS:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:  Yes.  Yes?
MR. BURGIS:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  So there's nothing else that you were able to    no other percentage that you were able to do based upon the information that you reviewed.
MR. BURGIS:  Based upon the information I reviewed.
MS. PRICE:  Correct.
MR. BURGIS:  Can we   
MR. DRILL:  Can we ask Ms. O'Donnell where she got the information from?  Maybe it's    maybe it does mean something else and we'll find out about it. 
MS. PRICE:  Just then    so, the six percent was overnight, for 2012, Ridgewood residents.
MR. BURGIS:  It was actually 5.4   
MS. PRICE:  The 25 percent    
MR. DRILL:  We know where it   
MS. PRICE:  I know, wait, so that's one answer.  Okay.  One answer. 
Now, 25 percent now that you utilized in slide 47 that talks about 6395 Ridgewood residents, what you did to get that was what? 
MR. BURGIS:  We looked   
MS. PRICE:  Explain that. 
MR. BURGIS:  We looked at addresses to determine the number of Ridgewood residents that used Valley services.
MR. DRILL:  Now, all Valley services or just The Valley Hospital    
MR. BURGIS:  No, just   
MR. DRILL:     at this particular site.
MR. BURGIS:  This particular site.  And individual we did not   
MR. DRILL:  It was overnight and day? 
MR. BURGIS:  Overnight and day, individuals we did not duplicate anyone. 
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  So it's for 2012, you looked to see how many of the total services rendered by this 15 acre site were done with Ridgewood residents and you came up with 6395? 
MR. BURGIS:  Yes, 6395 which I said represents 25   
MS. PRICE:  So 6395 and then you took that total and you did the math with the total population of Ridgewood and you came up with the 25 percent.
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct.
MS. PRICE:  So, it's a percentage of the Ridgewood population that's reflected in the slide, not the percentage of The Valley Hospital service?
MR. DRILL:  Correct. 
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct.
MS. PRICE:  Okay, I just    there's so many numbers and so many questions reflected tonight on this transcript, that somebody reading this transcript is going to need a Scotch.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Or want one.
MS. PRICE:  Or want one, right. 
So, the six percent is overnight, Ridgewood, clearly you were able to confirm that.
MR. BURGIS:  Correct.
MS. PRICE:  And then the 25 is the math based upon the Ridgewood population.
MR. BURGIS:  That is correct.
MS. PRICE:  What we don't know is the total percentage   
MR. BURGIS:  The total percentage.
MS. PRICE:     of The Valley Hospital   
MR. DALY:  Well, I think at this point, though, that 25 is irrelevant.  It wasn't    well, let's take it out. 
MS. PRICE:  Well   
MR. DRILL:  Can we ask   
MR. DALY:  I don't think it's rebutting the argument, we know what the six percent was. 
It's new testimony.
MS. PRICE:  I mean I think we'll hear about it in the instructions in terms of its applicability to this use and any other use. 
MR. DALY:  Okay.  Then can we go back to the one other point    
MS. PRICE:  Yes.
MR. DALY:     the $1.7 million in taxes? 
MS. PRICE:  Yes, you had   
MR. DALY:  The $1.7 million in taxes reflects rents on a property?  That has nothing to do with their plan or the benefit of a hospital.  They're acting as a landlord then.  So I'd like that    I don't think that should apply.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The    
MS. PRICE:  The issue of taxes was also raised during public comment, so to the extent that they want   
MR. DALY:  Correct, but this is not taxes as to the hospital.  So it doesn't matter   
MS. PRICE:     to rebut it.
MR. DALY:     to me if they go out and they buy property and rent it and act as a landlord.  They're not    that is not a hospital acting in a beneficial way to this community.  They're acting as a landlord.  So it's irrelevant to this discussion and this Master Plan. 
MR. DRILL:  We were responding to an issue that was raised    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yeah, I think the point is taken, just leave it.
MS. PRICE:  Right, well, I think it's also in terms of the question was, the issue of taxes was raised, so they're entitled to rebut it and then the Board will weigh it.  But it's also, since it's been submitted in terms of benefits versus detriments, so the Board will look at that as well and make a determination. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And    and    
MR. DRILL:  We think the issue of taxes is irrelevant but again there is information being put out there that we feel an obligation to respond to   
MS. PRICE:  Right, I know.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It was useful that they outlined what were residences versus what were operational facilities. 
MR. DALY:  Yeah.  Okay.  So that's all I have. 
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  Who else? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Are there any other questions for tonight?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Seeing that there are no more questions for Mr. Burgis tonight, is there a motion to close the public session?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Motion to close.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Second please?
MS. BIGOS:  I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All those in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anyone opposed?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  It's 10:45.
We have summations and then we have instructions.  I think we will continue with summations.  We might need to carry this meeting for the instructions. 
MR. DRILL:  Well, quite frankly, if you're going to carry for instructions, its 10:45, I suggest you carry it for summations. 
If you're going to do summations tonight we're all going to stay late because there   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Well, your summation is how long?
MR. DRILL:  Mine, I timed it, 13 minutes.  Mr. Kates said he hasn't done it in front of the mirror so how long do you think   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  He said    he said 15 minutes.
MR. KATES:  Yes, 15 minutes or less.
MS. PRICE:  Less than 15. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Less than 15.  Let's do them and focus on the instructions at the next session because it's a meeting that isn't scheduled and I don't want to keep that as a long meeting. 
(Whereupon, an off the record discussion is held.) 
MR. DRILL:  Just want to note for the record, unless Mr. Kates is going to be speaking very quickly, my closing is seven pages, double spaced.  I timed it.  I practiced it.  So I wouldn't have to rush through it, it came out to 13 minutes.  Mr. Kates's closing is 11 pages.  He told me beforehand he hasn't practiced it.  There's no way his closing is going to take 15 minutes.  But...
MS. PRICE:  All right.  Let's see.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's proceed.
(Audience Outburst.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's proceed.  Please. 
MR. KATES:  Start the egg timer. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Kates.
MR. KATES:  I thank you.  The Concerned Residents of Ridgewood thank you for the time and effort that you've devoted to this matter.  We recognize that you are volunteers and that balancing the competing interest of the Hospital and the Village can be difficult.  However, there are several factors that we want you to keep in mind, we think they lead to a clear conclusion, borne out by the record developed before you these many months.  That conclusion is to reject the proposal before you.
First, although the proposed amendment to the Master Plan was not initiated by you as we believe all Master Plan incentives or initiatives should be, any amendments of the Master Plan becomes an official planning document of the Village.  It has the legal consequence.  It can facilitate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment.  It will have consequences if either the governing body uses it as the basis for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or absent that ordinance, Valley uses it to justify a building plan by variance.  So, you are not dealing with a trifle here.  It has vast consequences.  And so, to move off the status quo, to amend a Master Plan in place requires the moving party to sustain a burden of proof.  Respectfully, that burden has not been sustained.
Second, we are not dealing with a blank slate, there is a history here and you as planners should not and cannot disregard that history.  It should inform you as to what is practical, possible and appropriate. 
In 2011, the Village Council concluded in Resolution 11 293 (Exhibit B 4) as follows: That the height of the structures would interfere and detrimentally impact the light, air and open space of the surrounding residences and middle school, contrary to the purposes of proper planning and zoning defined in the MLUL.  (Resolution, page four). That the Hospital was already "too large for the neighborhood in which it is located".  Essentially the 15 acre site was and is too small to support the expansion.  Again (Resolution, page four).  The Council recognized Valley's need to upgrade its facilities technologically and physically, however, it concluded on page five, "The extent to which the present 15 acre campus can accommodate an expansion to foster this purpose is overestimated by this Amendment to the Master Plan".  (Resolution, page five).  The Council expressed concern that the construction process would adversely affect an impact zone extending 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the Hospital property.  (Resolution, page five).  The Council noted the timing of the construction as being between seven and ten years, which is a significant period of time for the immediate residential neighbors and school children to bear the impact.  The impact, as noted, was increased truck traffic, air quality concerns from diesel fuel and dust from construction, oppressive noise and related construction interruptions, all of which detrimentally impact the residents, school children and the community.  (Resolution, page five). The Council also took note of the testimony from the hospital planner who approached the project on the assumption that the expansion would occur, and focused on minimizing the impact on the surrounding area.  The Council stated this was "misguided" as to the ultimate issue which was whether such expansion should be approved.  We must be mindful not to repeat this type of deliberation. (Resolution, page six). The Council concluded that the 2010 Amendment would permit an expansion that would be "unacceptable" and "incompatible" traffic.
Off the script for a moment, the 2010 Amendment is not the proper comparator for this Amendment, as it has been rejected by the Council, and that the fair comparable is the existing conditions today, not what a 2010 Master Plan exercise attempted to do.
So, what has changed?  We would argue that the trumpeted reduction in the gross floor area from 1,170,000 square feet, again the 2010 Amendment, to 900,000 square feet is a distinction without a difference.  Building mass above grade will increase as will improved coverage, comparing again to 2010.  These are indicated in Mr. Brancheau's color coded summary of items labeled, "worse than" the prior Master Plan Amendment (his phraseology).  See exhibit B 19, which is your planner's report.
What has probably changed is Valley's business plan, which Valley refused to share with you, but which newspaper coverage tells us involves the acquisition of off site locations, to relocate Hospital departments and services, in recognition of the limitations of a 15 acre campus in Ridgewood. 
What is also newly relevant is the Affordable Care Act and its affect on the growth of hospitals and/or consolidation of hospitals, as well as Hospital need and standards, suggesting that consideration of the Hospital's needs should be deferred to a re examination study and report by this Board.  On its own initiative and at a time in the not so distant future. On the assumption that your role here is to accept or reject the proffered Amendment, we offer the following: Question one, does the 2013 Proposed Amendment address the issues raised by the Village Council?  Increased traffic, detrimental impact on light, air and open space, length and enormity of construction, impact on surrounding neighbors and a site too small to accommodate expansion?  Our answer is no, it does not.  The detrimental impacts are massive and still far exceed any incremental benefits. 
Mr. Brancheau's report provided a clear roadmap to a denial.  Let's look at the numbers, 12 of 23 are still negatively impacted and many to a massive degree.
One, Intensity of Use:  Existing conditions:  236,000 square feet of high intensity floor area; Proposed 380,000 to 400,000 square feet. 
Existing conditions:  562,000 square feet of total gross floor area; Proposed 900,000 square feet (almost double).  Mr. Brancheau's report, page five. 
Two, Building Mass Above Grade:  Existing conditions, 405,000 square feet; Proposed, 1,056,400 square feet (almost double).  Mr. Brancheau's report, page five.
Building Coverage:  Existing conditions:  128,645 square feet; Proposed 288,000 square feet.  Mr. Brancheau's report, page five. 
Maximum Building Height:  Existing conditions 65 feet; Proposed 94 feet.  Mr. Brancheau's report, page five. 
The bulk dimensions that appear to be benefits are either miniscule or are proportionately offset by detriments.  Where the Van Dien Avenue setbacks might increase on one side of the building, the Steilen Avenue side setbacks are reduced.  See the table on page six of Mr. Brancheau's report. 
The reduction in on site parking is de minimus and irrelevant.  Mr. Brancheau's report, page six.  The bulk detriments far outweigh the benefits.  The detriments include increased building mass, building coverage, building height, reduced building setbacks in some locations and a reduced buffer depth adjacent to the Ben Franklin middle school.  Mr. Brancheau's report page six.
His report also notes that the H Zone Master Plan Amendment adopted in 2010, which was rejected by the Village Council, had many of the same benefits and detriments as the current plan.  Page seven of his report. 
When Mr. Brancheau compared the 2010 Master Plan with the current proposed amendment, he concluded that improvements were limited to some increased building setbacks and reduced heights with the same setback in some locations, but that features were worse than the current plan including reduced setbacks in two locations and increasing building coverage.  Again, the improvements are de minimus and the features that are worse than the current plan are significant detriments for planning purposes.  Mr. Brancheau's report, page eight.
We applaud Mr. Brancheau for compiling this document as it was not easy to do.  Valley did all it could to avoid showing existing conditions on site.  Mr. Brancheau had to cull through prior approvals to obtain many of the bulk dimensions.
Planner Peter Steck's September 20, 2013 presentation concluded that the detriments are overwhelming to the residents are follows: 
One, "in my opinion, this represents an  improper balance of the Hospital's interests with the interests of the neighborhood". That's at pages 50 and 51 of the transcript. 
"I think the interests of the neighborhood are severely compromised by the nature of this Master Plan Amendment".  Page 51.
"Applicant is simply, in my opinion, asking to intensify the use from what exists today in that zone".  Page 51. 
At the September 30th, 2013 hearing at pages 86 and 87, Steck also notes that the proposed building and campus would be much more visible to the surrounding area:  "Looming above the tree line", and thus removing or seriously downgrading the residential quality of the surrounding neighborhood.  Page 106, Steck states:  The "beacon" of a parking garage will have negative impact.  With respect to Mr. Burgis's presentation, I'm now referring to exhibit A 29, not tonight, though he tries to focus attention on improvements of 2013 versus 2010, he also admits the detriments.  He concedes the construction timetable is a detriment at page 107.  He concedes floor space is a detriment at page 109.
Question two:  Are acute care beds as necessary and beneficial to the region as Valley would like us to believe?  Answer, no, Valley officers and professionals claim we have too many acute care beds in Bergen County.  Audrey Meyers' letter, exhibit O 5 was written in January of 2011 to the State Department of Health in opposition to Hackensack University Medical Center's petition for a Certificate of Need for a new acute care hospital in Westwood.  She vehemently argued against the issuance of the Certificate of Need for the reopening of Pascack Valley Hospital and cites at the basis for denial, excess hospital beds    hospitals/hospital beds, declining demand and occupancy rates, a negative financial impact on area hospitals and job loss.  Meyers stated: "New Jersey has too many hospitals and too many beds". The Stroudwater report, exhibit A 6, April 29, 2013, slide 16, concludes there is an overabundance of beds in Bergen County.  Existing inpatient demand is 409 beds at TVH.  TVH has current capacity of 451 beds, which exceeds the current demand. The Affordable Care Act will reduce admissions.  This is Stroudwater's exhibit, A 6, slides 8 and 11 and our exhibit O 7, which I am adding to this summation.  The elderly population will not grow enough in Bergen County to increase admission rates.  This was Stroudwater's testimony in the Appellate Division record which was produced by you, exhibit O 7.  He is saying, Stroudwater is saying, that this so called increase in admission rates is misleading, that the elderly population will not grow enough in Bergen County.
Question three:  Is there a high risk that traffic would increase at this already overburdened location?  Answer, yes.  On the detriments side of the ledger, you were told that traffic at the intersection of Van Dien and Linwood Avenues is bad now.  The traffic expert suggests traffic may not increase, based largely on commitments by Valley to remove certain activities to other locations.  The Board and the Village will have very little, if any ability, to constrain on site activities once the building and accessory structures are completed, and it is neither rational nor plausible that a hospital doubling in size will not create additional traffic.  The traffic calculations by Charles D. Olivo, Exhibit A 9, pages two and three, are based on data provided by Valley.  Once built, there will be no reasonable means to check what activities are going on inside the hospital and both agree it's the on site activities that drive traffic.  Traffic engineer, Gordon Meth, Exhibit B 7 at pages two and three, states that per ITE manuals, Valley "is already acting like a 995,000 square foot hospital" in terms of trip generation.  And we ask again, if Valley doubles in size, isn't there a reasonable likely hood that there will be a traffic increase?
This is a projected six to ten year construction project.  There are significant known impact of the construction which were noted by Mr. Brancheau at page 12 of his report, as well as the report of Torcon, Inc., Exhibit A 19, including truck traffic, excavation, dewatering, vibration, settling, noise and pollution.  Factor in the unknown variables, delays, etcetera, with a massive construction project such as the one proposed.  This is a significant detriment to the community. 
And what about the unknowns.  What if Valley's business increases?  It is a public record that Valley Hospital has purchased or leased other property in and out of Ridgewood.  How do these properties figure into the business, Valley's business plan?  Will they increase the breath of services that Valley provides and possibly grow Valley's business at Van Dien? I would add, space is being vacated, but you remain in the dark as to all of the floor area space conceived in this plan.  You remain so as of this late date. 
How is Valley going to fund this massive expansion without increasing its post expansion business?  It is notable that the "unknowns" pertaining to potential increased business at TVH could have been resolved by the request for TVH's business plan.  You chose not to do so, and thus we are left with more questions and concerns than answers and resolutions.  What if occupancy rates increase?  Exhibit O 11 shows Emergency Room admissions after the Year 2000 modernization, increasing from 49,348 to 76,812. 
Let's talk briefly about comparables.  Architect Stephen Evers and Hospital Planner James May presented what they viewed as hospitals worthy of comparison to Valley.  Yet we heard many times over that there is no "apples to apples" comparison of hospitals.  We agree that finding the perfect comp is not going to happen and even if you did find such a hospital, that would not, in and of itself, justify or invalidate Valley's proposal.  However, that does not mean that the search for comparative hospitals is a fruitless exercise.  Please take another look at the municipalities offered by Architect Evers.  Those New Jersey suburban hospitals, on average, have either two to three times Valley's acreage, or far fewer beds than Valley.  None of them has a bed to acreage density anywhere near that of Valley Hospital.  So, the lack of reasonable comparables in New Jersey is something that this Board should consider as a red flag of caution.  And the comparables offered by Mr. May, though somewhat closer to Valley in terms of density, are located in large municipalities and city centers like Bridgeport, Connecticut and Binghamton, Geneva and Schenectady New York.  The Board should consider if those examples demonstrate the look and feel of what we want for Ridgewood. 
I want to talk about the process.  If I were to say to you that the Village of Ridgewood is to commence a master planning process for the largest development in the Village's history, at least in terms of size and construction duration, and that the Planning Board should proceed by considering just one option, what words come to mind?  Would "arbitrary" and "unreasonable" come to mind?  You're being asked to "green light" a project that would take six to ten years to build, alongside a middle school, and the only option you're being told to consider is the land owner's proposal?  The most frustrating aspect of this process for C.R.R. is the idea that you would engage for nearly 15 months on a matter of such importance and do it by proposing other options.  You being asked to plan based on one party's interests and goals. 
The master planning process, as we said at the outset is your document, not Valley's.  If it is your counsel's advice to consider only the blueprint before you, then good planning dictates that you reject it.  The Village should not be held captive to a singular proposal by a single property owner.  C.R.R. engaged in this process, hired professionals and dedicated thousands of dollars and hours in the belief that this Board could forge its own Master Plan Amendment. Ironically, a quasi judicial evidentiary standard was imposed by your counsel in what is truly a legislative hearing, and it has shielded or protected Valley, not the neighbors.  Recall that the Board required C.R.R. to go through its attorneys to admit a piece of information that was plainly available on Valley's own website.  And when C.R.R.'s planner, Peter Steck, offered one sheet of suggestions for other development options for the site, Valley screamed that C.R.R. would have to pay $5,000 for that privilege, and since only Valley paid for the microphone, only Valley's script should be followed.  Sadly, the Board agreed.
Let me add that Mr. Burgis and C.R.R. agree that the Sica methodology is misplaced.  You are being asked to expedite a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, not to apply Sica to a use variance applicant.  Otherwise, an inherently beneficial use can do whatever it wants and you know that's not true. 
Valley's proposal is not a compromise, it is a renunciation of the interests of this community.  Over these 15 months, C.R.R. was trying to have a rational discussion of the future of this neighborhood and this Village.  We welcomed a vigorous debate, we got neither.  Instead, this process turned upside down and the residents became the outsiders looking in.  Most Ridgewood residents are well educated professionals who should be encouraged to participate in the process, not shut out of it unless they are forced to hire experts at their own expense.  This is a legislative hearing not a trial.  You need to change your rules.  You need to suspend the ordinance inviting boutique master planning.  You need to reject Valley's proposal.
Thank you.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Kates. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Drill?
MR. DRILL:  Yes, I would just ask, his presentation took 22 minutes, I would just ask to have the same 22.  I am going to give my 13 minute closing.
(Audience Outburst.)
MR. DRILL:  And then I'm going to respond to his. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's so noted.  Let's move on. 
MR. DRILL:  Good evening, I delivered my opening statement to you on March 11, 2013.  And since that time, you've held 25 hearing sessions over the course of the last 15 months and the Hospital's application for this Board seeking an Amendment of the 2010 Land Use Plan Element of the Village Master Plan as to the Hospital zone, the H Zone.
First I want to thank you like everyone else has thanked you for your time, your patience and your attention during the process.  I want to stress, though, the application is to amend a 2010 Master Plan Element which is in full force and effect. We have agreed in a settlement to that litigation, to hold all further action relative to that Master Plan Amendment in abeyance, pending the outcome of this hearing process.  But the key is what's in front of this Board is an Amendment to the 2010 Master Plan, not the rescission of the 2010 Master Plan.  Before the Board could think of rescinding the 2010 Master Plan, either the Board on its own or some applicant, is going to have to propose to do that and notice it. 
So, for C.R.R. to suggest to the Board that the comparison that should be made is between the 2013 plan and existing conditions has the effect of rescinding the 2010 Master Plan.  And, quite frankly, if you go down that route, it's my professional opinion, that you'll be committing error. 
Now, a brief procedural summary:  You may recall that attached to the application form as an exhibit was a document dated February 25, 2013 which contained The Valley Hospital Specific Proposed Revisions to the H Zone Land Use Plan Element.  And it was in redline text.  You will also recall that your planning expert, Mr. Brancheau, drafted a revised Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Plan Element, approximately a year later on February 28, 2014. The Hospital formally revised its application by my letter to this Board dated March 6, 2014, to accept all of Mr. Brancheau's proposed revisions.  Again, just as a procedural matter, it is true that Ridgewood has an ordinance that allows property owners to institute requests for Master Plan Amendments.  And contrary to C.R.R.'s suggestion in their attorney's closing, there's nothing wrong with that process.  In fact, there is a Law Division case Messer (phonetic) versus Burlington Township from of 980 that says that that process is perfectly legal.  If the Board believes it doesn't want to use that process anymore, then you can suggest that the Village Council eliminate that.  But that's the process in place right now.  Valley is just trying to follow the rules. 
So Valley submitted the application and it's been opposed.  Mr. Burgis had indicated in his rebuttal testimony that the Hospital recently proposed a further revision to the Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Plan Element, that's by my letter to the Board dated June 6th, 2014.  Those revisions contained in my June 6th, 2014 letter are the Hospital's responses to recommendations that Mr. Brancheau made in his March 31st report to the Board, specifically his recommendation numbers three, four, five and six.  So that's what's before the Board right now.  It's a proposed Master Plan Amendment.  It has February 2013 version.  It has Mr. Brancheau's February 2014 version.  And now with a couple of clarifications by my letter dated June 6th.   
I will now summarize, very briefly, why as a board, you should grant the application and amend the 2010 H Zone Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan.  The reasons for granting the application and amending the plan can be summarized in one sentence, and that is to revise 2013 Amendment to the 2010 H Zone Land Use Plan Element will improve the H Zone Land Use Element in areas that the Village Council found lacking when it voted not to introduce and implement the ordinance on November 22, 2011. The Village Council did not say that it should go all the way back to 1983, another argument that C.R.R. did not    the attorney didn't make tonight, but the president of C.R.R. made that argument.  And what the record will reflect is that 1983 Council Resolution was reversed by the Court, put documents on the record earlier in the evening, this Board approved, and then the Board of Adjustment approved what's at the hospital site now.  The whole reason that this whole Master Plan Amendment process started was because the Board of Adjustment suggested that a better way of doing this, instead of piecemeal, was to do a Master Plan Amendment.
I will now review the reasons expressed by the Village Council and compare the revised 2013 Amendment to the 2010 Land Use Plan Element.  I will not compare it to existing conditions because as I stated before on a number of occasions, existing conditions are irrelevant to what's before the Board.  The Board has to 2010 Master Plan Amendment in place.  That's what this application has to be compared to. 
First issue, light and air.  The Village Council Resolution memorializing its rejection of the enabling ordinance states that the building as proposed in 2010, would interfere and detrimentally impact the light and air of surrounding residences as well as the middle school.
As explained by Valley's numerous experts, and specifically as explained by Mr. Burgis in his rebuttal testimony tonight, the revised proposed 2013 Land Use Plan Element has reduced the maximum total hospital floor area by over 21 percent.  It will take the floor area of occupied square footage from 1,170,000 square feet, as provided in the 2010 Land Use Plan down to 900,000 square feet.
C.R.R. says that's nothing.  That's not nothing.  You heard Mr. Burgis testify in his opinion a change between 5 percent and 20 percent is significant from a land use perspective.  You saw the chart, while some of these numbers, 10,000 square feet can have to be adjusted, the percentages are not going to adjust by that much. This 2013 plan represents a significant improvement over the 2010 plan.  Again, a significant reduction is anywhere from 5 percent to 20 percent, a reduction does not have to be 50 percent to be deemed significant.  That's the effect of C.R.R.'s position, that this would have to be reduced by 50 percent to be deemed significant. 
Further, the revised 2013 plan amendment refines the language of the 2010 Land Use Plan relating to minimum size yard and rear yard setbacks as well as minimum front yard setbacks along Van Dien Avenue, a mandate all hospital campus buildings to define setbacks along all perimeters of the property.  Thus not only providing for more light and air than the 2010 plan, but providing for enhanced light and air.  Again, I'm not going to compare it to existing conditions, it has to be compared to 2010.  It's a substantial improvement.
Finally, the revised plan calls for major changes to the buildings' interior by eliminating the subbasement, whereas the initial plan for 2010 included a subbasement, the revised upgrade plan calls for a five story building with just one level below grade.  This equates to over a 50 percent in reduction in below grade hospital buildings but further, and more significantly, the upgrade plan calls for additional level of parking in the parking garage without increasing the height of that structure. 
As a result, some surface parking will be eliminated and replaced with green space along Linwood and North Van Dien, further enhancing light and air, again, a substantial improvement. 
Finally, the Hospital agreed to limit the hours of operation of the top deck so that lighting problems on the top would not, as Mr. Steck testified, become a beacon in the night. 
Next issue is traffic.  The Village Council Resolution memorializing its rejection of the enabling ordinance, states that traffic will increase in proportion to the increase in building expansion and that the traffic generated by the project would result in the back ups at the already congested intersection of Linwood Avenue and North Van Dien. Okay.  First of all, there's been a lot said about the fact that the Hospital has been buying up other properties.  The Hospital, in order to move its high traffic generating operations off the site, has to move them somewhere.  The Hospital has been very up front and clear that's why the properties have been being purchased. 
One of the objectors complained in the last hearing or two that, well, we've had 15 months, the operation should have been moved off site.  I want to be very clear about this that the Hospital's proposal to relocate the high traffic generating outpatient services, as well as to reduce onsite parking from 2,000 spaces to 1,700 spaces, as well as to propose off site traffic improvements to the existing roads as part of this Master Plan process, even though the upgrade plan is not going to result in additional traffic, is part of the Master Plan Amendment.  The Hospital is not going to do these things without the Master Plan Amendment being adopted. So, to complain that these things haven't been done is not fair and unrealistic.  If the Master Plan Amendment is adopted, these things will be done.  Otherwise, I guess things are going to have to stay as they are, at least for now, but, you know, who knows what the future is going to hold.  This gives it the ability to have some say in the future of the Hospital, rather than just have the Hospital end up returning to the Board of Adjustment for its future proposals. Finally, as to traffic, I want to make this comment, which actually applies to other aspects of the plan, but many members of the public and the C.R.R.'s attorney just said they simply do not believe that traffic is going to be reduced. 
C.R.R.'s attorney just said, it is unbelievable, how can that be?  They fear an increase in traffic.  And what we do, we urge the Board to separate fear from fact.  There is undisputed expert testimony that the traffic generated from the site will be reduced.  This testimony wasn't just from the Hospital traffic expert.  This testimony was also from the Board's independent traffic expert. 
To suggest that the Board doesn't have it within its bag of tools, planning tools, the ability to suggest conditions if the Master Plan Amendment is granted, is being put into the ordinance, to make sure that the high traffic generating outpatient services are moved, is just ignoring the Municipal Land Use Law and the ability of a board to suggest conditions to the governing body. 
The third aspect that the Village Council was troubled by was the water table disturbance. Village Council Resolution memorializing the rejection of the enabling ordinance states that construction of the new building would disturb the underground water table and require dewatering of approximately 500,000 gallons per day.  And the Village Council felt that that could damage residences within 1500 lineal foot zone and impact from the site.  Because of the elimination of the subbasement, the revised upgrade plan calls for a maximum of 300,000 gallons of dewatering with an average of 200,000 gallons per six months.  As a result, the zone of impact of dewatering has been greatly reduced.  And, more significantly, there's undisputed expert testimony from the Hospital's geotechnical expert and agreed to by the Board's geotechnical expert, that there will be no damage to any surrounding buildings. 
Apparently C.R.R. must agree with that because they didn't bring that up in their closing, but there are still some objectors that are fearful of this, again please separate fear from fact. 
The fourth concern by the Village Council is the excavation of bedrock and environmental issues.  And I want to    those two, in my opinion, should be dealt with together or I will just be repeating myself.  Again, the Village Council Resolution states that construction of the new building, and this is from the 2010 plan, would require removal of bedrock below grade involving a lot of excavation, including blasting, which will require approximately 22,000 truckloads of material to be trucked off site.  The resolution states that the impact of the truck traffic would adversely affect air quality with diesel fumes and dust and that the excavation and blasting would result in additional noise. To repeat, because of the elimination of the subbasement, the revised upgrade plan calls for a major reduction in excavation and now requires minimal, if any, blasting, thereby minimizing noise disturbance and vibration. Additionally, the reduction in the amount of earth excavation is going to greatly reduce the amount of truck traffic.  Now, there will still be construction trucks.  And the Hospital is well aware that particulate matter, diesel fumes can have negative health impacts, that's why the Hospital presented an occupational and environmental health and safety expert.  That is what our expert was qualified as, as an occupational and environmental health and safety expert.  And what she does, part of what she does for a living, is exactly this, design protocol and programs when there are big construction projects and they want to make sure that there won't be any negative environmental impacts. Well, the Hospital presented unrefuted expert testimony from her, as well as an expert testimony in construction management.  Both experts explained how the construction work would be done and what safety precautions would be put in place to protect the neighborhood environmentally. 
Now, again, many members of the public simply do not believe that the construction can be safely performed.  Again, they fear an increase in pollution.  They fear the negative health impacts.  Again, we urge the Board, separate fear from fact.  There is undisputed expert testimony that the construction work will be done safely and with adequate safety precautions in place.  Mr. Burgis tonight just touched upon a couple of the monitoring protocols that this expert suggested and the Hospital agreed to. 
Now, one of the members of the public, over the last two hearing sessions, stated, complained, that the objectors did not have the money to hire an environmental expert of their own.  I submit, if they found an environmental expert who was willing to render an opinion that they wanted to hear, they would have hired the expert.  I submit that that expert doesn't exist because that expert    they couldn't find someone to tell them what they wanted you to hear. 
The fifth aspect that the Village Council had a concern with was    and it was conclusion, after saying all the other issues it had with the 2010 plan, the Village Council said the project was too large and intense for this site. The Village Council Resolution in the last three paragraphs states, the site's too small for the project, project is an over intensification of the site.  2010 plan, for all the reasons I just explained, the Hospital submits that it’s substantially reduced the size and intensity of the project so now under the 2013 plan it is appropriate for the site. 
Now, I am going to have a couple of comments about some of what C.R.R.'s attorney stated.  But first I just want to conclude my initial closing.
And in conclusion, I urge the Board to remember that in considering the revised 2013 proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element, the Municipal Land Use Law requires that the Board consider the site as it exists with a hospital in terms of regional needs, the services the Hospital provides.  Contrary to excerpts by the objector's planning expert and certain members of the public, the Board cannot legally consider the site as a vacant parcel.  And you cannot put on blinders and place the colloquial desires of the neighborhood over the entire community and region.  And when viewed in this fashion, the Hospital submits that its application should be granted and the Board should approve the revised 2013 Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Plan of the Master Plan, again, because it significantly improves the existing 2010 Master Plan which is in full force and effect. 
Now just a few comments as to some of the things that C.R.R. attorney said.  First of all, I am sure that the Board attorney is going to advise you of this, but nothing that I say in my closing or that C.R.R.'s attorney says in their closing is evidence.  I have tried to stick to what's in the record.  C.R.R.'s attorney went a little beyond that, and I would just hope that the Board listens to its attorney's advice and where the C.R.R. attorney is going beyond what's in the record, the Board can't.  The Board has to stick to what's in the record. I stated before, to use the existing conditions and use that as reasons to defeat the 2013 Master Plan is, in effect, rescinding the 2010 Master Plan with no proposal, no notice.  It would be highly irregular and I would just urge you not to be tempted to go down that road, which C.R.R.'s attorneys have laid out for you. 
C.R.R.'s attorney telling you about newspaper coverage, tells you about the acquisition of offsite locations.  I didn't object.  He shouldn't have done that because he knows that the newspaper articles weren't submitted into evidence.  Highly improper, but again, just you have to ignore that.  
Again, from starting on page four of his closing, all the references to existing conditions, they are legally irrelevant.  And again.  The Board goes down that road, my professional opinion, you'll be committing error. 
C.R.R.'s attorney and a number of objectors have cited and quoting various testimony by C.R.R.'s planning expert.  I'm sure that the Board attorney is going to be advising the Board on all that stuff, that net opinion. 
Valley Hospital contends that C.R.R.'s planning expert testified almost entirely based on net opinion.  He didn't even know the area.  He didn't know that the site is served by mass transit bus line.  He testified that one of the reasons it was inappropriate for the Master Plan Amendment because there was no way for anyone to get to the site other than driving.  When he was corrected by either, I believe the Village engineering expert, could have been the planning expert, it doesn't really matter, his response was he went onto the Valley website, that's where he got the information.  You're not supposed to go on the Valley website, but I can tell you    the board knows this, but I can tell you that if    I'm not suggesting you look at it, but if he looked at it, the Valley website, he would see that there is a whole bunch of information there about how to get to the hospital using which bus lines. 
Everything that C.R.R. has said about Valley's president Audrey Meyers' letter written to the State Department of Health in opposition to the HUMC addition for Certificate of Need, again we've been through this, we argued it, we had it in briefs.  Fortunately the Board kept out most of the evidence that I thought was improper.  And I let a couple of things in, quite frankly, that we objected to, it is what it is, but you can correct yourself by not relying on it. As I argued back then, the president, Audrey Meyers' letter, even though it was written in 2011, because the only data available at that time was data from 2006 and otherwise, that's the data that was used. By the time the Commissioner of Health decided the application, there was new data.  She said in her letter in which she granted the Certificate of Need and there were questions about it in front of this Board, the Commissioner of Health wrote a letter that we submitted into evidence explaining, you can't use something that Valley's president wrote to object to one application where the data has changed and you can't use it in any event to impeach the hospital.  
MS. SHERMAN:  Excuse me.
MR. DRILL:  And that’s what C.R.R. said at the time   
MS. SHERMAN:  Excuse me.  Excuse me. 
MR. DRILL:     they want to impeach the hospital. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Excuse me.
MR. DRILL:  You can't impeach a Hospital.  You can only impeach a witness. 
MS. PRICE:  This is summation. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Is he allowed to do this?
MR. DRILL:  And they had    they had nothing   
MS. SHERMAN:  He's allowed to rebut    do another rebuttal? 
MR. DRILL:  They had nothing   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please take your seat.  He is in the middle of his summation. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Is he allowed    is he allowed to do another   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please do not disturb. 
MS. SHERMAN:    another rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please do not disturb   
MS. SHERMAN:  I    I need to know   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     the summation. 
MR. DRILL:  I'm going over my time because C.R.R.'s attorney   
MS. SHERMAN:  I    I   
MR. DRILL:     went over his time. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I asked a procedural question before. 
MR. DRILL:  I'm sorry.  I stated that earlier.  I timed myself it was 13 minutes. 
In any event, as I was saying you can't    you can't question the credibility of an applicant.  I even put in cases where even if an applicant doesn't comply with a condition, it can't be held against the applicant in another application. Again    
MS. SHERMAN:  You also can't rebut in summation. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please do not disturb    please   
MS. SHERMAN:  You cannot do this rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Sherman, please take your stat. 
MS. SHERMAN:  This is not allowed. 
MS. PRICE:  You're out of line. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please take your seat.
MS. SHERMAN:  This is not allowed.
MS. PRICE:  You are fully out of line. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Sherman, please take your seat.
MS. SHERMAN:  I would like it to be explained   
MR. DRILL:  I am going to ask the Court Reporter to ignore what Ms. Sherman is saying  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No.
MR. DRILL:     because she's interrupting me.  And this is my    
MS. SHERMAN:  I would like it to be explained in the record as to where the     
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ms. Sherman   
MS. SHERMAN:    where it says he is allowed to rebut his side   
MS. PRICE:  Wait, stop, wait a minute.  Mr. Drill, wait a minute. 
Ms. Sherman, you are out of line.  This is the    this is   
MS. SHERMAN:  But I think that he is out of line.
MS. PRICE:  Mrs. Sherman, Mrs. Sherman, Mrs. Sherman, you are out of line, not the first time in this proceeding.  And the Board has afforded you a lot of leeway.  This is respectful opportunity for both attorneys to do their summation, uninterrupted summation. 
MS. SHERMAN:  But he did his summation and now   
MS. PRICE:  Not interrupt    wait a minute.  He's doing his summation now.  The Applicant gets the last summation.  This is not for you to question at this point. 
MS. SHERMAN:  His summation is a rebuttal   
MS. PRICE:  No, his summation   
MS. SHERMAN:     of his summation.
MS. PRICE:     is whatever he wants to make it.  He's the attorney for the Applicant.  Just like Mr. Kates got to say whatever he wanted to say.  And Mr. Drill didn't object. 
You are out of line. 
MS. SHERMAN:  My apologies. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, please continue. 
MR. DRILL:  In any case, the C.R.R.'s attorney stated in his closing, again highly improper, I didn't object, I just let it go, I didn't want to interrupt him, didn't want to do anything to his flow, he said the elderly population will not grow enough in Bergen County to increase admission rates.  There's nothing, nothing in this record to support that statement.  It's highly improper, shouldn't have been said.  Just pointing it out and I am hoping that the Board does what it should and ignore it. 
Again, in conclusion, I urge the Board to remember that in considering the revised 2013 proposed Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Element, the Municipal Land Use Law requires the Board consider the 2013 Amendment against what is in effect now which is the 2010 Amendment.  And in terms of regional need, you heard Mr. Burgis testify about what is more important you have two inherently beneficial uses, you have a hospital next to a school.  I would hope that you would agree with Mr. Burgis that the hospital need in and of itself is a higher ranking than a school, but especially when you take regional considerations into effect. 
Will there be some detriment in the neighborhood?  Absolutely.  We can't    Mr. Burgis said, there will be inconveniences.  There will be    it's a long construction project, but the fact is the Planning Board is not supposed to be the board that just picks one neighborhood's issues into account when its making land use decisions that not only impact the entire Village, but impact the region. 
So we would hope when you balance everything, keep in mind that in The Valley Hospital's way of thinking, the regional need for the upgrade, the hospital to continue its history of excellence, versus some detriments that absolutely will be there, are outweighed and because of that, because this 2013 Amendment substantially makes the plan better than what is now in place, that you would approve the application and grant the amendment.  
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Drill. 
Okay.  Now before we talk about carry date for Gail's instructions, Blais, did you want to address the points in Mr. Drill's letters in terms of how we should proceed with that? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, Mr. Drill has, in response to my memo, requested an amendment to the plan before the Board. I think it would be    I don't believe any of those are substantive, but I think it would be probably clearer and just neater to do it that way, is to amend the plan before the Board's vote so that there's no confusion about what it is you're voting on.  And I would request that the Board authorize me to prepare that Amendment for the next meeting. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, any objection?
MS. PRICE:  Just   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I'm sorry.  Gail?
MS. PRICE:  Yes, just to be clear, Blais, you're just talking about the items that were in the   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 in my report. 
MS. PRICE:      in A 37, right.  A 37 that were responsive.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The letter, the June 6th letter from Mr. Drill.  Yes. 
MS. PRICE:  And that would be for clarification purposes? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Just for clarification, just so there's no confusion. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Any questions from the Board on that? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I would like to move that the Board requests that you amend the current Amendment to be inclusive of those points per your recommendation.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
MS. PRICE:  No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Roll call?
MS. PRICE:  Let's do a roll call.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, Jane, Roll call on that please? 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mayor Aronsohn?
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Bigos? 
MR. BIGOS:  Yes. 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Peters?
MS. PETERS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Jane.

There was discussion regarding dates and venues for instruction from Counsel.

The hearing was closed and the matter carried to June 16 at 7:30 p.m. at Benjamin Franklin Middle School.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: August 4, 2015

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 16, 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 7:38 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Councilman Pucciarelli is recused from the hearing on the H – Hospital zone and was absent from the meeting. Ms. Bigos and Mr. Joel were absent.
Correspondence received by the Board – Ms. Wondergem said the Board received an email of apology from Marla Sherman on June 10, 2014.
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.:
Before we begin let me just make a short announcement.  Tonight's special meeting was scheduled last week after we ran out of time following attorney rebuttal and closing remarks from Mr. Kates for Concerned Residents of Ridgewood and Mr. Drill for Valley Hospital. With the record closed, tonight the Board will hear from its own Counsel with instructions to the Board regards these hearings.  We will not take questions during this process.  But you're encouraged to hear both attorney instructions and any board questions.
Tomorrow evening you will hear the Board's deliberations and vote.  Tomorrow's meeting will be here at BF.  It will begin at 7:30 p.m. and the doors will open at 6:30 so people will have enough time to get in.
Please note that tomorrow the only means of ingress will be through the rear main entrance doors not through the front.  The rest facilities will also be accessible only from the back. 
So as a reminder for tonight it's important that we hear Ms. Price's words and ask questions if any, without interruption.  So please respect this. 
Thank you very much for coming this evening.
Gail? 
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  Can everyone hear me?  Everyone hear me up here?  Yes?  Okay.
So tonight what I would like to do is try to pull together the Board's last 25 meetings or so which we started last March, as a result of the proceedings that occurred before Judge Carver as a result of the litigation that had been instituted by the concerned citizens and the subsequent appearances by counsel on behalf of Valley Hospital and our office on behalf of the Board.  And the direction that we received from Judge Carver to return to the Board, hear an Amendment from Valley Hospital, receive input from C.R.R.  and other members of the public who had comments on the Amendment, and then for the Board to take action on that Amendment.
There has been certain miscommunications and reporting along the way that has not accurately depicted the situation that I'll address during the instructions.
But tonight is an attempt from me as Board Counsel to advise the Board on what your role is as Planning Board when reviewing an Amendment to the Master Plan both under governing law and under the Municipal Land Use Law, which you know is statutory provision that enables this Board to act with your authority. 
The law that's in effect right now with regard to the H Zone    and I shouldn't use the word law, but the operative Master Plan that's in effect right now for the H Zone is the 2010 Master Plan Amendment that this Board adopted. The Council declined to take action on that Master Plan Amendment in 2011, and that that was what then triggered the litigation that I just spoke of, and triggered the reason to return to these hearings.
But for purposes of your review, the policy statement and the section of the Master Plan that's in effect is that 2010 Master Plan Amendment.  There are a lot of questions that came up during the public portion of both questions and comments.  And, again, at the last meeting, as to whether this Board should basically    and these are my words, "put blinders on" to not looking at the property. 
And I'm going to say to you that that is of course ludicrous.  You have to look at the property as you do with every application, and as you do with every Master Plan Amendment or Master Plan Re Examination that this Board entertains.  But there's a difference in looking at the property and looking at the property with regard to what underlying public policy document is in effect. 
And before I start with the specific instructions, I just want to give you an example on that.  If someone came to the Board and said we'd like you to consider looking at an Amendment for a section of the Village, let's say the Franklin Avenue corridor.  The Board would need to look at the Master Plan and see, well, what does the Master Plan say with regard to the Franklin Avenue corridor?  That's where the Board would start. And then you would look at the new proposed language that was before you seeking the modifications for the Master Plan with regard to the Franklin Avenue corridor. At the same time naturally you would look at the properties along the Franklin Avenue corridor.  You would look at existing conditions.  You would look at the streetscape.  You would look at the traffic conditions.  You would look at the buildings.  You would look at everything that was happening on that corridor. 
So you would not close your eyes and say, I can't look at what's out there, I can only look at the Master Plan.  And that's not what this Board does, you know you look at the controlling law.  And then you look at facts, as those facts are presented by actual development on properties. 
So I just want to caution you not to mix those items up, but I want to be very clear that you absolutely are allowed to look at what's out there on the hospital property because the hospital property is the H Zone.  So you need to be aware of what's out there when acting on this proposed Amendment.  At the same time you need to be very much aware of the presence and the legality of the 2010 Amendment when you make your decision and your deliberation.
With that let me just start with a little bit of background and the Board knows a lot of this, but I just want to repeat it for purposes of the record and then for your use in going forward with your deliberations tomorrow night. We've talked a lot about the importance of the Master Plan as being basically the cornerstone of everything that happens in the municipality.  From the Master Plan you get your Zoning Ordinances.  And from your Zoning Ordinances you get development.  So the creation of the Master Plan is the fundamental determination and public policy document.  However it's important to remember and the Court was very clear in the Manalapan Realty case, which was a Supreme Court case, that the Master Plan does not have the operative effect of a Zoning Ordinance.  So when Board acts on a Master Plan or a Master Plan Amendment that does not give rights of development to a property owner.  It only speaks of what this Board finds as appropriate development for the municipality, for the Village, and it is to be used as guidance then for the governing body to adopt Zoning Ordinance regulations to guide that development or if a Zoning Ordinance is not adopted it may be used by a property owner to go to the Zoning Board in a given municipality and make an application and say, my use is consistent with the Master Plan so I'm entitled to a use variance and whatever bulk variances relief that he or she may be seeking. 
So by statute this Board is the only board that is entitled by authority to act on the Master Plan.  And the governing body is the only body that can act on the Zoning Ordinance.  So there's been some confusion along the way that those two kind of mixed or that this Board can do both.  The Board can only do the Master Plan and the governing body can do the Zoning Ordinance. 
The framework for Master Plan creation and adoption is found in Section 28 of the Municipal Land Use Law and I think I quoted at the last meeting that that statutory section says that the Board is to adopt a Master Plan to guide the use of lands within the municipality in a manner which promotes public health and safety and promotes the general welfare.  So those are some important buzzwords:  Public health and safety, and promotion of the general welfare.  And I'll come back to those along the way as I am going through the instructions. 
The MLUL talks about the purposes of zoning in Subsection 2.  And in that subsection it makes reference both directly and indirectly to certain purposes of zoning and the general welfare. Case law has identified "general welfare" as being promoted in instances of creation of affordable housing, instances when you create certain regulations where you're promoting ecologically sensitive properties, where you might be preserving agricultural properties or open spaces.  If you're promoting certain aesthetic considerations, that another example of promotion of the general welfare. 
And then we have the subsection that talks about inherently beneficial uses, which I identified a couple of meetings ago because we heard a lot of testimony about inherently beneficial uses being both the Hospital and Benjamin Franklin School where we are tonight, and what exactly does inherently beneficial mean, and what does it mean for this Board that the Hospital is an inherently beneficial use. 
First off, let me just tell you that the definition of an inherently beneficial use is contained in the Municipal Land Use Law as Subsection 4 and I'm going to read this exactly to you: "It's a use which is universally considered of value to the community because it serves the public good and promotes the general welfare". 
So examples of inherently beneficial uses have been specifically identified to include hospitals, schools, child care centers and group homes.  And they've be pointed out as serving not only local needs but regional needs.  So the issue that we have spent a lot of time on is where does local come into play with regional?  And where does that weigh with the Board's determination as to the present Amendment?  And I'll get back to that. 
On a procedural basis, from the outset the Board has had to do a lot of things to get us to this point and Judge Carver, I think, certainly thought we would be to this point a lot sooner since he anticipated we were going to be done in three months.  So here we sit, I guess, 15, 16 months later.  But I think that the Board has heard from a lot of different experts both pro and con and certainly on behalf of the Board itself, because the Board has retained its own experts.  And those experts on behalf of the Board are, just like in any other case where the Board hires experts, hired on behalf of the community, because those experts are hired for to speak for and on behalf of the community and to ensure that there is a full and unbiased review. 
So the Board has taking a very variant course of action and that has been that there's been a preparation of the proposed Amendment.  That Amendment was first done by the Valley Hospital pursuant to Judge Carver's direction.  And then it was subsequently modified by Blais, the Village Planner. 
The Board scheduled a variety of hearings, all pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law.  There was the provision of required statutory notice.  And I can confirm for the record that notice is accurate and complete.  Jane has supplied the necessary notice to both the Bergen County Planning Board and as required to others pursuant to the Act.  The documents have been made available for public inspection as required by the statute.  The hearings have been held in a procedurally accurate manner.  There was reference to one meeting that may have been cut short in an abrupt manner.  And I just want to state for the record that the Board did not cut any meeting short.  And, in fact, that meeting, it was an August meeting because I was on vacation.  That meeting was cut short because it was at the Village Hall and the attendance that evening far exceeded capacity at the Village Hall.  And that meeting needed to be canceled with the consent of all Counsel by the way, because of public safety and required Fire Code rules. 
And then the next thing would be proper voting.  I confirmed with Jane that all the requisite certifications are in to date.  And then once the Board takes any action in the next step would be that that action would be noticed and then there would be publication. 
So we've talked about the process in terms of what got us here.  The basic points of that Court Order, as I stated, included that Valley would submit the new Amendment, the Board would review it.  And C.R.R. agreed that it would dismiss their lawsuit without prejudice. At the conclusion of this proceeding the parties, all parties would be put back to where they were originally, retaining the right to reinstitute litigation and, of course, take any actions relative to new litigation. 
That Order, as I reviewed with the Board in March of 2013 specifically found that there was no finding that any party involved in the 2010 Amendment had in any way acted improperly or wrongfully and left the 2010 Amendment in place.  All the zoning relative to the 2010 Amendment was held in abeyance.  And what I mean by that is it was specifically agreed that no party would go to the Zoning Board seeking approval under the Municipal Land Use Law for a site plan and use variance while the matter was pending here.  And it further provided that the Board would review the new Amendment pursuant to proper notice, which certainly occurred; that the public would be provided an opportunity to comment which has also occurred; and that C.R.R. would proceed in a manner that would not delay the proceeding which has also occurred.  And the last provision of the Order was that all parties would move forward to cooperate.
So over the course of the last 25 meetings, the foregoing has hopefully, you know, gotten us to where the Board would be able to make a decision on whether it finds that the 2013 proposed Amendment is something that it finds to be of greater benefit than the 2010 existing Amendment. 
And let me just say also, to negate any comments on this as well, you know, even though I've lived in town since '83 as Board Counsel my comments are only legal in nature.  I have no note.  I have no sway.  If I had the sway power that people have said I have, I could be having a lot bigger job than I have.  I'm here to guide you with your legal role and the governing law and nothing more.  My opinion about matters, whether it's this matter or any other matter that the Board has handled for the last 15 years while I have been Counsel is irrelevant.  And I can't think of a single instance where my opinion has infiltrated any matter. 
So the    and it's ultimately your determination to review the pending Amendment.  That Amendment has been revised as you know by Blais and he made those revisions on notice after he issued his report, which I believe was a February report or March    February or March report.  And he made the modifications to the Master Plan that he then presented. 
So the Board's vote is the only necessary vote that's required at this point in time on the Master Plan.  And there's a couple of ways that this can happen. 
The Board can choose to approve the 2013 Amendment or the Board can reject it.  Voting to approve the Amendment would mean that the pending Amendment would go into effect replacing the existing 2010 Amendment.  So if the Board adopts the new Amendment it moots out the old 2010 Amendment. 
The Board could also vote to make minor non substantive changes to the pending Amendment.  So if the Board were to still have certain issues that    further than what Blais has already done, that were non substantive in nature and I'm going to highlight non substantive because of the legal issue, you could ask to have    on any kind of a motion you could have the motion be contingent upon the addition of those non substantive changes. 
A vote to reject or deny the pending Amendment would leave the existing 2010 Amendment in place and operative.  If the existing 2010 Amendment stands, the litigation on that matter can be reinstated by any party either the Valley Hospital or C.R.R. and in addition the Valley Hospital could pursue an application before the Zoning Board under the terms of the existing 2010 Amendment.  The Board cannot move to adopt a version of the pending Master Plan Amendment that has substantive changes.  The reason that it can't do that tomorrow is that it would    two reasons, A, it would be outside of the very specific scope of the Court Order from Judge Carver.  Judge Carver's Order was to come back on to have Valley Hospital present to the Board a proposed Amendment and have all parties work towards that to see if that was a compromise that would be acceptable.  It doesn't mean that it has to be acceptable, but that was the provision from the Court. Moreover and move important from a legal standpoint, the Board can't change the Amendment tomorrow night with a substantive change because you have to do that with notice.  And that's very clear under the Municipal Land Use Act.  It would have to be noticed and you would need new hearings.  So minor changes, minor additions, minor revisions would be fine.  But in order the do a substantive change you would need to have new notice and new hearings in order to accomplish that.  So statutory notice and a new set of hearings together with the other filing requirements that Jane has done on the past 25 hearings, for instance, with the County Planning Board would have to be accomplished.  And if we ignore those, for would clearly be reversible error by anyone who would challenge that.  And that's a very easy, a very easy thing to tell the Board.  It may not be a popular thing for people to hear, but it's an easy, clear-cut rule of the statute.
I just want to take a minute to touch on Ordinance 190 143 because that's been discussed in connection with these hearings.  And, most recently, it was referred to in the summation on June 19th.  Regardless of the presence of the Ordinance, anyone at any point in time can ask for a Master Plan Amendment.  My husband could ask for a Master Plan Amendment.  My daughter could ask for a Master Plan Amendment.  My neighbor could ask for a Master Plan Amendment.  They don't need that Ordinance to be able to ask for a Master Plan Amendment under the Municipal Land Use Law.  The statute allows anyone to ask for an Amendment at any point in time. What Ordinance 190 143 does for the Village is that it provides a mechanism that requires the party asking for that Amendment to pay the freight.  Basically to cover the escrow costs for all the expenses.  So the Board applicant in this case has retained traffic engineer, environmental engineer, planner, you know we've had five or so experts.  All of those experts' billings without that Ordinance would be at the taxpayers' expense because it wouldn't be an escrow account that would be started by the Applicant. And I asked Jane to compile that number, and it's my understanding that that number exceeds a quarter of a million dollars at this point this time.  So without that Ordinance on the books that would have been a taxpayer expense in connection with this project. 
So I think it’s just important to highlight that for this matter and maybe for other matters, that the purpose of that order is to protect the financial interests of the citizens because at any point in time anybody could ask for a Master Plan Amendment.  It's not    if the ordinance is voided it's not going to prohibit people from asking for the Amendment.  And it's not going to restrict it to just the Planning Board or the Village. 
If, in fact, this matter goes back to Court then of course the Village would be responsible for bearing all the costs of litigation, that's not a relevant issue for you determining which way to act on the Amendment.  But it's just something to note in terms of the financial aspect.  And other courts have found ordinances similar to Ridgewood's Ordinance to be valid. 
So with regard to the record that's been created in this case and what the appropriate standard of review is, let's talk about that for a minute.  So we've had, you know, 25 or so hearings.  And I noted at the last board meeting that I provided a summary to the Board of those meetings.  They started on March 11, 2013; the last meeting was June 9th.  And we had exhibits A 1 through A 38, and B 1 through B 21, and O 1 through O 11.  And then there are a series of "P" exhibits as well. 
The first thing that generally goes into making a record, as the Board knows is the application that's filed by the party seeking approval.  And in this case there's no application because it's a Master Plan Amendment.  So what we have instead is the request which was in the form of a proposed Amendment.  We now have the verbatim testimony from the witnesses.  We have the reports.  We have the written materials that were received into the record by C.R.R. we have the reports by the Board's witnesses, Dr. Kabir, Gordon Meth, Jamie May, Blais and Chris.  We have the comments of the members the public.  And we have certain sworn statements of the members the public. 
I said last week, and I want to reiterate again the legal summations that were made by both Counsels are not evidential in this matter.  They're not evidential in any matter in land use.  And they should not be relied upon by you in connection with your deliberations.  They're simply the respective attorney's own story that they want to tell at the end of the proceedings. 
So you have copies of all those materials.  You have copies of the transcripts.  And you've made yourself familiar with the contents of all of those.  The importance of your decision is that it must be based upon evidence that is solely in the record. And at certain times during the proceeding Katie and I didn't make a lot of friends when we said you can't go outside the record.  You can't rely upon newspapers articles.  You can't rely upon the Internet.  You can't cite the things that are hearsay.  But that's what you need to do.  You need to rely upon things that have been testified to, that are clear-cut, and that have legal foundations that are authenticated.  And while this is not a court of law, this is clearly not a court of law, it is quasi-judicial in nature.  And there are certain rules that need to be adhered to.  And some can be lightened and expanded, and I think that the Board has done that with frequency when the need has arisen during the proceeding. But if materials or information exist that are not in the record you cannot consider those materials when reviewing them in connection with this matter. 
It’s up to you to decide what's true and relevant in terms of the facts.  And you have the choice of accepting testimony from witnesses.  You can say, I didn't believe a word that that person said, or I found that person's testimony much less creditable than that person's testimony.  It’s up to you to determine who you find credible and who you don't. You have accepted a variety of witnesses as experts in connection with this matter.  Those witnesses were accepted into very specific fields of expertise and designated in those fields.  So when you're relying upon your findings in connection with those particular witnesses, I would caution you not to go outside the scope of the fields of expertise.  So if that expert was qualified in A, B and C don't expand A, B and C and say, well, you know, I think that that person really either said stuff, you know, about F, G and H or should have said stuff about F, G and H.  Just keep it in their respective field of qualification and areas that they actually testified in. 
And remember that experts are given a little bit of leeway under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 703 which provides that an expert can rely upon and base opinion upon facts or data that may not be admissible in evidence under strict circumstances, if those were the type of facts or circumstances typically replied upon by other experts in his or her field.  But I just want to reiterate that it’s critical that you're not bound to accept the testimony of any particular or all of the witnesses.  And you need to focus in on the issue of net opinion which we spent at least two meetings on.  And you need to make a decision on the exclusion of any testimony that you might find is not supported by adequate testimony. 
Katie and I both went through, including a legal memo, in terms of what the standards are for net opinion.  But if there was no substantiation of the conclusions by a witness, and there was only general statements without explaining standards or particular experience that served the basis of his or her opinion, you need to pause and say, "was that a net opinion", because the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division has, of late, been all over this issue in terms of throwing matters out based upon net opinion.  The Saddle River case, another case was Araia (phonetic) versus Starling, Board of Education Clifton.  They're all recent cases that have reiterated the Court's stress point on boards such as this board needing to make sure that the testimony you’re basing your decisions on is, in fact, testimony that's substituted by solid fact.
Let's see, the Courts also held that a Board's decision can be set aside as being arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, those are also buzzwords that this Board is very familiar with, in the absence of persuasive evidence in the record. 
So if there is a hole in the record that you can't find any testimony on, that you think is critical, then you should not speculate.  You shouldn't say "what ifs".  You should make a finding that something significant is missing and conclude that way.  But you need to make that based upon the actual testimony that has, you know, been set forth.
It’s also important to consider that while the testimony of the members of the public certainly, as I stated a number of times, is extremely relevant and represents the opinion of the neighborhood and the surrounding properties, this is not, as all other matters before the Board, is not a matter of head counting.  So if we had 200 people who are against this, and 50 for it, it's not relevant.  And vice versa.  The Courts have been all over this issue too.  And have thrown matters out where boards have made determinations based upon head counting.  So there's a lot of stuff in this record that the Board can rely upon without making any statements upon the number of people that they    you know the number of people who were at the meetings or anything like that because the number of Objectors present or the number of proponents present have been held by the courts not to be relevant.  What's relevant is what this Board finds based upon the statutory parameters and the records, whether this Board finds it to be adequate for a public policy document. 
So the standards, I want to talk about that for a second because Blais talked about the Sica matter at one of our meetings, I don't know if that was two or three maybe four meetings ago, and he was reviewing the Sica case and the variance criteria under the Sica case as a guideline only, not as controlling.  You know that this is not a Zoning Board matter.  It's not a matter where the Board is weighing the positive criteria versus the negative criteria.  And Blais set forward the use of the Sica case and the inherently beneficial use language as an example for the Board to look at, in terms of how you could go through this record in connection with the drafting and adoption of the Master Plan Amendment. However it’s important that you not get caught up and weighed down in the specific positive and negative criteria of the variance section of the statute because that's not what's controlling.  What's controlling is Section 28 of the Municipal Land Use Law. So it's not Section 70 which is the variance section, which talks about positive and negative, it's Section 28.  So the only reference language in Section 28 is to guide the use of lands in a manner which protects public health and safety and promotes the general welfare. So Blais, when he referred to general welfare and Sica case, that's where I'm coming back full circle.  The use of inherently beneficial use was because the statute defines hospitals as an inherently beneficial use. 
So his use of that was more in terms of a reference and a comparison with the general welfare, I think, than anything else.  And I think it was also utilized in connection with the regional versus local need question that arose, and whether the Board is limited to look at only local issues or whether the Board should be looking at regional issues as well.  And certainly by the definition of inherently beneficial use, itself, and how the statute does defines the hospital use, not this hospital use, but a hospital use.  I'm not opining on Valley Hospital.  I am referencing statutory and case law decisions on hospitals.  It specifically talks about regional benefits as well as local. 
And the Meridian case was which was Meridian versus Point Pleasant, I think, yes, Appellate Division, that was an instance where there was a claim, okay, just look at the local, just look at local, don't look at regional.  And the Board in that case had attempted to balance out and they wanted to link the nursing home aspect of the development to elimination of the acute care facilities from the hospital.  So the board basically said, okay, well, we'll allow you to have your new section if you eliminate your old section.  And the Court said "no go".  And they talked about the regional needs versus the local and that an inherently beneficial use of the hospital serves the regional. 
So that's a consideration and that's where I think Blais was going with that entire conversation that he had.  And in the Howell case, Howell versus Brick, that issue was also discussed.  And the quote from the Court was because zoning powers are derived from the state's general authority, a zoning decision must consider the welfare of all the State's inhabitants, not just the interests of the inhabitants in a particular locality.  And bringing it down to a fact issue, the Board needs to think about it in a very general sense, would the Board, when we get applications for a restaurant or an office building or, you know, some kind of a commercial use, would that Board make inquiry of those users, if the Board was considering a use or a Master Plan Amendment from one of those users, would you make inquiry of their customer base or their business plan or the percentage of people coming from out of town?  You have to think about it the same as you would do on any other matter that this Board looks at because you can't distinguish one type of application from another. 
Even though this is a huge application or matter and even though it takes 15 acres, and even though it's gone on for    I don't know it's gone on for a lot of years, but I'm talking about just going from 2006 forward, you need to be consistent with how you look at this compared to the other applications and other requests that you look at. 
So there are a lot of things you can look at to determine whether you want to adopt this or not, but just don't stray outside of the parameters of what you would do for the other types of businesses and commercial establishments that you look at for other properties and other uses in the Village because doing so would certainly be outside of the proper parameter.  So the review of the Board's determination, if the Board makes a decision tomorrow night, the question will then be has the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner and has it abused its discretion in either adopting or rejecting the pending Amendment.  And then the matter is free to go by way of a prerogative writ lawsuit back to Hackensack. 
The Board is vested with a certain amount of discretionary authority which will not be overturned by the Court unless there's significant proof that the Board was arbitrary and capricious.  And the judicial review is intended, clearly, to be a determination of the validity of this Board's action, not    and the Court's not going to substitute its judgement, his or her judgement, as to whether this was a proper decision of the Board. 
So there's some other quick matters that I just want to touch on, and we did this along the way, letters, articles, petitions, outside the record unless they were specifically marked.  Okay?  So none of those are to be considered.  And the basis for that, as you know, is that unless the parties were here to be cross examined by all interested parties, it’s not fair and equitable to receive those things into the record.  And it’s an irreversible error. Anything on the Internet or outside the record, as I said, is not to be considered. 
Issue of preemption, as the Board knows when we review certain applications we are preempted by higher authority.  So sometimes we're preempted by the NJ DOT for matters on Route 17.  We might be preempted by the NJ DEP for matters involving wetlands or stormwater management if Chris hasn't covered everything and dotted all the "i"s and crossed all the "t"s and if it's a state regulated permit there are    there are a host of instances when we are preempted by higher authorities. Another example of that is preemption by the State Department of Health.  And in this case I've given the Board both the Overlook Terrace Management Case as well as the statutory citations for the Healthcare Facilities Planning Act.  That Act takes you through the provision that the State Department of Health is the entity that has the central responsibility for the development and administration of the state's policy with respect to health planning, hospital and related healthcare services and healthcare facility costs containment programs.  The rules apply to the initiation, construction and expansion of all healthcare facilities in the State of New Jersey. 
So those rules are found at N.J.S.A. 26:2H 1 et seq and also at N.J.A.C. 8:33 1 1.1B.  And the quote is significant that provides recognizing the significant changes in the economics of the healthcare system since the inception of the Certificate of Need program, decisions as to most healthcare services, acquisition of medical technology and expansion of facilities can best be made by the healthcare provider.  Moreover, this rule provides that the appropriate role of the state with respect to services no longer subject to the Certificate of Need is that of licensure facilities and services to ensure the quality of care. 
And our Supreme Court has held that the declarations of legislature policy in this particular Act, which is the Healthcare Facilities Planning Act, include jurisdiction over Certificate of Need and licensing functions by the Department of Health.  And the relevance here is, is that that jurisdiction includes the number of beds that a facility may or must provide.  So the relevance of that in this Master Plan Amendment is that with preemption being a judicially created principal that says a municipality cannot act contrary to the State where there's a higher authority in charge of issues that are before them, the issue of bed count is clearly an issue that is regulated by the Department of Health. So the relevance is that what we heard, the Board's heard a lot about the transition to single bed rooms and the count of beds, this Certificate of Need covers the bed count.  This Board can't get involved, in our opinion, in determining whether that Certificate of Need is valid, appropriate, should be modified, any of those items because we're not a party to the state.  We weren't there when the Certificate of Need was issued.  The Planning Board has no role under the Act itself, under the Health Care Facilities Planning Act.  And the State Department of Health has made a determination that Valley Hospital is entitled to X number of beds. 
So that said the Board needs to determine, okay, on the Master Plan, how does the Master Plan then take shape?  And what impact does that have on the number of beds, because if you make a determination that you're going to reduce the number of beds, A, I think that we have a problem on preemption, but, B, if you reduce the number of beds and are mindful of preemption, you need to find the beds someplace else on the site.  And the reason why I'm saying that is because it's a ripple effect.  We've heard a lot of testimony during the hearings about height and setbacks and buffers and parking and underground facilities.  So if the beds come off a particular section    and the Board might determine that.  The Board might say, look, you know, we want to move the beds some place.  Just be mindful that you need to then say, all right, well, we're preempted by the State Department of Health on the number.  So where is the number going to go?  So does that mean that the setbacks get decreased?  Does that mean that there's underground construction?  Does that mean that there's less parking?  You know they're all questions that need to be answered.
So you can't, in our opinion, ignore the preemption issue by the Department of Health because once that Certificate of Need is issued that issue of bed count number is not before us and would never be before us anyway.  We don't regulate the number of beds in a Zoning Ordinance to begin with.  That's something that's covered by the State Department of Health.  But that's not to say that you can't look at the other issues to find whether the overall Amendment is appropriate.
And just going back to the Meridian case, again, that's exactly what happened in that case, not with bed count but that was where the Board had said, okay, two floors proposed for the nursing home could be taken off and not used and, you know, take the floors off and then you can have your new use.  And the Appellate Division said, no, no, no, you can't get involved with basically framing the inside operations of the hospital because that's what the Department of Health is for.  That's the business plan for the Department of Health. So I cited that case for you and gave you some examples of case law on that point.  And just to bear in mind when you're looking at that particular issue. 
Property values, this issue has come up a couple of times.  Economic hardship is not a proper consideration on anybody's side.  First of all this is not a situation where eminent domain has been asserted.  There's no claim or proof in the record with any expert testimony or any hard facts that the Board could make a judgment pro or con on economic benefits, property value wise.  There's just a lack of testimony on that.  It wasn't something that was introduced. 
And, quite frankly, on a Master Plan Amendment I'm not sure it would have been appropriate anyway, but it didn't exist.  So there's nothing in the record to look at that. 
The request for the environmental impact study and the construction protections, we've been over this several times.  This is only the first step in this process.  For the Board to get bogged down    and I'm using bogged as a very general statement, I'm not saying it's not appropriate to look at all of those issues because it is appropriate to look at all of those issues, it's just a question of timing.  When do you look at all those issues?  This is just a policy statement.  The moment that you would start looking at all of those issues would be if this Amendment were to be approved and if there were to be an Ordinance that would be drafted, those concerns would be adequately and appropriately contained in an Ordinance.  That's the first place they should be.  And when that Ordinance then lays the ground work for a site plan application, this board would be guided by those standards and requirements that would be very clear.  And if they were missing, it would be grounds for a denial    grounds for an incomplete determination, but grounds that the Board would be clearly within its authority to act negatively upon it. 
From there the hearings are shaped on site plan to require the full blown testimony which a lot of people wanted at this stage, but it's not the right time for that, but would be the right time at site plan to require the environmental impact statement, to require the testimony on trucking, to require the testimony on air quality monitoring, to require all of that and to determine what steps were necessary in a construction document in a developer's agreement and what 24/7 steps would be necessary to protect public health, safety and general welfare.  The same buzzwords that come back again in full circle, where you start with the public policy document, you end up with a developer's agreement because you're protecting the very same thing that you started off with.  It's just different ways to get there and different issues, how you identify it.
But all of those things that you've heard, the stormwater management plan, the sanitary sewer design, the topographic information, the dewatering plan, all of those items would be issues that would be reviewed at length during site plan.
So it would be very appropriate that if this Board wanted to approve the current pending Master Plan Amendment, in recognition of any matters that the Board found to be of compelling weight, such as those to be contained in a Zoning Ordinance, it would be very appropriate for the Board Members to elicit those items when deliberating and making your findings. 
So if you were acting in an affirmative manner on this Amendment, it would be appropriate to say, you know, I think that an Ordinance would be remiss if it didn't contain X, Y and Z and that it must address issues of the following.  Certainly those kinds of comments are highly appropriate for the Board.  It's not appropriate if the Board votes it down because then it doesn't go to that next step.  But I just wanted to address that because we spent a lot of time on environmental impact and construction related issues.  It's not customary to hear the amount of testimony that we've already heard on those issue right now because typically you hear the testimony that we've heard later on.  So we've already spent a lot of time hearing things that we wouldn't normally get to until later on. 
But that's also raised a lot of key issues, so it's never inappropriate for the Board to hear matters that are of important public concern.
Limitations on intensity of use.  This was raised relating to the Hospital services and the operations that were going to be proposed to occur on site and off site and how the Board could address that.  There are certain issues that have been already built into the pending amendment, Blais' modification for instance, has a limitation on the number of on site parking spaces.  And he's also added that the intensity of the use should not increase, but the Board could provide in the resolution certain conditions requiring that expressed limitations on high intensity uses be imposed at the time of any Ordinance adoption.  Similar to what I just said about the construction related issue and the environmental issues, you could also make a finding that it was critical if any ordinances were adopted that they contain language ensuring that intensity of use was properly regulated going forward to address the issues that were raised relative to how does one protect, okay, today    today the intensity is going to be X, what happens to tomorrow?  So that's language that can be contained in your deliberations.
As I said before, the notice has been complete.  Board Member attendance and certifications are complete.  The Board was vetted at the beginning of the matter and there's been a full and fair opportunity for participation. 
After any action is taken, we would then provide for notice and publication of that action and the appeal right would run from that publication so there would be a 45 day appeal right from whatever that publication occurs. 
And I think    let me just check my notes, I think that is everything that I had covered, but I am sure somebody will have questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Kevin?
MS. PRICE:  And I'll have some of my coffee.
MR. REILLY:  I have a couple. 
Thank you.  I went through this in some detail a couple of times, very helpful.
But I do have a couple of questions.  You refer several times to health, safety and general welfare, the standard criteria to go back to the Village, you quoted 1926.  I mean they're bedrock considerations. 
But we heard a lot of evidence that takes into account additional considerations, traffic, noise, things of that nature, which the traffic of course is health and safety, but it's also a quality of life issue.  Noise is intrusive.  It's not health and safety.  It's quality of life.  Density, bulk, height, these too, visual impact, these are factors that    I assume, we can consider these factors in how we go through the evidence and we can weigh these factor in addition to strictly health, safety and general welfare.  We did take evidence on this.
MS. PRICE:  I think, Kevin, that's all part of your review of general welfare under   
MR. REILLY:  It fits within that rubric.
MS. PRICE:  Yes, in the rubric of the Section 28.  I think you can also go to the purposes of zoning in the act because   
MR. REILLY:  Right.  I am trying to differentiate between the zoning and the Master Plan, but, yes.
MS. PRICE:  But in the purposes of zoning, one of then is to provide adequate light, air and open space to secure safety from fire, floods, panic and other nature and manmade disasters.  So it goes to your issues that you just referenced. 
The one thing I would just tell you is that unlike some other matters we have pending before the Board right now that involve a use request, a new use   
MR. REILLY:  Well, this is an existing use.
MS. PRICE:  This is an existing use.
MR. REILLY:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:  So compatibility is not an issue, I think, that's properly on face before the Board because it's not a request to add a new use.  We have the H Zone.
MR. REILLY:  Right.
MS. PRICE:  We have the residential zones.  We have the hospital.  The hospital is here.  We don't have    right now the Board has before it other requests to add new uses in other parts of the town, so you need to look at that existing use relative to those items that you referenced.  And then also relative to the 2010 Master Plan.
MR. REILLY:  Right.  I don't think there's any dispute as to use.
MS. PRICE:  Okay.
MR. REILLY:  I think everybody, most people are happy with The Valley being there. 
The second question I have, you pointed out that we don't take into consideration the economic factors pertaining to individuals, neighbors, and the neighborhood.  And I think you pointed out probably correctey it's kind of speculative anyway.  We don't know what the property values are.  But do we apply the same principal to the Applicant in terms of, I mean it's kind of clear that Valley's competitive decision position is at least a factor here in their motivation.  So as I read your instructions, our focus is on the benefit or the detriment to the community, not strictly speaking the economic benefit or detriment to the Applicant, depending on which way the vote goes.
MS. PRICE:  Yes, I don't think you should be considering the economic benefit or detriment to any party, pro or con.
MR. REILLY:  Right.  It would just eliminate that.
MS. PRICE:  Correct. 
MR. REILLY:  And you pointed out too that there are some institutions that are presumptively beneficial to a community.  This happens to be a hospital; it could be a school, a library.  There are other institutions and yet there's got to be a narrow boundary to how much deference we're going to give to those institutions.  That's within our discretion, I would think, as we decide where we're going to draw the line.
MS. PRICE:  It’s within your discretion as long as you don't ignore the case law on the fact that these certain institutions are already declared to be like a    you know, depending on the type of school and hospital and, you know, those    the ones that have been identified as inherently beneficial in Subsection 4, that they are said to possess regional as well as local benefits. 
So I think it would be error to say it's local only and ignore the regional.  But you can certainly make a consideration and say    I think you have to look at what's in the record   
MR. REILLY:  Right.
MS. PRICE:     to do that. 
MR. REILLY:  But we're not restricting    it's not because we're restricting use.  So we're not restricting hospital use.  In fact that's the benefit, we're happy with that benefit.  And I hear what you're saying about Valley is a regional hospital.
But by the same token we're entitled to also    I mean that would be a broad lens, we're also entitled to at the same time use a narrow lens too   
MS. PRICE:  Yes.
MR. REILLY:     to look at the benefit on the community or a part of the community.
MS. PRICE:  Yes, absolutely.
MR. REILLY:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anyone else have questions? 
MR. REILLY:  The final question, when we started this process    how many years ago was it now?  When we started this process I understood that we could take a fresh look at this application, we're not bound by the    except that 2010 Amendment exists, but we're not bound by the discussions.  We're not bound by whatever happened during that proceeding.  That we're taking a fresh look on the basis of this evidence    
MS. PRICE:  Correct.
MR. REILLY:  Am I correct on that? 
MS. PRICE:  You're correct.
MR. REILLY:  Okay.  And I think that answers my question.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
Anyone else? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Things are clear.  Okay. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  You can't say that, Charles.  
MR. REILLY:  You have no questions? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  Good.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Great.
Gail, thank you very much.  So that concludes this portion of this agenda of instructions.
Next item we have is executive session.  There is an executive session this evening. 
(Whereupon, Chairman recites Executive Session Statement.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Roll call, Jane?
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mayor Aronsohn?
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Here.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, yes? 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Peters?
MS. PETERS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  We're going to close and go into executive session.  I believe we're going in another room.
And we'll return and adjourn.
So ladies and gentlemen, this is a reminder, we're going to come back and just adjourn the meeting.  So tomorrow deliberation will occur.  We will begin here at 7:30 p.m. you're welcome to arrive early, we'll have the doors opened and 6:30.  And, again, ingress will be occurring from only the back. 
Thank you very much for coming this evening. 

The hearing was carried to June 17 at 7:30 p.m. at Benjamin Franklin Middle School.
The Board returned to the meeting and the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: July 7, 2015

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 17, 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 7:38 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. and Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, 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:  So why don't we begin, Item number three, this is a public hearing on the Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H Hospital Zone, The Valley Hospital, 223 North Van Dien Avenue, Block 3301, Lot 51, for the Board Deliberation and vote. 
Before I begin, let me again point out that we have with us, especially given the large crowd this evening, officers and members from the police and fire department for everyone's safety this evening.
Please note the fire exits especially, we have several in the back, the very back.  We have two here in the front in case of an emergency (indicating) and in front of the stage. 
But please note, ingress and egress should occur during the back during deliberations.  If you need to use the rest facilities, please access them through the back and down the corridor.
So, during the last meeting we wrapped up with instructions from the Board's legal Counsel.  And tonight you will hear the Board's deliberation and vote regarding the pending amendment to the H Zone and the Master Plan. 
Before we begin with the vote and Board's deliberation, I would like to express appreciation to everyone involved in this process over the past 25 or so meetings, including our Village professionals, consultants and staff, Pete McKenna, C.R.R., Valley Hospital representatives and fellow Board members, especially Village residents.  Thank you all.
Per the meeting on the 9th, Blais has provided the Board with a copy of a slightly revised Amendment which specifically addressed exhibits that have been marked incorporating Blais's clarification per his memorandum to the Board on March 31st.
Everyone, I see has a copy at this time. 
So, let's move ahead to deliberations.  And this is important, I again ask everyone to remain quiet during these deliberations.  It's important that we all hear what's said without disruption or interruption. 
Thanks in advance for that. 
One final closing comment, let the record show that all certifications have been received. 
Mr. Mayor, would you like to begin? 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Sure, thank you.
Thank you very much.  Before    I have a prepared statement, before I read it, I just also want to express my gratitude, first to my fellow Board members for all the time and effort you've put into this. I say that as not only as a member of the Village Council who appointed you to these positions, don't hold that against me, but also as a resident who is very grateful for all the time and effort you put into this and all the seriousness you bring to this.  It is much appreciated. 
I also want to thank our Board professionals, Chris, Blais, Gail, Katie, you guys have been tremendous, you’ve been a tremendous resource for all of us. At times I know people sometimes give you some flack, they question your objectivity, but the truth is you've been nothing but professionals with us.  And you've been there to answer all of our questions in a very objective way.  And I do appreciate that.
Also, of course, our residents, particularly those of you who have been camping out here with us for the last 15 months.  I really appreciate and respect your dedication and your commitment to this issue and to our community in general.  It's really wonderful that you come out here night after night and express your views and listen to the deliberations and participate, fully participate, in this whole process. 
And I also want to thank those residents who have come maybe for one or two meetings, sometimes they get criticized that they don't sort of stick it out with us and, you know, sit here for the entire process, but people have other things going on in their lives and people are busy.  And I respect the fact that whether it's just an e mail or if somebody comes here for a meeting that they too want to have their voice heard and I appreciate that. 
And, particularly, I would like to note the folks that work at Valley Hospital, some of the medical staff who have come here.  I think it's tremendous.  I'm sure they are under a lot of pressure.  It's probably not an easy thing for them to do, and I really appreciate them lending their voice to this process. 
So with that I would like to read my prepared statement.
Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Board members, fellow residents.
There is absolutely no question about it, this is a defining moment in the life of our community.  Defining in the sense that the decision we will take tonight, and the manner in which we take it, will likely have far reaching implications for our hospital, for our residents, for our entire community.  It will not just impact the look and feel of the hospital zone and the adjacent neighborhoods, it will also render judgment on the utility and integrity of our Master Plan as well as the utility and integrity of our Planning Board process.  This is important because the plan and the process are essential to Ridgewood's future.  In fact, the decision we make tonight and the conversation we carry forward will help shape Ridgewood for years to come.  It is, therefore, imperative that we not only take great care with that decision, but that we take great care with that conversation as well.  That means respecting the views expressed tonight, even if we disagree with them.  That means respecting the people involved in this process, regardless of their position on this issue.  That means respecting and honoring and embracing the fact that we are a community of good people with good intentions who sometimes disagree on important issues.  And that's okay.  We can disagree without being disagreeable, without personalizing the conversation and attacking one another, without demonizing those whose point of view is different than our own. 
The truth is, here in Ridgewood, we are very fortunate.  Unlike many other municipalities, as a community, we rarely have to confront life and death issues.  And in fact, unlike many other municipalities, as a community, we have the time, the capacity and the ability to engage big picture, far reaching Master Plan issues in a thoughtful way.  Again, we are very fortunate. 
Granted, this has been a long, sometimes frustrating process.  Too often these proceedings resembled a detailed site plan review rather than a hearing on a proposed change to our Master Plan.  And too often these proceedings have degenerated into shouting matches or contentious, rude exchanges that undermine, not just the dialogue in the hearing process, but more importantly, they have undermined the strong sense of community that is central to life here in Ridgewood. Indeed, for several years we have let this issue divide us.  We have let this issue tear at the very fabric that holds our community together.  We have let this issue pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, family against family.  This it truly unfortunate and completely unnecessary and this cannot continue.  It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to embody and give voice to a higher level of civility and a higher level of mutual respect.  
You know this morning I attended a funeral for a young man, Patrick Moran.  Patrick was a 19 year old, he was the son of somebody who is near and dear to many of us in this room, Mary Jo Leighton.  Mary Jo is a reporter at The Bergen Record and as many of you know, she covered this very issue for several years.  She had to take a leave of absence about a year ago to not only care for her son who was struggling with melanoma, but to care for herself because she too was diagnosed with cancer. 
And at the funeral today, the central theme in everyone's remarks from the clergy to Mary Jo's husband, Tom, was love, was this concept of love and the importance of love and the power of love.
And when Tom spoke of his son, Patrick he spoke about a boy who appreciated this, and who got this, and who even in his darkest days when he was struggling with this disease, he would make it a point to note how blue the sky was and how lucky he was to be surrounded by friends and family and be surrounded by love. And I share this with you, I point this out to you because I think Patrick's funeral, Patrick's life, Mary Jo's story, is a real compelling backdrop to the discussion we're having tonight, to the discussion we've had over the last few years, to the discussion taking place in towns across the state, across the country, discussions that sometimes get a little too contentious, a little too personal, a little too nasty.  And I share this with you because I think it's an important reminder that although this Valley proposal is a very important issue to all of us, it's not the most important issue.  There are other things more important and we should never lose sight of that.  We should never lose that perspective. 
Anyway, having said all that, let me turn now to the issue at hand, whether to support Valley Hospital's proposed amendment to the Master Plan. 
From my perspective, this issue, like any issue that comes before this Board, comes down to one simple, albeit, all important question:  What is best for Ridgewood?  In answering that question, I am clearly mindful of the hospital's "inherently beneficial use".  And I am clearly mindful that N.J.S.A. 40:55D 28 authorizes municipal bodies to act in a manner "which protects public health and safety and promotes the general welfare". In fact, the determination to act in a manner which protects public health and safety and promotes general welfare drives all of my decisions as Mayor, as a Council member and as a member of this Board.  It was through that prism that I considered the Valley Hospital proposal as a member of the Village Council in 2011, and it is through that prism that I consider it right now. 
To me, both then and now, there has been no question that Valley Hospital provides a beneficial use to Ridgewood and the entire vicinity.  It plays a very important role in our community as a provider of first class healthcare, as well as being a good neighbor.  And to me both then and now, there has been no question that the Master Plan, as previously written and as is currently in practice, "Protects public health and safety and promotes the general welfare".
So, it stands to reason that, one, any change to the Master Plan or current practice must meet that standard or improve upon it; and two, that it is incumbent upon Valley Hospital to make the case for change because Valley Hospital is the one advocating a departure from the status quo, the one advocating that we try something new. 
In both circumstances, both then and now, it has been Valley's burden to prove that change is warranted and to prove that its proposed change will continue to "Protect public health and safety and promote the general welfare." 
And having sat through 15 months of testimony, having reviewed the submissions and having re read the transcripts, and having thought through all of the relevant issues, having done all of this, I don't believe that the hospital has met this burden.  I don't believe that the hospital has effectively made the case of the proposed change would sufficiently "Protect public health and safety and promote the general welfare."  And while I believe that some change may be warranted and even necessary, I don't believe that the hospital's proposed change would serve the interest of our community. 
In other words    
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please hold the applause.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  In other words, in answer to the all important question, I don't believe that Valley Hospital's proposed amendment is best for Ridgewood.  And, as such, I will be voting against the amendment.
Thank you. 
(Applause.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ladies and gentlemen, now I asked you at the beginning if you wouldn't mind, if you can hold your applause until the end.  Please don't disrupt.  Let people speak.  Thank you. 
Nancy. 
MS. BIGOS:  Thank you, Chairman. 
I, too, am appreciative to the dedication, the many hours of commitment, to my fellow professionals and members of the Ridgewood Planning Board.  Thank you my friends. 
Ms. Price, thank you.  This afternoon during my lunch and after work I listened to the transcripts from last night's meeting.  I am most grateful for your thorough presentation.  I have listened to the instructions, the review of the Municipal Land Use Law, the charge and responsibility of the Ridgewood Planning Board and the importance and comprehensive understanding of this entire process. 
As the Ridgewood Planning Board, one made up of only Ridgewood residents, we have heard more than 16 months or 25 meetings of testimony from experts, whether it be planning, construction, traffic and safety, environmental, healthcare or legal. We have heard and listened to the passionate comments from our fellow neighbors and my friends.  We have reviewed and examined numerous documents, exhibits, testimonies, reports.  All of this with an unbiased mind. 
I am to understand that the present charge of the Planning Board before you this evening is either to deny or accept the modified, proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Master Plan H Zone, utilizing all of the testimony that has been provided through this process with a full and unbiased review. 
The questions that we need to consider are, is the 2013 modified proposed Master Plan Amendment of greater betterment than that already in existence from 2010?  Does it fulfil the requirement of being of inherently beneficial use, according to the Municipal Land Use Law?  Is it considered a value and benefit, both locally and regionally?  In comparison, do the positives outweigh the negatives?  We are all well aware of each.
I recognize that the decisions that will be made this evening will be challenging and all will have risk, and will only be successful as the Mayor says, as we come together as a community, as a Village.  We work together to find the balance, a mutually agreeable solution, one with all of our neighbors involved speaking, listening, hearing and working side by side.  Our Village is like none other. 
I am in support of this modified Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H Zone. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Nancy.
Michele? 
MS. PETERS:  Thank you. 
As the newest member of the Planning Board, it has been quite the learning experience.  And I, too, wish to thank everyone for your attendance at these meetings, the extensive discussions that have taken place, the superb lawyering I've had the opportunity to witness. And I do want you to know how truly humbled I am in order to be a process and to be able to help and assist in choosing a path for the Village of Ridgewood. 
In many respects, we have inherited this 2010 Amendment, I feel that way myself.  There's only two members of the current Planning Board were present during that time period.  And the fact that an amendment exists, the question to me is, well does it make it right?  We can look back at many laws that have occurred in the past and there has been change as lives changed.  Technology changes, as the hospital has pointed out and meeting the needs of a changing community.  But what is appropriate development?  The decisions as we have been wisely governed by our Counsel Gail Price, and I thank her too for our directions we received last night.  A decision that we make is not to pass on to our Zoning Board, the responsibility to make a decision that we need to structure in our Master Plan.
So, what testimony is credible?  We have heard many, many, many hours. 
We have issues that were raised in 2010, which I believe Valley has discussed, mitigating the groundwater issue.  They have offered solutions to moving the hospital personnel traffic, the use of shuttle buses.  They have discussed all of this and traffic solutions working with our Department of Transportation.
I want to go back to November 26, 2013, where our traffic consultant Gordon Meth did comment that currently the traffic at the hospital is for a facility of 995,000 square feet. One of the suggestions made were that there should be services moved off site and the hospital said they would do so. We heard testimony from Dr. Shannon Magari    if I mispronounced her name, please forgive me, very, very compelling as an environmental expert. We have heard Steven Evers, the Valley architect speaking about the reduced size.  We understand the changing needs of technology and the inappropriateness of obtaining variances, variance relief, from our Zoning Board. And we look to the ultimate plan that Mr. Evers discussed.  It was a new hospital with new area    in a new area, splitting the hospital into two or building at the existing site. These, I believe, are business decisions and the hospital has the right to make their own business decisions. 
But are they the right decisions for our community?  Importantly, we have a case that Ms. Price brought to our attention again last night, the Howell Properties versus the Township of Brick where our Superior Court spoke quite clearly as to viewing the ramifications of decision on the local level, and also on a larger regional level. And this is again, as our Mayor pointed out, and I thank you so much for what you said opening remarks.  As our New Jersey annotated 40:55D 7, the fundamental premise that    and I quote from the case, "The public use of streets is broader than the mere use of residents of a single municipality".  That does cause pause as we think and as has been argued by Valley, that the hospital, itself, is not just for a few, but for many. But yet how does the hospital affect those of us in the community? The exercise of municipality's legislative authority is to advance one of the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, to regulate property within its boundary lines with consideration of the general welfare of neighboring municipalities.
We heard Sheila Brogan's testimony about the effect of construction in the schools.  And having been a public school teacher, I can say I support her decision that teachers will prevail, they will teach no matter what situation they are put into.
We have heard the land use expert, Peter Steck speak.  And I want to point to something that Peter McKenna spoke about on October 29, 2013.  We should not be dictating how a business should run, but what is the use of the land?  And he spoke about the 1983 resolution. Being that I live on the opposite side of town, I could say, well, hello, that hospital's been there for a very long time, you knew it when you moved there and you think that they wouldn't make changes? 
But, yet, Mr. McKenna pointed out that as residents moved into the area, they were looking to see how the legislation, the persons like ourselves, are maintaining the direction of the Village.  And I believe there is a reliance that trust is placed into persons like the Board members, that they should make the right decisions. 
Much discussion has been of the inherent beneficial use of the hospital. But I wish to just cite back to our planner, Blais Brancheau on May 6th of this year where he commented that there are instances where the detriment of a project is so great that it can be rejected, even if there is a beneficial use. 
So, in my opinion, there are items that need further analysis and there are modifications that are necessary. 
I vote against this amendment.
(Applause.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please hold your applause.  Please hold your applause.  Thank you very much. 
Wendy? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  I don't think I am going to be as eloquent as the Board members that precede me, but I do want to also thank my fellow Board members, residents and Valley Hospital for all the time and effort that has gone into these hearings.
And I feel very privileged to be up here.  And I take this responsibility very seriously. 
First off, again, like the Board members before me, I recognize the benefit of Valley Hospital.  It's truly a fine institution.  I understand its needs to create single bed rooms, additional operational room space, and I think they did an excellent job in demonstrating that to us. I do, however, have significant concerns about the development of the site.  I will say that in addition to attending every meeting, reviewing every exhibit, listening to all the testimony, I did spend time on the site.  I walked Linwood Avenue.  I drove Steilen Avenue because you can't park there.  I walked Van Dien.  And, actually, I drove because it was not good for parking either.  And I did it more than once. I also did it particularly during the time we had the height test, you remember the orange banner or whatever on the top    the top of the building.  And I did it separately to observe traffic and students exiting from the school last week. 
Having said all that, my concerns are as follows.  First off, I looked at the proposed amendment relative to the 2010 Amendment, but I also looked very closely at existing conditions.  The maximum gross of floor area of the proposed Amendment is 900,000.  This represents an improvement over the 2010 Amendment where the maximum gross floor area was 1,170,000.  This however, compares to the existing square footage of 562,000. Mr. Burgis, the planner for the hospital, argued in our last meeting that reducing the square footage from 1,170,000 to 900,000 was a significant reduction in use.  He indicated that anything more than 10 percent was considered significant.  And that is a 22 percent decline. Taking the same approach, I believe going from 562,000 to 900,000 or up 60 percent, is a significant increase in the intensity of use of the site. Similarly, if you look at the building mass above grade, with the data provided by Mr. Brancheau, the number goes from 405,000 square feet to over 1 million square feet, or upwards of 150 percent. So as I looked at the site, I envision, you know, multiple, multiple, multiple expansions of square footage on the location. 
As our plan indicated, the proposed building height was greater than permitted for other nonresidential uses in the Village, which range from 35 to 50 feet, not including rooftop equipment. Proposed height range from 45 feet for the deck, to 67 feet to the west    the South building, to 70 feet for the North building, plus 24 for rooftop equipment as well. This is far higher than any structure in town and dramatically higher than the homes in the residential neighborhoods that surround the hospital, which I believe are between 30 to 35 feet.  I do not support 24 feet with rooftop equipment. So, the North Building relative to its immediate neighbors is up to three times as high, maybe more. As I said earlier, I did observe the height test from Linwood, Van Dien, Steilen and Glen, and believe the height of the North Building to be a significant detriment to those neighborhoods, and will significantly impact the quality of life for residents particularly on Van Dien and Steilen. I am afraid the residents on the north end of Steilen will look out their windows and see wall and more wall. 
It is interesting to note that the current setback from Cheel Building from Steilen is 157 feet.  The proposed is 70 for the part of the building    for one part of the building and    for the lower part of the building and 120 for the higher part.
I also have some concerns about the parking garage structure on the site, given its height and proximity to the homes on Linwood, Steilen and Van Dien. Again 45 feet is significantly taller than the adjacent homes, and many homes look to the large structure from the front of their homes.  Even with a buffer, I have concern not only about headlights, I understand that the top of the garage layer will not be used at night, but still I am concerned about noise and engines turning on and off, horns blowing and screeching tires, typical of parking garages.  Valley is a 24 hour facility. I have some questions about the actual needs and the garage and the parking requirements on site.  At one point when it became apparent that the proposal for 2,000 cars was not necessary, 300 spots were removed from the proposed amendment.  It was removed from the underground garage. In my mind, those spots should have been removed from the above ground garage, due to the impact of the garage on the site and adjacent homes.  Furthermore, I found the testimony of Mr. Olivo, who claimed that 100 spots out of 700 spots for employees be left vacant a stretch in terms of the likelihood of such a large number of vacant spots being reported.  Furthermore, there is testimony that during construction of Phase I employees will be shuttled from Paramus to the site.  In my mind, far more important on the site is the construction of the health related needs to the hospital, not convenient parking for employees. 
Given the intensity of the proposed use and construction on the site, and the limited amount of land with which we are dealing and the hospital is dealing, I think the option of shuttling a significant number of employees on a permanent basis to an off site location should have been considered. 
In terms of traffic improvement, I considered the 430 trip per day to be minimal. According to the testimony of Mr. Neth    Meth, sorry, the Board's traffic engineer, the number of peak hour trips in and out of Valley currently is in the range of 670 to 780 or thereabouts.  With two peak hours we're talking maybe 1400 car trips over two hours.  Add to that another 22 hours of operation, which I believe currently operates at less than peak, I know that, the 430 car trips does not strike me as a very significant number.  I understand that 430 compared to the 2010 Amendment, but I cannot discern testimony that indicated that the 430 trips is on top of an already reduced count. In sum, I recognize and appreciate Valley's interest in upgrading to single bedded rooms and expanding its operating and treatment rooms and moving some services off site. 
However, I think the current proposed amendment represents overdevelopment of the site and diminishes the compatibility of the hospital's operations and the surrounding residential neighborhood. 
On balance I'm not convinced that the amendment before us is the best one in terms of promoting public health and safety and the general welfare of the community. 
My vote is no. 
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please hold your applause. 
Kevin.
MR. REILLY:  Okay.  Thank you, Charles.
First I hope you don't mind if I am reading with a laptop, this happens to be the night my home computer got very angry at me and I was in Connecticut most of the day so I never got to my office.  So I'm reading off my laptop which has a minimal charge.  So if I start speaking very fast that's because the battery is running down. 
Well, first, let me join my fellow members of the Planning Board in thanking everybody who stayed with us for this very long process.  There were many nights we went late, it was tedious, it was long.  There was a lot of evidence.  The evidence got very disjointed because of the nature of our scheduling.  So it took a lot of discipline to stay with it.  And plenty of people in the audience stayed with it, they asked intelligent questions, useful questions.  And I think it turned out to be a very comprehensive kind of a beneficial process all the way on through.  After tonight it's finished, one way or another. 
Let me also say Valley put on a very professional case.  And the applicant's witnesses and evidence were helpful in    speaking personally, but I think for everybody too, in my getting a sense of what the project entailed in full. Valley also addressed in their presentation of evidence many of the issues that we're concerned with, and we would have to take into consideration if we are going to have a fair and comprehensive review of the application. Valley witnesses offered evidence as to how some of the impacts could be mitigated in varying degrees.  And I found a lot of that evidence to be either unrebutted or credible.  I am only speaking personally I had no reason to discredit certain of this evidence. 
Other impacts, however, in my judgment, could not adequately be mitigated, which leads to the further question whether those impacts could be dispositive, were dispositive, with respect to the viability of the proposed project or fall into the category of inconveniences that have to be accepted. The short answer is some yes, some no.  And of course that requires an elaboration which is going to be the subject of my    my following comments. 
As I listened to the evidence over the past several months, and as I reviewed the evidence over the past couple of weeks, I kept three main principals in mind, my own analysis started with, first:  Valley owns its property, they should be able to use it in accordance with local zoning.  It's not seeking to expand its property lines, the nature of its use as a hospital essentially the same; second, with regard to impacts, and there are indeed impacts, the burden of persuasion rests on Valley as the applicant to show that the proposed Amendment to the Master Plan and the re zoning that would have to follow in order to implement the project, is a benefit rather than an detriment to the community; and, third, the issue is not just whether neighbors are inconvenienced, we can certainly be sympathetic, but the issue involved a broader field of vision including the neighborhood as part of the community, but also as her instructions indicated last night, the community as a whole and the region. 
It's a truism, I think, that one who buys property takes it subject to the existing conditions in the neighborhood.  Valley's been operating for a long time at that site.  People who purchase homes nearby, have to be deemed to know ambulances are going to be coming and going, there's going to be reasonably anticipated traffic flow into and out of the hospital.  And they also have to anticipate, there's going to be some expanded conforming uses on the site. The same usually goes if one buys a home next to a church or synagogue or a school or a police precinct.  Certain activities have to be anticipated that flow from the legal use. However, there's a point where expanded use leads to results including an expansion of the physical facility, which could not be reasonably be anticipated when homeowners moved in. So, my own analysis also turned to that question, whether the extent of the proposed expansion, in this case, superseded the general principal that people purchased homes subject to the legal surrounding uses in the vicinity. 
As I considered these questions, I also kept in mind the instruction that our Counsel provided and discussed last night and I found those to be thorough and helpful. I divided my own analysis into two components which have some degree of overlap.  The construction phases and those impacts that result, and the operational phase after the construction is completed, and those impacts. 
It's probably another truism there are always impacts caused by a project of any significant size.  So my own approach was to analyze the evidence as evenly as I could to evaluate whether the impacts were of a kind or a degree that caused material detriments that outweighed the benefits to the community that may result from the hospital expansion. 
I think it's not a controversial conclusion that Valley, as presently situated and operated, is of some benefit to the community.  The question, of course, is whether the proposed expansion becomes a detriment to the community's health, safety or general welfare.  And in the latter category, we considered evidence including quality of life issues, visual impact, noise and various sources of pollution. 
First, the geological evidence.  I understand that the dewatering was a major source of conflict for the 2010 Amendment.  I wasn't part of that discussion, but I've heard this. Having heard from Valley's witness and reviewed his documentation and having heard from the Board's own experts, it seems to me that dewatering for the proposed project, this time around will not present a major detriment.  While there may be occasions when there's the peak flow, I believe the number was 300,000 gallons a day, the evidence seems to indicate this can be handled without a significant upset.  I recall no expert testimony to the contrary pertaining to this project.  And I find no reason to discredit the evidence that we have. The challenge was evidence concerning ground conditions, settling and subsidence in the main, also seem to be unrebutted by expert testimony.  And while this may remain an area of concern, and I think it has to be carefully monitored, I don't have a clear basis in my mind to reject it. I found Valley's evidence regarding on site dust suppression to be somewhat equivocal.  I heard about methodology, but I think the real test will be how it works during construction.  But it seems to me that dust suppression is an intermittent impact that can be corrected during construction. Blasting presents another problem that Valley's evidence addressed with a technological explanation which I think would have to be carefully monitored if the project goes forward.
The role of traffic and how to mitigate it became a core point of dispute. As a parent who sat waiting for a light to change and a line of cars to move on many mornings when I dropped off my children and, again, in the afternoon, although to a lesser degree, when I picked them up, I can attest, as any parent can here, that Linwood and North Van Dien is a major choke point for traffic.  I recall some of the evidence reflected a traffic problem going west to east.  But it struck me the real problem is south to north passing the hospital's main entrance en route to the school. In any case, in either case, any increase in traffic will be a significant impact. I recall Valley's general evidence regarding the proposed reduction in cars entering and exiting the site because medical services could be moved off site and employment shifts can be adjusted. At the moment, that seems to me to be only a proposal that would have to be looked at in detail if the project goes forward. However, it seems to me to be obvious that any increase in vehicle use at the site, let alone visitors to the patients, will exacerbate a problem that is already significant. In my view, while Valley has made a proposal about reducing the number of cars, that remains inconclusive until such time as the details can be worked out. I'm not sure that the Village would be willing to do regular traffic studies after the expanded hospital is in operation to verify Valley's projections.  And if there are exceedances, I'm not sure the Village can do anything about it. So, Valley's evidence may be in the category of optimistic, but unverifiable projections although I'm not prepared to reject it outright, nor am I relying on it. Valley also argued that all point traffic lanes and signaling at that corner could facilitate traffic flow and may even improve it over the current situation. Personally, I remain unconvinced.  So in my judgment eliminating the traffic problem caused by the project, more than merely mitigating it somewhat, was part of Valley's task and I've not been persuaded. 
Traffic raises a different problem though, which led to a question that I addressed to Valley during rebuttal last week.  During construction, thousands of truck trips will be entering and leaving the property, and they will have to be routed through at least part of the community to reach either Valley or a disposal destination for debris. I realize that the project is phased and the truck traffic will not be all the time.  Nevertheless, the sheer number of estimated truck trips presents several significant impacts.  First, it's very reasonable to assume that the estimate provided may be a low number, that is defensible, for present purposes, but which may be exceeded if circumstances require.  While I concede that any particular number in that regard will be speculative, I note that the number already provided is merely an estimate.  And estimates are always adjusted during major construction. The trucks bringing in equipment and materials create noise and inconvenience and present their own traffic issues as they approach and enter or leave the site. I know that Valley offered evidence to try to mitigate the obvious safety issues, but it's not an unsupported worry that statistically there is a real possibility of accidents, notwithstanding the most diligent safety measures.  And human error cannot be conclusively eliminated.  I mark this in my mine as a continuing worry. The same concern exists for trucks leaving the property with debris.  However, debris creates its own concerns despite the best diligence, again, especially if trucks become overloaded.  I do not offer this as a conclusion since it's somewhat speculative, but I have as a continuing concern that I cluster with the other concerns that cannot be proven one way or another at the outset. Debris can also be dust and particulates.  In fact, these thousands of truck trips will likely result in emissions of fumes and particulates that will be an impact on the vicinity of the truck routes.  Even with the cleanest of the vehicles, unless the contractor proposes to use electric vehicles, there will be an aggregate impact from emissions from the thousands of truck trips. 
I don't think that impact can be adequately mitigated.  Considered alone it might not be fatal, since it's the same as any major construction project, but I include it in the basket of other impacts.  And I recall the evidence as to which route will be selective of the trucks, whichever route is selected will present impacts even if the impacts might vary.  There are also impacts    these are also impacts that are hard to monitor, unlike on site noise or site dust or blasting, because in effect the truck is a moving target and we're talking about thousands of truck trips. 
The construction related impacts will continue    is my time up?  Did I speak too long? 
The construction related impacts will continue over a period of several years.  While some mention was made recently about a ten year project, I recall that the estimate by Valley's construction manager    is it on.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Maybe go back to where you were before.
MR. REILLY:  Am I back on? 
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  No.  No.
MR. REILLY:  Am I back on?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  Yes.
MR. REILLY:  Getting to the end.
The construction related impacts will continue over a period of several years.  While some mention was made recently about a ten year project, I recall that the estimate by Valley's construction manager and other witnesses was that it would be closer to six years. Even six years, though, is an extensive time period.  It's also not unreasonable to consider that timeframes of construction projects seem to be chronically imprecise.  Even though the contracts include Time of the Essence clauses and there are penalties for delayed performance and as to the latter, we don't know how the contracts will actually be drafted. 
At the present time, all we are    all we have are representations by interested witnesses.  Although I assume the Village will have some degree of involvement, I don't know if the Village, as a non party contract, can insist on penalty provisions. All that aside, even six years can be a very long time in a small Village, even when we know that phasing means that there will be relatively quiet periods.  And whether or not Valley can keep the project tor six years is unknowable at this point.  Again, it's only an estimate. 
Hence the impacts caused by the construction, even if they can be mitigated to a degree, have to be viewed in the context of an extended time period, which in my judgment, escalates the impacts. 
The scale of the resultant facility has been a point of debate.  My own judgment is that the expanded footprint, itself, is not substantial impact since I credit Valley that foliage and walls in some locations and sidewalk setbacks can screen the lower parts of the buildings.  There also is merit in what seems to be an expanded green area at ground level, which reduces storm water runoff, reduces the parking lot as a key item during the summer months and just seems healthier as well as in my view, more aesthetically pleasing. 
The rearrangement in the buildings at ground level does not cause a community detriment, although I can understand the concern of some close neighboring properties. 
However, the excessive height above the tree line of several buildings creates a visual impact that in my judgment cannot be adequately mitigated.  A structure of that height in a different location might present a lesser impact.  However, this is the part of the community that excepting the hospital and a school is low density residential.  I do not see any reasonable way that the highest structures can be visually integrated into the landscape.  And the impact is not only to the surrounding property owners, but to residents of several blocks away.  And to all residents as they walk, drive or even bicycle in the surrounding neighborhood.  The eye will always be drawn to that visual impediment which will remain an obstruction in the landscape. And unlike some of the other impacts which I've looked at that can be corrected over time, it would be permanent.  Essentially, it's the equivalent of taking something like Hackensack hospital, which is in a busy mixed use urban area and dropping it into the quiet and visually pleasing landscape of a small village, which, in fact, describes the impact to our small low scale village. 
Finally, I understand that the proposed amendment is of the 2010 Master Plan and Valley's Counsel insisted that the 2010 Amendment was the only relevant point to reference. 
However, that's a paper plan that was never implemented and won't be unless the zoning is amended.  What exists on the site now is what Village residents are familiar with. 
While I keep one eye on the 2010 Amendment as a point of reference, I feel that I cannot ignore what actually exists today as a baseline for evaluating the impacts that will result from the proposed project and the operation that will be built as the hospital has proposed. I also have taken into account that an enlarged and reconfigured Valley Hospital may provide some regional benefits, although I think that any additional benefits are somewhat inconclusive as a counterpoint to the benefits already provided. 
I also realize that reconfigured medical services might provide some benefit to some Ridgewood residents.  However, we have an operating Valley Hospital now and in its present operations and internal configuration are grandfathered, the present structure. If the application is denied, Valley will not be restricted in continuing that use by virtue of the Village's land use decisions. 
And as was discussed last evening, Valley's business model, its competitive position, its economics, are not before us as a Planning Board, even if we may be personally interested in the hospital's financial health, so to speak. Just as the economic consequences for neighboring residents is not before us. 
This is a land use decision that requires us to review the benefits versus the detriments to the community.  My own evaluation of the evidence leads to a conclusion that the impacts, considered the aggregate but also some considered individually, are detrimental to the community to a degree that I vote to deny the amendment.
(Applause.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Richard?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I would like to thank my fellow Board members for hearing this matter, I mean a lot of hours, a lot of evidence, a lot of witnesses, a lot of effort.  We all live in this Village and we want to do what is right by the Village. 
The attorneys put on a great presentation in this matter, it's first rate.  We had 27 meetings in this matter.  You've listened to Valley's witnesses and architects, a planner, geotech, traffic, construction management, environmental expert, hospital facilities planner and construction management expert.  C.R.R. also presented a land use expert and other witnesses.  And the public also was very involved in this process.  They had tons of questions, tons of comments and that's also helpful. We also had lots of exhibits in this matter to review.  We had 19 Board exhibits, 36 hospital exhibits and 11 objector exhibits. We also had legal briefs to review in this matter. So, it's a lot to filter through, but the Board is up to the task and we take this very seriously.  We've reviewed all the evidence in this matter and we have to strike a balance seeing what is right for the Village.  We have to review the 2013 Amendment and see if it's a greater benefit than the 2010 existing Amendment. 
And we all probably wrestled with this matter for the whole 16 months, and you keep thinking through, you know, what's the right decision in this?  You look at the bulk of the building, I mean it's almost doubling, and also the height will be 70 feet plus 24 for a total of 94. There will also be a big parking garage and if you look at it, coming into Ridgewood, there are two primary places that you come in off 17, either Ridgewood Avenue or Linwood Avenue.  So I think it's    it's actually like a gateway road coming into the Village. 
So I think this project is just unprecedented.  It's too big.  The residences in the area and the neighborhood would just be dwarfed by this project.  I mean there's a lot of adverse effects, you've heard some fellow Board members, running through them, I mean the light, air and space.  The project would be overwhelming.  It would affect the aesthetics for the neighborhood.  It would be an adverse effect.  I mean we have a beautiful town, we'd like to keep it that way.  But I think there would be more harm coming from this amendment than any good that we would realize from it. 
There is also a traffic increase, whether it's regular traffic or construction traffic.  Kevin touched on, you know, there's environmental issues with that also.  There's such an intensity with this project, I mean with the building, itself, and then the construction, so that would    it's a total rebuild, this construction, and the duration would be a long time.  It would be very disruptive, we would have a lot of noise, a lot of particulate dust, construction activity.  And that's not without impact.  I think we would have a very bad impact on this town, on the school, the residences and the Village as a whole. 
I understand that Valley is an inherently beneficial use and you have to take into account the interests of the local residents and the regional area, but when you balance it all out, the evidence, I feel, balances in favor of denying this amendment. 
So I vote no  
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Richard.  Thank you fellow Board members. 
One of the great things about this Board and the fact, as evidenced from this deliberation, are the various views and emphasis that each of us have.  There has been very little repetition.  A lot of different perspectives on what we've experience.  So I'll try not to be repetitive.
We all know that the Village Master Plan is a policy statement and the basis for Zoning Ordinances which are established by our Village Council and the guides for land use in the manner in which can protect public health and safety and promote the general welfare. Part of our objective here is to see if this pending amendment can support a better Master Plan for Ridgewood while serving this purpose, one that could effectively guide the creation of a supporting ordinance by the Village Council. 
During the testimonies of this process, many compelling questions were asked by Village citizens and this Board to help our process in determining this.  This was especially challenging because we're dealing with a hospital zone, an inherently beneficial use of land offering regional services and not just to our Village. In addition, the simple fact that Valley Hospital is an existing and active facility where any improvement to the site must be done while it also maintains high quality hospital functions during the construction.  This alone is not trivial, it's a hard reality in my mind, which has limiting effects. 
We also had to accept parameters of a Court Order for these hearings to try to find compromise.  Let me touch on a few important areas of concern. 
With regard to environmental impact during any stage of construction, I believe that any future developer's agreement language following a site plan submission will address many details and concerns which are too specific for a Master Plan, this Master Plan. Any Environmental Impact Study can and should be part of a future process whether this passes or not.  I also believe an ordinance relating to this proposed amendment, if approved, must be carefully crafted by our Village Council.  It must include essential and specific detail to protect our citizens and children.  They need to include controls over odors, dust, bus fumes, noise, the impact to groundwater, neighboring foundations, et cetera.  All as we heard during testimony. I believe that any Ordinance preparation for these issues by Village Council can be both robust and specific so that our citizens, especially our children, will be protected. I expect The Valley Hospital will be bound to strict compliance of these issues during any site plan process in the future. 
Regarding intensity of use, I am satisfied that the facts on the record correlate with the language of the proposed Amendment although the square footage reduction is only approximately 260,000 square feet less, added setbacks and buffers with more green space is clearly desirable. A modernized Valley Hospital will require state mandated single rooms with any new construction, so significant added space is required to support the number of beds at Valley Hospital today if it were to modernize to single rooms. And preemption with the state prohibits us in these proceedings from challenging the State Health Department regarding Valley Hospital keeping roughly the same number of beds they currently have, if they were to modernize.
With so many variables in play to accommodate concerns regarding expanding underground, given dewatering and excavation and construction timetables, coupled with the need for desirable green space, buffers for neighbors and setbacks, it seems allowance for a taller building in a single controlled location within the H Zone is a reasonable compromise, albeit a difficult one for me and most of us to easily accept. 
Nonetheless, the language in this proposed amendment attempts to protect against significant increases in intensity requiring Valley to relocate certain outpatient services to alternate locations, it restricts and limits the area where the tallest structure could exist and limits parking to 1700 spaces.  The proposed amendment attempts to provide some balance while offering some protection to the neighborhood. 
Regarding traffic, although time will ultimately tell, it's my view that based on testimony from study data presented and contemplated road improvement and turn lanes and modern signaling at intersections near Valley and schools and the relocation of outpatient services, this proposed amendment might improve traffic situations around the hospital.  Again, time will tell should this move forward. 
The safety of pedestrians, especially our school children is, and will continue to be, paramount in the areas around Glen, Van Dien and Linwood Avenue.  I cannot contemplate anything less, and we must be mindful of this in general during any site plan application going forward in this area regardless of whether this amendment passes or not.
Although inappropriate for this Master Plan amendment, I have stated my personal view before, that it would not unreasonable for the Village Council, if they deemed it appropriate, to explore additional revenue generating mechanisms in cooperation with the Valley Hospital.  Since they are not a tax paying resident, on this specific site, this would be in addition to the current payments for Ridgewood for the use of services and infrastructure such as water and sewage.  Perhaps Valley would consider voluntary action going forward regardless of this Master Plan Amendment proceeds or not. 
These are just a few considerations, all in all I believe this proposed Amendment attempts to address concerns raised by the Village Council and their reason for denial of an ordinance implementing the standing 2010 Amendment and C.R.R. Although perfection may be impossible given the circumstances here, I believe there exists, in this Amendment, a foundation for sound ordinance to be established by Village Council.  It will take a great deal of care to do this right, regardless of the direction we take.
I believe most residents want Valley to be a high quality facility that can offer the best and most advanced care possible.  And I have not heard anyone suggest that they want a failed or less than excellent hospital in their town here in Ridgewood.
Without being spooked by the many potential "what ifs" many of us may have wondered during this process, I'm of the view that this proposed Master Plan Amendment is an improvement over what we currently have and we have Village residents and the Village Council to thank for this, for this improvement. 
I also believe that a policy statement, as a policy statement, this Amendment is more concise and, therefore, does a better job at allowing the flexibility and basis for deliberate ordinance by Village Council and the guide for land use in a manner which can protect public health and safety and promote the general welfare. 
Based largely on these points, I intend to vote in favor of this plan H Zone Amendment of the Ridgewood Master Plan. 
Thank you. 
Okay.  Is there something more any members of the Board would like to say at this time?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Is there a motion on the floor?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I'd like to motion    make a motion to reject the 2013 Amendment.
MS. PETERS:  I'd like to second that. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Michele seconds it.
MS. PETERS:  I'd like to second it.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Michele seconds, please note. 
Okay.  So for those of you on the Board understand that a vote in favor is to reject the Amendment.  A vote against, nay to    to reject the rejection of the Amendment. 
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Double negative.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  If you vote yes you're rejecting. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If you vote   
MS. DOCKRAY:  If you vote yes you're rejecting?    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You're rejecting the Amendment.  If you vote no, you're rejecting   
MS. PETERS:  A double negative   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Pardon me? 
Right, you're rejecting the rejection, which means the current 2010 Master Plan stands.
(Whereupon, an off the record discussion is held between Ms. Price and Chairman Nalbantian.)
MS. PRICE:  Let me just, so a motion, the vote would be the   
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  We can't hear you.
MS. PRICE:     the vote would be    the motion is a motion to reject.  So, an affirmative vote would be to agree with that motion, so an "aye" would be to agree with the motion to reject.  A "nay" vote would be to disagree with the motion, which in turn would leave status quo.  
So, if your    I notice a majority of the people say that they were voting to reject, so those people should say "Aye" when roll call is called.  So, a yes vote    since the motion is to reject, a yes vote would agree with the motion.  A no vote disagrees with the motion.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you for clarifying Gail.
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Or trying to.
MS. PRICE:  Of trying to. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  The motion is on the floor. 
Jane, roll call please? 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mayor Aronsohn?
MAYOR ARONSOHN:  Aye to reject.
(Applause.)
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Bigos?
MS. BIGOS:  No. 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY:  Affirmative to reject.
(Applause.) 
MS. WONDERGEM:  Mr. Joel?
MR. JOEL:  Yes, to reject.
(Applause.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please hold your applause to the end, thank you.
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes, to reject.
(Applause.)  
MS. WONDERGEM:  Ms. Peters.
MS. PETERS:  Aye, to reject.
(Applause.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Motion to adjourn? 
Ladies and gentlemen    ladies and gentlemen, is there a motion to adjourn? 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, everyone.  Okay, thank you very much. 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: July 7, 2015