The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of March 17, 2015. 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 8:27 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were present: Mr. Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Mayor Aronsohn, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Altano, Mr. Joel, Mr. Thurston, Ms. Dockray, Mr. Abdalla, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Ms. Bigos, was absent.

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

Correspondence received by the Board – There was none.

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: Thank you, Michael.

No. 6, this is the public hearing on the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan AH‑2, B‑3‑R, C‑R and C Zone Districts.

Tonight is board deliberation.

Again, I want to thank everyone for coming, and happy St. Patrick's Day to those of you who are wearing green.

MS. PRICE: Just for the record, I just want to note that we have received, both my office and the board secretary, the required certifications from all board members who may have been absent for any of the proceedings in this matter, so that we have full statutory compliance regarding eligibility to participate in the deliberations and the ultimate action on this matter.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Gail.

Okay. Tonight we'll begin our deliberations on the matter of the board's consideration to amend the Master Plan regarding multi‑family housing.

Can everyone hear me?

AUDIENCE VOICES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We have conducted numerous public meetings, heard expert testimony from various parties, and heard comments from the general public over a period spanning almost 15 months, going back to December of 2013.

This has been a long process for all of us: Proponents, interested parties, and members of the public.

It is very important to the board and to this process that we properly and thoughtfully consider all of what's been brought forward and since the time when the hearings started. We want to get this right, and there's a lot to process in our decision‑making, including what's discussed among us tonight. Whether that may involve modification to the language of the amendment or not, there has been a great deal to digest, so please be patient with us while we go through this.

I would like to also remind the public that the Master Plan is a policy framework that provides a basis for zoning, but it is not the actual zoning itself, which includes the specifics and a greater degree of detail regarding land use. That is established by the Village Council.

So if there's any amendment to the Master Plan, potential new zoning from the Village Council would go hearings as part of that step, separate and apart from this.

It's also a good time to mention that if deliberations extend beyond tonight, that our next meeting will be held on April 7th, at Village Hall.

However, based on the number of people we anticipate, and if the venue changes, we will change the location to the high school or somewhere else, so please be sure to check the website for confirmation on location for the next meeting. I'll repeat that again at the end of the meeting tonight.

To kick things off, board members, in a few moments I'm going to ask each of you to simply highlight some of your observations on the matter as a starting point and as a basis for our deliberation. So why don't I begin that process. Again, this is a highlight and the starting point for us all.

My own general belief, based on the testimony we heard, is that having some form of higher density multi‑family housing in and near the CBD will be good for Ridgewood; that the board's identification of suitable locations and zones in the draft amendment was generally sound, especially because locations offer good proximity to both community transportation and retail services in the village.

I also believe that because these locations are largely inactive or underutilized at present, an amendment to the housing element of the Master Plan is timely, and that this might also be a unique opportunity to plan ahead of the curve in support of a continued thriving CBD in Ridgewood for future generations. Now, having said that, the devil is always in the details.

I think the amendment reflects appropriate use, but based on the testimony we heard from CBR and several members of the public, there are reasonable questions regarding several of the sub‑issues that form those details. And I'd like to take a few moments now to quickly go through those that I have. Height: Is the proposed 55 feet too high? And would it be best if we were to bring the overall mass down to the curb code of 45 feet without affordable housing and 50 feet with affordable housing, while keeping a strong influence towards those architectural elements that give Ridgewood much of its visual character?

2. Concerns regarding adequate parking:

It seems to me that while we have little choice here but to defer the language to what's currently mandated by the state under RSIS, it's my understanding that state parking calculations under RSIS already contemplate adequate parking for both residents and visitors, which was one of the issues we heard during these hearings.

No. 3. Provisions for affordable housing:

While the importance of affordable housing has been highlighted and vetted through these hearings, in light of what we heard and read about in the Supreme Court's ruling on affordable housing last week, I believe it should be underscored that high density multi‑family housing must be a part of the village's priority in satisfying its affordable housing obligation.

Density: This seems to be a factor of concern, and I'm still trying to understand the best approach that would address the effects of density, given the concerns.

Density will impact the total number of units permitted overall. It will impact mass. Also traffic. It also might influence green space and building aesthetics.

So after everyone else speaks tonight, and if it's at the heart of many thoughts from board members, I would like to ask Blais for help to work through this in a way that it is consistent with the record and that it could potentially be acceptable to all stakeholders, perhaps to come back at the next meeting with his suggestions against any points raised tonight. So there you have it. So why don't I move to my left, and, Richard, why don't we continue to go down this way and then come this way (indicating).

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Charles.

Again, I would like to thank the applicants, the attorneys, the public, for their involvement, the village staff, and my fellow board members. There were a lot of public meetings that we had in this matter, there were about 20 of them, starting in 2013 to present. Numerous work sessions before then. So many years of work went into this whole endeavor. We are considering a Master Plan amendment for multi‑family housing. Our focus is, is this good for the general welfare of Ridgewood?

We heard testimony from many witnesses, we reviewed and received much evidence in this matter, and we have to determine what's the right course for our Master Plan amendment.

And the Master Plan is a policy document. We're not creating an ordinance or anything like that, we're setting the tone for what's the goals and objectives that we want for Ridgewood.

So the proponents were entitled to make application here to request a change in the plan, as is the public, anyone can request a change.

The first question you have to look at: Does multi‑family housing promote the general welfare?

And then if you say yes to that, the second question is: If so, how should we go about it? And where should we have it? How should it be done? How much area? What size? Etc.  

As to the first question, I'd have to answer a yes, multi‑family housing will promote the general welfare. The areas at issue in this matter are underutilized, and I think are kind of ripe for redevelopment. We also have a housing need.

To provide additional housing will provide a variety of housing types and choices, it will mix the land use, it will provide additional housing for a younger set of people and empty‑nesters. Also, it will provide an opportunity for affordable housing. So on to the second question: How do you go about it and how much is enough? I guess that's the delicate balance that we have to determine and what standards would we have to have. We have to take into consideration all the elements. If you look at traffic, we already have a traffic issue, but this isn't something that was caused by the land owners, so it's something that we have, we have to deal with it, and you also have to look at it, that if something is built there as‑of‑right, it could even provide for worse traffic issues. We have developers here that could provide a situation where they can mitigate any traffic effects. Also you have to look at, there's proximity to mass transit, the trains and buses, so that would play into the traffic issue. As for parking, any developer would have to comply with the state requirements, so I don't see that as a big issue. Schools, while it's not the primary factor, but you do consider it. I don't see that this would generate some huge influx of students with this type of housing. I think someone with kids would probably rent a house, where they have more property and be able to have more room for their family, so I don't see this being enticing for people with school‑aged children. Also, the enrollment has been trending down over the years.

As for the density, the maximum permitted now is 12 units, except on S. Broad, I believe 25.5 units per acre. What's proposed is 30 to 40 and with 40 to 50 with affordable rental units.

The existing avenue right now for multi‑family is about 23.1 units per acre, with variations from about five units per acre up to about 128 units per acre, so this becomes the much tougher question and I'm looking forward to more discussion among the board members to see what the right balance is with respect to it, because that's going to be a tough one, as is height. Right now we have 45 feet and 50 feet for affordable, and it would increase, is looking to be 50 for not affordable and 55 with affordable. It's an additional five feet, but I guess the increase is done with aesthetics in mind, you don't want to have a flat roof. So, again, this is an item I would like open for discussion among the board members.

I believe the CBD should be considered in that this will provide additional foot traffic in the area for pedestrians and for the stores and it would add to a vibrant downtown.

As for the particular zones, with Chestnut Village and The Dayton, I agree that they're not appropriate for retail in that they're set off the main thoroughfare where the store is.

As for the aesthetics, we don't have a site plan before us, but what we've seen are conceptual, and we see that something can be created that's very nice looking and attractive, and that a Master Plan amendment can provide certain language that will have certain controls in place that provide for these aesthetics to create something good. If someone does nothing, that's progress in its own way in that you would be moving backwards. If we do something, we can try to improve the town. So I'm looking forward to more discussion regarding certain issues, but, again, I'm favorable that multi‑family housing will promote the general welfare, and I look to address the tougher questions with my fellow board members.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Richard.

Kevin.

MR. REILLY: I'm going to defer for the time being.

I would say generally, as I've said before, for some of the reasons that Richard mentions, I think the modified use is perfectly appropriate. My concern all along has been height, but we don't have a whole lot of leeway in what we can do about height and also density. I think with reduced density, we certainly reduce some of the impacts, but I'm going to defer for the moment on a final statement on my part.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Wendy.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. As you know, I tend to go right to the details, but I'm not going to do that tonight, because I didn't finish my analysis, and I really wanted to listen to what some of my fellow board members have to say. In terms of some of my observations about what we've heard, I have a number of what I call "yellow flags," I'd like to raise. I think the concept of multi‑family housing in the downtown is a good one in principle. I understand the positives of increasing the diversity of our housing stock, but I have some reservations, which hopefully we can work through in our discussions, with regard to some of the elements in the amendment.

Just to reference a few: We've had our experts and residents also come forward and speak to the importance of housing for seniors in our community. And as a senior, I have special appreciation for that. But, also, I'm not clear, from what I've heard, that what we have crafted in this amendment or what is proposed in this amendment will actually provide housing for seniors that meets their needs. I know obviously, you know, near transportation in the downtown, you don't have to mow the lawn or shovel snow or whatever, but I think there are, as I said previously, many other factors that affect one's housing choices, including availability of outside space, affordability, size of units, peace and quiet, to name a few. I'm not sure that the parameters that we have set will provide everything, all those things, or answer all those needs, because we haven't done a study to tell us what the seniors here really want, what they really want.

So I know the developers have said well, you know, we know this because we're developers, and we're going to market it this way, but I think we're in some ways missing pieces of information that would help me understand and decide whether or not the parameters we're setting in this Master Plan will actually solve the needs of seniors in our community.

So that's No. 1.

No. 2, I'm very concerned about the historic character of our village, and no one has come forth in all these hearings saying "Let's change the character." Everyone said we moved here for the character, we like a low‑rise town, so I'm very concerned about the height of the buildings and the scale of the buildings. For example, I believe one of the experts, Mr. Steck, I believe, or maybe it was the architect, I can't remember which, indicated that The Dayton would be a 180,000‑square foot building, with 300 feet of frontage along the street. I think it's over 55 feet in height. That's a huge building.That to me doesn't match the scale of our town, and for me, that is one of the prerogatives, the preemptive, you got it, prerogative ‑‑ parameters ‑‑ whatever. The most important thing we do here is make sure whatever we decide, that it fosters something that will not violate the character of our town. Because I think that's so important to all of us. And I think that's probably one of our struggles here, how do we do that and do we do it at 55 feet? I'm not sure. I don't think so. Do we do it with a 180,000‑square foot building? I'm not sure. I don't think so. So that's a second concern I have. The third concern is that we're taking ten acres and allowing it to become residential of a sort, multi‑family housing, without quite fully grasping, at least from my perspective, what the ability is of our downtown to grow commercially and retail‑wise. Now, we heard from our experts that these sites are no longer going to be car dealers, and I agree with that, it's not likely we're going to have car dealers come, but I really don't know how much more our downtown can grow and what will benefit the most our downtown in terms of growth.

Yes, I'm sure having housing units down there will help, but maybe there's another strategy.

We have kind of an unusual downtown, a lot of restaurants, and there may be other things we should be doing, rather than taking ten full acres out of that mix, if you know what I'm saying. So I feel there's a little bit of a gap in that. I would have liked to have some sort of market study that tells me yup, this is the best use for those properties in terms, you know, of helping our downtown as well as meeting these other needs.There may be other things we should be doing. Okay. Like, I guess it was Richard and Charles, we all have some concerns about density. We've had testimony that the average for residential structures in the village is 16 units per acre, I think that was the Bogart report, and 23.1 in the CBD area.

I think going from what is now 12, all the way up to 40 or 50 units is a huge jump. I don't know why we have to jump that high or go that far. I don't have any testimony that says to me this is what must be done in order to achieve housing in the downtown. So I have concerns in that regard. I think that I see the benefits of having a transit‑oriented development in the downtown. I think that's a great planning objective for the village. But I think that we do not need to go to the extent of height and density that we're going to in order to create transit‑oriented development, and I have some citations from the report that Blais gave us on that, which shows that to meet the criteria for a transit‑oriented development, six dwelling units per acre, that's the state plan. Eight dwelling units per acre, we heard from Sustainable New Jersey, and that's related to bus transportation. And 15 dwelling units per acre relative to rail.

So I don't think we need to go the 40 or 50, in order to provide the benefits of transit‑oriented development, at least according to these planning guidelines. Parking requirements: I think the amendment says RSIS, and it sounds good to me. I don't think we can do much with that, sounds good, so I won't comment on that. I do have some concerns about the fiscal and school impacts. I will say that I understand that honestly we're not going to make a decision based simply on fiscal and school impacts. I did a fairly close review of the data that was provided to us, and I prefer to hold on that until we're through our discussion, because it's going to take a long time to explain that. But, again, I think both fiscal and school impacts, there's some yellow flags that say to me we should be cautious in terms of what we do in terms of this.

I know Blais said that, you know, we have the potential of 500 units, if everything is constructed, but most likely wouldn't be. But I think if we're going to prescribe and allow 500 units, we should really know, if they're all available, what that would mean for our town, and I don't think we know that. We didn't have any testimony on the Ken Smith site and the extension along Chestnut Street there. I really don't know what's proposed for that, how that will impact us, you know, what the fiscal analysis is for that or the school impact on that. In fact, we don't have much on that at all in terms of any of the impacts, which also concerns me. So I just have a lot of yellow flags, where I'd like to listen more, talk more, see if there aren't some adjustments we can make. And, to be quite honest, there are a couple of places that I thought, wouldn't it be nice if we had some more information? It would be really nice if we really knew we could provide housing that will be used and loved by our residents, just to give an example. So that's it for now, and I defer to Michele.

MS. PETERS: I think you made some great points, Wendy, and I thank you so much, I really do. They were just terrific and very much in keeping with the thoughts that I had all along.

I wanted to ask the mayor and our councilwoman, please, because they're in the paper, we've been talking about the RFP and the response that has come from that, which I personally found exceedingly exciting, and I also loved the proposal for the hydraulic parking, which was something that I'm a big advocate for.

Do you believe, I haven't read, maybe I missed it, nothing has been awarded at this time, so it's all under discussion, but if the parking was to go forward with the RFP, how would that offset, perhaps, if there is, a lack of parking that is being introduced by some of the developments?

And why do I say that?

Because I know that I have been speaking a great deal about the simple reality of one car households versus two car households versus anybody coming to visit anyone in a household, and everyone needing cars and how the impact that is to our parking in our downtown area.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If possible, perhaps I can speak.

I was planning to speak about that when I made my comments, so maybe I could just follow that up later.

MS. PETERS: Because I was hoping that we would have more of a real discussion here, that's what I'm hoping for.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We just want everybody to highlight their views, and then once everybody has had an opportunity to highlight, we can get into boarder discussion.

MS. PETERS: Okay. So we'll wait on that one.

I feel very expressed by what has been said so far and at this moment tonight, because I am concerned about time, I would like to just move on forward, because I'm hoping to get into a going back and forth on this discussion as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You don't want to highlight any of your views?

MS. PETERS: I'm agreeing with what's been said.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Isabella.

MS. ALTANO: Yes. I wanted to say thank you to everyone for being here.

This has been a very long process, but we all know the reason why we're all here is because we care about our village.

And after reviewing the plans and after reviewing the proposals made by the proponents and listening to the testimony, I can only agree with what I've heard so far, and I really want to thank everyone else, because basically I think we are taking each other on some of the issues.

I'm concerned, although I wholly welcome the proposals, I would like to see some change in the way they finally are built. And I believe that some consideration that should be given to how these projects will affect the village, and this is really my main concern.

We all came to this village because of its open spaces, because of its beautiful landscape, and because of the way it is designed, and we also came here for the schools. And I question, how will these projects, proposals, affect our quality of life, how we feel and how we act from now on? Because there would be a drastic change.

Granted, they will provide additional wonderful opportunity for the downtown to be galvanized by this new group of people coming in, we will also take care of our percentage allocating for affordable housing, which is a wonderful thing. And we will also take into consideration the need for senior citizens and housing for senior citizens, empty‑nesters, and the boot camp generation, with kids like my children's age who want to commute to the city.

However, more studies need to be conducted to see where will this take us, what is the cost to the village, what is the cost of the infrastructure to the village? When we add all these buildings to our village, what is it going to do to our underground systems and our water and electricity? How will we be affected by all of this?

2. I worry about schools.

I know there was testimony by Dr. Fishbein, there was also reports done for projecting enrollment. What I haven't seen yet, and I would love to see, is a projected enrollment that includes the proposals.

I want to see a study done, and I don't know if this is something that is done by the Board of Education or it's conducted by the village, where we include what is projected, what kind of number will we get from those units? So we have a better idea, as we go forward and we make a decision on the future of our village.

We understand that traffic is also going to be affected. We already have a problem. This may cause an additional stress on an already difficult situation we have with parking. So I wonder about that. I would love to see a lower density and an inclusion of additional parking within the structures that are being proposed, as well as allocation to green space.

There's been testimony by Ralph Curry from the Open Space Committee, and he stated that we really have a deficiency here in Ridgewood as far as open space is concerned. So why not incorporate some of these concerns in the final project?

So reduce density, but now with the new guidelines we'll be hearing for affordable housing, we still have to be very delicate in how we navigate through these concerns.

So these are my concerns, and I want to thank you for listening to me.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Mr. Abdalla.

MR. ABDALLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to defer my comments for the time being and use my time to my fellow members.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All right. Thank you.

David.

MR. THURSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that Mr. Weiner put it very well when he described what we were here for. We're not looking at today, we're not looking at tomorrow, we're not looking at five years or 10 years, we're looking at 30 or 40 years from today. So we have to look at what this is going to do to the town in 30 or 40 years. I look at this as alternatives.

We have an alternative to reject the proposal and keep where we are, we have the alternative to pass it as is, or we have the alternative to pass it with changes. I believe that if we don't pass it, that we're going to end up either with raw land for many, many years or alternatives we don't want, like CVS in the middle of N. Maple and Franklin, a Wal‑Mart neighborhood over on S. Broad or at the corner of Broad, or a medical office building, which will have much more traffic, affect the children and the parking much worse than the alternatives that we're talking about.

So I think what we really are here for is to talk about whether we want what we have been proposed or modified.

Frankly, I don't consider myself an expert, although I do this for a living, frankly, and I don't know about the other board members, but what I'm concerned about is, we're having our feelings guide what we want, as opposed to reality. What I'm concerned with is that we're going to play chicken with the developers.

If we pass an amendment that says let's have 20 units, with the ability to go up to 24, and that's not economically sound, nothing gets built. I think that's a worse result than what we have in the amendment.

I think we all agree that multi housing serves a purpose. I think we all agree that the traffic is going to be better than it would be with the alternatives. So I'm a proponent of the amendment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Susan.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: First, I just want to thank everyone, the proponents and the members of our community that have come out. Just the opportunity to hear everyone speak to this issue and to see the true interest in our community, how engaged we are, is just really fascinating and very much appreciated that everybody comes to speak.

So in my view, it's really important to see these properties develop into something that's viable and vibrant, while striking a balance within our village, not just in the Central Business District as the centerpiece to Ridgewood, but as throughout the entire community, a more comprehensive view and review of this.

When I hear these proposals that I think my colleague, Vice Chairman Joel, had pointed out the increased foot traffic, I'm fascinated that in all of this there's been no study of the impact of increased foot traffic, because that increased foot traffic in fact impedes the flow of vehicular traffic.

So there is a logic in my mind that that could have been something that was incorporated into this entire process.

The absence of any survey or canvassing to establish who in our community we're looking to serve: Will this be seniors that want to relocate or is there really not an interest, will this be not affordable?

I hear a lot about high‑end units, luxury apartments, but I know full well that we can't zone for that, we can only zone for density, height, parking. So that's always just a fluid conversation.

My concern certainly would be density; height; increased pedestrian traffic that would result in impeding the flow of vehicular traffic; open space. Not one of the proposals addresses any need for open space, and yet to me it changes the entire character of the Village of Ridgewood in the absence of such. So again it's something that concerns me. I do think that it's important to establish some plan that allows these developers to move forward with something that makes their properties visually appealing, aesthetically appropriate, and viable. But the question for me is and continues to be: At what cost, and where's the balance? So I do feel that we need to look at these proposals and make a determination as to, can we tweak this? I'm not a proponent for this the way it is planned or the way the amendment is written, not whatsoever.

I do think we can add components to it and change it that makes it strike a better balance for the Village of Ridgewood. When I hear a transit‑oriented community, I recognize that the increase of a 500‑unit build‑out could in fact increase bus traffic. So everything that we do here is very important that we get it just right, that we strike the right balance, and I'm not confident that what's before us right now is the right balance. So I think that it requires our further attention, discussion, and review.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Susan.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Thank you very much.

I too want to start by thanking everybody involved in this process, Planning Board members, past and present, who have been involved in this discussion, the citizens who have come out, our residents, our neighbors who have come out for or against or otherwise on this issue, the proponents of this, the applicants, the developers, everybody involved in this process really deserves to be thanked, because I think the way we've handled this is a good example of how these kinds of big decisions should be discussed by a community.

I know at one time or another, all of us probably rolled our eyes at the length of these meetings, but the truth of the matter is, it served a purpose. I mean, we've been talking about this as a board for over four years, it's been in a hearing for about 15 months now. It's been an exhaustive discussion, and I think it's been a good one. But, you know, it's time to make a decision. I know some people have raised concerns about information gaps, you know, we need more information on this, we need a study on that. I'll tell you, you know, I'm a big proponent of getting as much information as possible, both whether it's empirical data or getting input from residents, what have you, but we've done that, and at some point you need to make a decision, and that's where this board is at. I think it's incumbent upon us, for or against or otherwise, to make a decision and I think that's what we're getting ready to do. For me, you know, I mean, as a council member, as mayor, as a member of this Planning Board, and I'm sure everybody will agree, we're guided by one question: What's best for Ridgewood? That guides every decision we make, whether it's, you know, small issues, budget issues, Planning Board issues: What is best for Ridgewood? It's in that spirit that we have been sitting through these meetings, we've been asking our questions, we've been listening to the input, and for me, it's real clear. This is an opportunity for us. This is an opportunity for Ridgewood. It's an important opportunity to do something really meaningful for our town.

And I say that, you know, I got into this, and when we first spoke to this issue, before we got to the hearing process, you know, we sort of did a head count of who was in favor going forward, and I was, and one of the main reasons, one of the main drivers then, as now, is for the empty‑nesters.

As someone who has a foot in and out of high school and college, I'm about to become an empty‑nester. I know a lot of folks who have left this town, who have given a lot of time, who raised their families in town, who volunteered in the town, but they don't want to live in the big house anymore, they don't want to pay that high tax anymore, they want an alternative.

We don't have an alternative for them right now.

I'm sure all of us know friends who left town, so that's one of the things that has been driving me in this process. So in that regard and for our downtown, I think this is a real important opportunity, and like any opportunity, it's important for us to seize that, but at the same time we need to take great care. It's about striking the balance, and it's about recognizing that this is in fact an opportunity, but also at the same time realizing that this is going to have repercussions, positive or negative or otherwise, down the road, so we need to think. And as David said, we can't be thinking five and ten years, we need to be thinking 20 and 30 years down to road. And so I'm hoping we do seize this opportunity.

You know, we've heard, people talked about the character of Ridgewood. You know, we talk about that all the time on the council, big decision, small decisions, we are always guided by maintaining the character of Ridgewood, keeping Ridgewood Ridgewood.

But I don't see any of this taking away from Ridgewood. You know, towns, communities evolve. The key is to do it right. It's not a question of multi‑family housing, whether it's good or bad, we have multi‑family housing, the question is doing it right.

I'm sure when the building went up on the corner of Franklin and Maple or the Board of Ed building went up or the supermarket went in, people had discussions or concerns about maintaining the character, and that's good, that's healthy, but let's not suggest that anything new is going to take away from the character. In fact, it would enhance the character. And if it does what I hope it does, by keeping a lot of our Ridgewood residents in town, it will do a lot to strengthen the character of our community.

I think it's really important, you know, this whole issue of as‑of‑right. You know, these properties aren't going to remain vacant, something is going to be built there, and I think, as David and others have pointed out, we need to be cognizant of that and think that one through.

And in terms of the issues, there are really just five issues sort of on my mind right now, sort of my five main issues. I reserve the right to add to that list. One, of course, is density. That seems to be the key issue on everyone's mind, striking that right balance, finding that right number, whatever that is, and we're going to have, I'm sure, a healthy discussion on that topic.

One is amenities. As I've said many times, one of my concerns is, we go forward with multi‑family housing but we're not able to guarantee that it's something different, that it's a high‑end apartment.

We have low, moderate-income apartments, and that's fantastic, that adds to our community, but I'm hoping we get something different here for those empty‑nesters. And so to the extent we can put amenities or create some kind of mechanism by which we can not guarantee but help sort of incentivize to build high‑end apartments, something we don't have, I think would be beneficial. Specialty housing: We really don't have much of it here. You know, we talked about affordable housing and Ridgewood's obligation. You know, as we've talked about, that obligation can be met in affordable units on these sites, if we go forward with them, but it can also be putting money or putting units toward special needs housing, and that's something I think our community desperately needs. Parking: I'm glad you raised parking. That's the issue that's sort of front and center in all that I do these days.

You know, I have an idea, I'm just going to throw it out there and we can discuss it more. I think the standard is a 1.4 I think cars per unit. I know some concerns have been expressed, well, that's not necessarily realistic, maybe, Ridgewood residents like to have, you know, two cars, what have you, and there might be visitors to the parking.

One of the things I'd like to explore is the possibility that we can maybe use some money or do something with the developers to sort of put into a general fund that we can use to develop as we go forward with parking on Hudson Street and at other places. There might be a way that we can sort of alleviate some of the village's overall parking burden through this process, and I want to explore some of that, hopefully.

And then lastly, you know, just the form of the amendment. At one point I talked about bifurcation or maybe breaking this up, you know, and I think it's been suggested maybe we should be looking at four separate amendments, because we're looking at four separate zones. I think that's something that warrants our discussion also. So just in conclusion, again, I really do see this as an opportunity. It's something we need to get right, though. It deserves and demands great care.

I think this board and this community have given it great care. And I assume that in the following weeks, we will continue doing so.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Will you address Michele's question?

MS. PETERS: Specifically it had to do with, because I believe it's 100 parking spaces.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Oh, are you talking about the redevelopment zone?

MS. PETERS: Yes, the redevelopment zone. I believe there's 100 parking spaces that are in the RFP itself, and would that help to offset what we're ‑‑ no? The answer is no?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: So we're looking at a couple of things, and I'll try to be brief. One is on the redevelopment zone, that's the area of N. Walnut Street and Franklin, there's a municipal lot there and there's a town garage that's there.

That's been a redevelopment zone, I think since 2006, 2007. We had looked back in that time period to build something there. Nothing ever came of it. Essential to the concept of our redevelopment zone is additional parking. So when we went through this process this time, we kept that front and center, and we made it in the RFP that anybody who sort of we agreed to move forward with in developing something there would have to at least net the village 100 parking spots, on top of what's already there.

We got a couple of proposals before us now, one of them has a semiautomatic proposal.

Frankly, while I think it's a cool idea, I am not too sure if it makes sense for us, but that's something we're looking at. So that's that site, and then we're looking at Hudson Street, presumably. That would be a place where we would either build just a garage by ourselves or with the county, perhaps. We haven't looked at mixed use, we haven't talked about it, we are just talking about parking. So those are the two areas where we hope to provide some relief and alleviate some of the parking issue right now.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Actually I would also like to speak to Michele's question.

So, Michele, no, the 100 spaces will not alleviate any parking issue here, it will barely alleviate the issues that we have existing.

But just as a point to my comments earlier is the comprehensive view, overview, as to the impact across the village, not just in the Central Business District but the village as a whole.

The two proposals that are before Village Council actually six RFPs came in, and narrowed down by a subcommittee, I think the mayor and Councilwoman Hauck were on, and those two proposals were narrowed down. And the two proposals that were presented in front of the Village Council, I believe it was last week, one was by Langan and that included retail, parking, that was the one with the very cool, I loved, the automatic parking, and that included 13, I think they call them "duplex townhouses." The other proposal was from Kensington, which is an assisted living facility, which actually in their presentation was 98 units per acre. And that that was a huge number, and it certainly is something that needs to be considered in this big picture.

So, you know, we talk about traffic impacts and a comprehensive view. As a matter of fact, I wanted to go to, turn to a page, something that Gail wrote in her comments, just give me a minute.

So Gail, in her comments, spoke about, and maybe she'll just remind me, maybe she'll actually remember what it was, as to a comprehensive and well‑ordered plan ‑‑ oh, here we go.

"The tests for proper zoning ordinance should be whether it reasonably promotes a balanced and well‑ordered plan for the entire municipality." And so I think that's when we're talking about that particular 100 spaces in the parking lot, the addition, that's just the net gain, I think that we're looking at a well‑ordered, comprehensive plan for the entire community, the entire municipal municipality, and that is certainly a factor in this mix.

MS. PETERS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Susan.

Kevin, do you want to offer?

MR. REILLY: Sure.

I wanted to listen to my fellow board members for a couple minutes. We have so much evidence and so much testimony, plowing through this will take forever. I think I'll probably hit a couple of highlights where there is the most controversy. As I said in the past, I support the modified use for several reasons that are on the record. I think it's the trend of the past couple of decades. You see much more residential use downtown, particularly when you have a transit village and the access to the train here. As more business is downtown, it is better certainly for the retail establishment, more bodies walking around at nighttime. I think you can easily justify the change in use, I'm fine with that. The impacts are uneven. I think we can live with some of the impacts. Traffic, there's going to be impacts. Now, it can be mitigated somewhat, because I do think that the location of at least a couple of projects will reduce the morning and evening traffic, because I think there's probably going to be some degree, we can't tell how much, of course, but I think there will be some degree of commuting into the city or elsewhere. To the extent that the empty‑nesters, they're probably not going to be getting out at 8:00 in the morning or arriving at 5 or 6:00 in the afternoon. So there is going to be traffic. There are a couple of choke points. I think Broad Street and Ridgewood, and Maple and Ridgewood, they are choke points now, they're going to be choke points then. I think we can tolerate a certain degree of traffic. I never really accepted some of the evidence from our own property expert, whose testimony, whose explanation is that the as‑of‑right development would generate greater traffic.

The examples he used struck me as being implausible. I think the three he used were: Supermarket, office building, restaurants. I don't think we're going to have another supermarket in Ridgewood. We already got several supermarkets.

I don't see why we would have office buildings developed at these sites. We're too far from Route 17, we're too far from business centers, I just don't see that as being plausible.

And a restaurant of the size that would generate the traffic that's being proposed, we already have a lot of restaurants, some of them have trouble staying alive, so I don't see that either.

I don't think we can get around it, there's going to be some traffic, but I don't think there is going to be as much traffic as some people feared.

I don't think that the village should be responsible for the expense of signaling. The proposal was made both to change the signaling and, if we modified the signal, update the signal, we will reduce the traffic and we'll alter the traffic flow. I think it was left unresolved how much the village would be responsible for paying for that signaling.That I would oppose. I don't think it's our responsibility to accommodate the developers.

In terms of schools, I simply don't see this being a significant impact. Now, I've seen the evidence that the schools are pretty full right now, and I understand that they're pretty much built‑out, as built‑out as feasible, so we're probably not going to see additions to school buildings to accommodate more students. And there's some leeway, but I gather that there's not a whole lot of leeway to accommodate a lot more students, but I just don't see these projects generating that many school‑aged children. They're 1 and 2 bedrooms, basically one bedrooms, I just don't see the likelihood that from these particular projects we're going to get a lot of children out of them.

Plus, as Richard pointed out, the numbers seem to be trending down, demographically with smaller families now, we don't have families with 4, 5 or 6 kids, we have families with 1, 2, maybe three kids, so I just don't see that being an immediate or long‑term problem, the schools.

There seemed minimal impacts, if any, on municipal services such as sewer and water. I think the evidence was that's not a real problem.

I join other board members in being sensitive to the historic look and small scale character of the community. Now, the aesthetics can be addressed on the site plan review. Conceptually I liked the projects, they looked good, they looked nice, they were massive ‑‑ at least one of them was massive. They were very attractive, but large. That concerns me a little. It seemed a little overwhelming.

Now, maybe we can tolerate that. That's just a concern that I had, and density kind of relates to that. If we can reduce density, as I said in the beginning, I think that we can mitigate some of impacts, for instance, traffic. Perhaps also size. I realize that we're somewhat limited in what we can do as far as size, but if we reduce density, maybe that's a way to address size. It also brings down, I think, the number of people, the number of cars, and all the impacts the density has. So that's a concern of mine.

The scale, I think I've said in the past, I've looked around all over Bergen County for buildings I think of comparable size, just to get a sense of how they fit in the pockets that are proposed for Ridgewood, and it concerns me. It's not a nonstarter for me, it's just something I'm concerned with, but again if we can reduce density, I think it solves that problem.

We can certainly, I think, accept some density increase, and I think in Mr. Wells' summation last week, which was very articulate, very persuasive, I got a sense there might be a little bit of give there in density, I'm not exactly sure, but maybe I'm reading too far into that.

The affordable housing component is something I think we have to seriously consider. We have recentcase law, I want to think that through, as to how much overall room we have in addressing the affordable housing aspects of these projects and the village's responsibility. So that's where I stand right now. Generally speaking, I like the projects, I like the change. In fact, I support the change in use. I do have these couple of concerns.

I thank you, Charles.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Kevin.

Michele, did you want to elaborate?

MS. DOCKRAY: A little follow‑up on that, Kevin. I thought that was terrific ‑‑ were you pointing to me, did you say me?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, Michele deferred her comments. I was giving people who deferred their comment an opportunity.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay, because I'm ready. I got some more comments.

MS. PETERS: It's quite okay, if you want to, but, Kevin, I want to thank you, because I feel as if I'm hearing people say what's been on my mind for a very, very long time. So that's why I feel very expressed by what persons are saying, because my concerns are about the density and in terms of the characterization.

I know all of the proponents for change have spoken about a ten percent for affordable housing, and I have, as Mayor Aronsohn had said, that there was one project that did make a concerted effort to include special needs housing, which I think is a very important component.

I'm still very, very concerned about the density. I'm very concerned about the height. I'm very concerned about setbacks.

Every time I come down Ridgewood Avenue from Route 17, I'm very aware of the scope, the landscape, as it's introducing going into the CBD. There's congestion.

What is the best way to maintain the quality of the personality, the characterization, and see new development happening?

I think, Susan, thank you how you spoke about the blending and also the importance about the pedestrian traffic, because how many times do we have to read about another person being hit when there's a left turn being made? These are concerns.

And I know many residents spoke about where Chestnut Village having to traverse going underneath the train ‑‑ do we call that a train trestle ‑‑ the train trestle, having to park there, but that's a very important traffic light that is there. And I do believe, and keeping, Kevin, with what you were just saying about Mr. Wells, I know he's here, I'm sure, somewhere, is that he has always spoken that if a developer's had more than an idea about what we were assessing and how we were viewing the projects, I think that they would be able to incorporate those ideas, and they perhaps would have different thinking and a different thought process. That's why I think the conversation is so important to what we're doing, but I think I'm digressing again, Charles, and I don't want to keep doing that to you here, I know Wendy has a lot to say.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Before Wendy, Khidir.

MR. ABDALLA: Thanks again. Thank you to my fellow citizens for all the time that they spent on this. I think my colleagues here on the board raised a lot of concerns and issues that I had in mind as well. But one thing that I want to say, and it goes against the grain here and what everybody was raising in regard to density and scale, one thing that I want to remind everyone, we are talking about downtown and we are talking about proximity to transportation, and the most appropriate way for sustainability in terms of urban planning and in terms of revitalizing downtown is giving some leeway with density so you will have the pedestrian traffic that everybody wants to have, so it can generate the traffic that the retailers would like to see in our downtown.

Again, there's many good points and many good concerns here in terms of traffic and in terms of parking and all that, but I guess this is why we are discussing all the lists now. I would just like to remind everyone, I'm sure you are already aware of this, we should look at this as an opportunity, you know, to address a lot of needs for the town, for the community, and not be afraid of changing certain characters in the community. Again, we're not talking about an unforgiving area, downtown usually has its own lively character, if it's allowed to be, and density and scale, all these things, you know, again when we get to the site plan review, I'm sure they could be addressed by our professionals, but it doesn't worry me personally, given where the zones that we are describing and we're discussing at this point.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you, Khidir.

Wendy.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. I just want to speak briefly, so people can think about fiscal and school impacts. I know it's not supposed to be at the top of our list in terms of how we evaluate our plans. The amendment ‑‑ I just want to be, before I do that, I want to reflect a little bit on something Kevin said, and I need a clarification. This amendment, while we regulate density, it doesn't regulate bedroom distribution. So that if we say you can have 40 units an acre, it could be 40 one‑bedroom units, it could be 43 one‑bedroom units, as long as it fits within the scale of what we have set forth. Is that not correct?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: (Shakes head.)

MS. PRICE: You can't regulate bedroom distribution other than for affordable units.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right, okay, just the affordable units. So that actually relates a little bit to my thoughts on school and fiscal impacts, because a lot of what we heard was based on developments with 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, and a lot of one bedroom apartments.

This could play out with all three bedroom apartments. Not likely, not likely, but it could, probably fewer units, given the size of the buildings. And so I have a little bit of concern when I think about that in terms of school impacts. And I'm particularly concerned with regard to Blais' statement in his report that the ‑‑ I'm going to read it. "The current condition of our school system is that it is full or nearly so."

That to me is an amazing thing, very important thing that needs to be thought about.

If he had reported to us that we had excess capacity, I would have said this is of less concern, even 100 students would, you know, great. But we're at full capacity, it sounds like, based on what Blais has said. And even though there's background data that indicates somehow the school has been able to absorb, what is it, 75, 100 students a year, and even though it was declining, we're at full capacity. And I know the school system has worked vigorously in the last few years to put an addition on Willard, work at GW whenever, and we're still at capacity.

So as we look ahead in terms of this amendment, I think we need to think about that, you know, as compared to, we have an excess capacity in our schools. I believe we need to think about that a little bit.

And we had a lot of debate. We had a presentation by Mr. Burgis and Mr. Steck on the number of schoolchildren, and Blais introduced the concept that the predictors they were using from the Rutgers study did not predict what happens well here in Ridgewood, but he didn't know why. And he showed that we have, you know, a much larger percentage ‑‑ it's not even a percentage, but our number of students, children, public schoolchildren per unit is higher than the Rutgers study would have predicted.

But, anyway, putting all that together says to me that with a possibility of larger units and with our school capacity and disagreements in testimony ‑‑ not so much testimony but analysis about how many students we're going to get, I think we need to be really careful and cautious.

I don't think we have credible fiscal analysis of any of these projects in terms of the town. I know we got some from Mr. Burgis, but that was predicated on the lower school number, on the Rutgers predictor. And even if you accepted that analysis and said, okay, I will accept the lower predictors, the number of schoolchildren, it wasn't overly persuasive to me that the projects he analyzed for us would bring us, would be, you know, a terrific addition to our town budget.

Not that we were looking for that, but, you know, I would hate to think, as I said earlier, we're talking here, you know, ten acres, potentially 500 units, or if you want to say 400 units, 450, whatever. And if, you know, this were to have negative fiscal impact, I don't know that's such a good thing either, so that just says to me caution, caution.

MR. THURSTON: If I can address that, Wendy?

MS. DOCKRAY: Sure.

MR. THURSTON: I think it's important to note that if you have an FAR, whatever that is, and at the same time you want to reduce the number of units, that's going to create the problem that you're looking to avoid. So your argument is, if we have the same FAR but we have larger units with more bedrooms, creating more kids, the opposite argument is let's have more units, smaller units, so we don't have as many kids, so I think you need to look at that in a circular way.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right. Well, I am not addressing FAR, I'm only addressing number of units.

MR. THURSTON: But the FAR will judge how many square feet you can have, and then if you want to reduce the number of units per acre, you're going to necessarily increase the size, which necessarily increases likely the number of bedrooms in those units.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right, but I would say contingent, coming with reducing the number of units will be reducing the height of the buildings, maybe increasing setbacks, making other adjustments so that the size of the units stay in scale with what has already been crafted.

Is that okay? Am I answering you, your concern?

MR. THURSTON: Well, it's not my concern, I think it's just a fact.

MS. DOCKRAY: I know. You asked.

MR. THURSTON: The more you reduce the FAR, the more you reduce the height, the more you reduce these things, you begin to make it different than what everybody is thinking of at that point.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right, I understand, but as it stands now, would be whoever built under these guidelines can do a whole range of different things, and we're not guaranteeing, and saying to us, you know, we're going to have, you know, so many two bedrooms and so many one bedrooms or whatever, I think that's site plan analysis, not Master Plan analysis, and I think we have to keep it at a slightly different level and try to craft this better so it, you know, recognizes all of these considerations more carefully. That's all.

MR. THURSTON: Blais, where did you get the FAR from?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Where did I get the FAR from?

MR. THURSTON: Yes. How did you determine the FAR?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, I think this was part of your testimony.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Rather than re‑hearing it again ‑‑

MR. THURSTON: Can he answer that question? I'm sorry.

MS. PRICE: If it's a clarification as to where something is in the record.

MR. THURSTON: Right, that's what I'm asking.

MR. BRANCHEAU: I can tell you what it is.

MS. DOCKRAY: David, what I was thinking, just while he is looking, if we were to reduce density, I assume we would reduce height as well and maybe increase setback. You know, there would have to be appropriate adjustments. I understand what you're saying, okay, in that regard.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: While Blais is looking, and you mentioned a lot of people indicated height is a concern or question, I threw out: Why change it? Maybe we should consider leaving it as is. Maybe we should focus on specific elements at this point.

We have about 20 minutes, roughly 20 minutes left.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Just for clarification from Wendy, obviously if the conversation is reducing the height, increasing setbacks, increasing green space, reducing density, and then by nature we would be reducing floor area ratio, so that goes without saying, so the FAR is reduced just by virtue of those reductions that we were making, but if that is the direction that we're going in, that would be part of this entire conversation.

MS. DOCKRAY: Yes, yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So just to be clear, I want everybody in the world to know that is the point.

MS. DOCKRAY: Yes, exactly. I'm not saying let's reduce the density but allow the structures to be the same physical size, because then David is right, we're going to end up with much larger units.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I understood. I wanted to just sort of rephrase it so we're all on the same page.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Great.

MR. BRANCHEAU: The range of floor area ratio is from 140 to 160 percent of the lot area. And all of these standards sort of work together, so we had talked about and the mayor spoke tonight about wanting higher‑end units, so there was the thinking that generally means larger units.

So if you have a density, just do some simple math, of 40 units, say 43 units per acre, that's roughly one unit per 1,000 square feet. And if that unit, including hallways and stairwells, was 1,500 square feet, that would be 150 percent floor area ratio. So it shows you how the math works.

MR. THURSTON: And you determined that when you made the amendment or did you use the former?

MR. BRANCHEAU: I'd have to go back and check in the details.

MR. THURSTON: Okay.

MR. BRANCHEAU: But I'll tell you what it is and how they work together.

MR. THURSTON: Okay.

MS. PRICE: This is something that, Blais, you could look into that?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Could you speak up, Gail. Sorry.

MS. PRICE: I wasn't on, I don't think. That's a bad use of the English language, "I wasn't on."

(Laughter.)

MS. PRICE: Blais, you could look into that question, correct, and get that ‑‑

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.

MS. PRICE:  ‑‑ answer from the record in terms of where that was determined?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.

MS. DOCKRAY: I'd like to ask a question.

Gail, if we were to say to Blais, tell us, you know, given the ‑‑ I think he had used the metric of 1,500 square feet per unit. If we were to say we wanted to reduce density to 30, and without changing setbacks yet, what would be the associated height, can he do that for us?

MS. PRICE: Tonight?

MS. DOCKRAY: Not tonight, no, but at some point can he do that so that we could see what that relationship would be? You know, we're talking about density.

MS. PRICE: Yes, I think that we can ask Blais to respond in kind to questions that relate to the testimony that's already been provided and that are in exhibits. The questions need to be phrased as they relate to the documents that are already in evidence and the testimony. So I think by addressing the different issues that I think I've heard from all of you already, you know, height, density, mass, that you can ask Blais, based upon wherever the board ends up, to take those issues back and utilize the scope of review that he had already used and take tonight and then come back to the board.

MS. DOCKRAY: And then tell us ‑‑

MS. PRICE: And that would be a fair exercise to do.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.

MS. PRICE: And I think, for instance, if you wanted to start talking about height, I think it's at 55 right now in the amendment, and our code is at 45 and 50. So if the board wanted to discuss, okay, if we're not going to go above the 50, because we've already talked about rights that exist, you know, then that would be an issue then Blais would have guidance on in that exercise.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.

MS. PRICE: So by way of example.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So, Wendy, actually you had mentioned something, I made a note, you said earlier, and I just would hope that you would elaborate a little further on your thoughts in this regard, you mentioned, and it was something that we discussed earlier, I had brought up, the encroachment of residential into the retail environment and you momentarily, a moment ago, earlier actually used the word "eroding" the retail component of the Central Business District. And because I do agree wholly that there is that encroachment, I just wanted to know if you wouldn't elaborate on your thoughts regarding that?

MS. DOCKRAY: No, because this is a fairly extensive change, it's not one acre, it's not two acres, it's ten acres, where we have, I know, you know, The Dayton site is a parking lot right now and Chestnut Village has nothing there, but, you know, the Sealfon's building is partly in our B‑1 zone, and it's at a major retail location, as far as I'm concerned, major retail location, if we, you know, have one.

I'm not sure that taking that much acreage potentially out of retail is something that would be necessarily or commercial beneficial, because I don't have information that tells me what is really happening in terms of our downtown and what would strengthen it.

I'll just say, years ago I did an analysis of a downtown and I looked at, you know, the composition of what was there in terms of how many shoe stores, how many this or that, and then I happened to have compared it to what a mall would look like, you know, what the normal distribution for a mall is, so I could get a sense of how it might better grow.

And I don't know how Ridgewood might better grow. I'm not necessarily afraid of a CVS is a really bad thing. I've actually seen some pretty nice ones. There's one in Park Ridge, it's very attractive. So what I'm saying, if we're looking at doing this to help our downtown, I would like to have a better idea in terms of what retail‑wise and commercial might help our downtown, before we take so much out of that type of development. That's all.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If I could speak to this?

MS. DOCKRAY: Sure.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Two things.

One is I think in the context of this conversation about what's good for the downtown and sort of taking this much out of it, sort of the retail mix, I think what's important to note is you had both the president of the Chamber of Commerce and the president of Ridgewood Guild both speak very enthusiastically in support of this. So in terms of people who might live and breathe this on a regular basis, I think their testimony should be weighed with that.

MS. DOCKRAY: That's true. Thank you.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: I'm just sort of, you know, I'm struck by again here we are four years later and 15 months into the hearing, wanting more information, more analysis. You know, one of the things I've learned, being in sort of local government now six and a half years, it's really easy to do nothing, and sometimes doing nothing is the right answer, but in this case, I really believe it will be doing a disservice.

MS. DOCKRAY: No, I'm not ‑‑

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If I could, to continually sort of allude to this fact, that we don't have this information, we don't have that information, we need this information; we have a lot of information, and at some point ‑‑ you're not going to have perfect information ‑‑ you have to make decisions at some point.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right, I agree with you on that, but I'm just saying that because of the extent of this, and the fact, you know, that to me there are pieces of information, you know, yes, they're missing, they're missing, that that says to me to exercise caution, it doesn't say don't do it.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Absolutely, caution.

MS. DOCKRAY: That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying, oh, don't do any of this because we don't have everything here, that's not what I'm saying, I'm just saying I think this is something, you know, as we proceed in deciding how much of this we want to do and how it's crafted, then we exercise caution.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I also just want to make two points.

I agree, I don't think we should do nothing, I just think we have to strike the balance and get it exactly right.

The other point I would like to make, and it's just a point of clarification, that while Paul Vagianos and Tom Hillmann came and spoke ‑‑ Tony, I'm sorry, guild and chamber, while they did come and speak, I don't know necessarily that they testified on behalf of their membership. I think they testified or they spoke as residents, but I do not believe that they proffered any testimony or any commentary on behalf of their membership. You said they were here as the president of both.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: I just said they were here, I didn't say they spoke on behalf of their organizations.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Let me just finish my thought. You stated that Paul was here and Tony, as the president of the Chamber of Commerce and the Guild, so I just wanted to make a point of clarification. I know that you didn't say that they were here, but you pointed out that that's who they were, so I just want to make that point that they didn't testify or comment on behalf of the their membership. That's all.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure.

MS. PETERS: I agree with that, Susan.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Thank you.

MS. PETERS: And if we could also, really, I would love for us to go back to the actual document, Section 190, 110 (b)(1), let us go back to what is written as to the uses in these districts, in the areas that we're looking at. I don't want to hear CVS talked about and berated again, leave that poor place alone.

There are uses that are proposed that are permitted in all these areas, we should be examining this, should these continue to be allowed uses in the areas in the same respect that we are considering perhaps making a change to include this use? Now, this is what, I don't know, I was asking about the use of mandatory versus permissive as to the requirements of changing to multi‑housing, because if it become mandatory, does that mean that none of these other uses are permitted any longer in the areas if we make that change or not?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I think Gail will answer, because I think that there was that on the one particular zone there was an either/or scenario, so perhaps you'll elaborate.

MS. PRICE: On the one property that has been in our housing plan and labeled and known as "affordable housing," and the board has addressed that all along and that's The Dayton site. So that's been in our affordable housing plan, but never implemented by ordinance, dating back to the initiation of the third round. When the board was working through work session and then voted to have Blais do the draft, the old members will recall the struggle that ensued with the mandatory versus non‑mandatory inclusion of housing and what many members felt was very important, not to take away uses from property owners that existed ‑‑

MS. PETERS: Yes.

MS. PRICE:  ‑‑ because there is the important right that exists with these property owners and other property owners in the village, that you can't just divest them of existing rights, without having very, very, very sound legal grounds. And by way of proposed Master Plan amendment to add multi‑family housing, I would suggest that taking away rights would be not the right thing to do.

MS. PETERS: Yes.

MS. PRICE: So in our next project, which is coming up on our reexamination of the Master Plan, that's something globally that could be looked at, because the zoning ordinance and revisions to the zoning ordinance on a global basis rather than on this amendment request is proper. You know, look at the goals and objectives, look at what revisions and tweaks need to be done, but to get into a serious discussion about taking away or potentially taking away rights of property owners is a very slippery slope.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If I could, because I was one of the proponents of keeping that flexibility and maintaining so it's not mandatory, just to clarify the point, this draft amendment does not make it mandatory.

MS. PRICE: Correct.

It makes it mandatory in the one site that it was all along ‑‑ not mandatory but was in the housing plan.

MS. DOCKRAY: It was in the housing element, but it wasn't mandatory, but now we're making it mandatory. Is that a correct interpretation?

MR. BRANCHEAU: It was mandatory in the housing element, except that it did allow the existing dealership to remain. It was only if the dealership were to be removed, then housing would have to be built.

MS. PRICE: Right.

MR. BRANCHEAU: That's the only thing that could be built there.

MS. DOCKRAY: But as it stands now, though, it's just B‑2. Am I correct?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Correct. As Gail said, it was never implemented by ordinance.

MS. PRICE: So it's in the plan, but the ordinance was never done to implement the plan.

MS. DOCKRAY: But now we're going to take that away, now we're going to say they can't function, we're going to reduce what they can do with the site. We're saying they can only do housing. Is that correct?

MS. PRICE: Well ‑‑

MR. BRANCHEAU: That's what it's in the plan.

MS. PRICE: That's what's in the proposed amendment right now.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right.

MS. PRICE: And the board needs to decide whether that's consistent with the housing element that's been adopted by prior iterations of this board and prior iterations with COAH.

MS. DOCKRAY: But we are then reducing what they can do with the site?

MS. PRICE: Well, we also have a request for that specific use.

MS. DOCKRAY: So that's the only difference, that they're requesting it.

If they weren't requesting it, you would not recommend that we do that?

MS. PRICE: Well, I'm not going to tell you what I would recommend or not right now.

MS. DOCKRAY: No, but you just said ‑‑ I'm trying to understand. That's all.

MS. PRICE: I think that there's a lot that goes into it, Wendy, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision last week, and that there are a lot of different issues at play here in terms of, you know, what would be recommended and what is the wise thing to do.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: But to answer Michele's question, again, of the four sort of zones that we're looking at, three of them maintain the right as‑of‑right ability, so we're not taking anything away from those, at least not proposed.

MS. PRICE: Right.

Can I just add something, just on Kevin's, as long as I was, it will just maybe address, because, and I know, Michele, you've mentioned on several occasions the importance of not mixing site plan with Master Plan issues.

MS. PETERS: Yes.

MS. PRICE: And, Kevin, just to your one concern about the traffic improvements and, you know, where does that fall and responsibility. While traffic is certainly something that you should look at and, you know, look hard at in terms of negative impacts on pedestrian safety and vehicular movements and whatnot, the guts of that would be addressed at site plan and in the ordinance, because the responsibility and liability for both on‑site and off‑track, off‑site traffic improvements, both via the village through Chris' office and through the county Planning Board would all hit at the time of site plan application.

So the mitigation that would be necessary to address anything that was done on any of these sites, commercial, residential, mix use, would all need to be done as an absolute requirement at site plan approval.

MR. REILLY: Right, I believe I said I recognize there will be impacts. I believe there was some testimony there wasn't going to be substantial, there's is going to be impacts, but I also think those impacts can be mitigated. So yes, and I realize that's deferred down the road.

And as far as, I think it is called the traffic improvement district that was proposed or something like that, that's not ours, I think that's probably the council's job, not our job.

MS. PRICE: Correct.

MR. REILLY: So I was just putting that out there as a concern.

MS. PRICE: Okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Someone's next.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are there any other comments?

I would just say ‑‑

MS. PETERS: Right here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please.

MR. ABDALLA: Two comments. Wendy mentioned earlier the school capacity and obviously it's a real concern for us here on the board and for our fellow citizens. And my question again, maybe I'm asking myself the question, should the fact that our schools are near capacity, should that influence our decision in the sense that, you know, we limit the change that some of us would like to see, but the fact that there's, I want to say, you know, that other schools reach capacity? Because I'm not sure about that, and the testimony that I heard and the exhibits that I read and all that doesn't really tell me that they're at full capacity and I'm not quite sure, how would ‑‑ I'm asking ‑‑ a Master Plan amendment address something that specific and should it be our responsibility here to decide whether okay, are the schools at capacity or not and should that prevent us from moving forward or not?

And the other question that I had, because I heard I believe the mayor and councilwoman talked about amenities and luxury housing. That's another, yeah, exactly, site plan and I'm not sure, these things are dictated by market anyway. And when it comes to zoning, I don't think anybody can tell anybody that they should be building this way or that way, so I'm not quite sure that should be also a concern.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Well, let me just be clear, not to interrupt.

The only reason I raise it is because it's essentially what's been somewhat promoted here, and with luxury housing and with these amenities just being promoted, I'm just take making the point that we cannot include that, even in a site plan, you cannot zone the amenities, the granite countertops, stainless steel appliances. You cannot include that, and so what is being presented is a conceptual, but it's certainly not something that we have any control over and I think that that was my point, it's not that it matters to me, I just want to make it clear that if that's what's being promoted it can't be, it's not bearing on any of this. Actually something you said earlier I just thought, hoped you would clarify. Earlier you made a comment that this would help revitalize the Central Business District. And I was just curious to what data you have to suggest that, other than underutilized properties, what data do you have that suggests that the Ridgewood CBD is not vital? Because I go down there a lot, and it seems to be pretty happening. So I'm just curious to expand on your comment.

MR. ABDALLA: Let me just clarify, maybe I didn't word it right.

I wasn't suggesting that this would revitalize, but I said that dealing in this process there was a lot of talk about revitalizing downtown, and my point was specifically the density and mass. And from my personal knowledge, usually, you know, the downtowns that I've seen and I've    witnessed, there's a lot of pedestrian traffic that helps the retail shops and helps giving the downtown a very lively feel. And that's usually how to revitalize any downtown. I wasn't specifically talking about Ridgewood.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Oh, thank you.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If I could, just a couple of points on the amenities issue. What I'm talking about is not necessarily countertops and things like that. We had talked at some point about common space, common rooms, a fitness center, something that could help make this different than what we already have. Again I think we have a lot of low, moderate income apartments. I think that's great, but we don't need more necessarily. What I think what we do need is when we talk about the empty‑nesters, something nice, something on a different scale. And so to the extent we can help ensure that, and I don't know if we can, I think that would go a long way just with my concerns.

Second, I think it would address the school concern, because the fact of the matter is, I would imagine that if these apartments and say they are rental apartments go for 2 to $3,000 a month, I would imagine a family would rather spend that paying a mortgage with a house with a backyard and more space than they would with an apartment, so it might go to address that issue also.

MR. BRANCHEAU: On that issue, I had said in my testimony that while it's true that we cannot legislate the [recent|rent] levels or the sale prices of the units, nor can we legislate the amenities and the bathrooms and so forth, the countertops and that sort of thing, my point in my testimony was that you wanted to zone in a way that would allow for that, not mandate it. In other words, if your zoning forces smaller units, you're sort of like preventing higher‑end apartments, as opposed to what we talked about a few moments ago, about the relationship of floor area ratio.

If you want to have 800‑square foot apartments, you can have a lot smaller floor area ratio and that was the point I was trying to make, it's not mandated but gives the opportunity for that to happen, if the market is there.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I think to Paul's point, and I don't disagree with the concept of pricing, however, one would always have to acknowledge that market conditions, supply, demand, recession, all of that impacts cost. And so I think that there's no guarantee that any unit per se will be at that rate at any given point in time. There are a lot of economic conditions that factor into what that rate is, and so I think that's a really important point to raise.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If I can also say two things on the schoolchildren issue.

First of all, I'm struck by the table that Blais gave us about the fluctuation in the number of schoolchildren. It's a hard thing to predict, it's a variable. And I think, and I won't put words in his mouth, and I think Dr. Fishbein had said at one point, somebody had said this, if we have 50 kids who all go to Ridge fourth grade, well, that might be an issue and a real challenge, but 50 kids all going to a different schools and different ages, that's less of a challenge, and it's hard to predict to guarantee one way or the other.

And the second thing I want to say, I know we all agree on this, this is a community that embraces families, embraces children, and it's something that's sort of part of our identity. So I don't want somebody to take away from this conversation, that we don't want schoolchildren here, we love schoolchildren, and I think that's an important thing to come back to, because it's a vibrant part of our community, so it's just striking that balance.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right, but I think we're looking ahead, you know, 10, 20, 30 years here, whatever it is, and we have the option to think about the fact that we have the school system that's at capacity and we have the option to think about different options, you know, different possibilities for these sites, and it just something to keep out there a little bit. That's all.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure.

MS. DOCKRAY: As I said, if we knew we had a lot of capacity, I think we could even cross that completely off our worry list, but I just read that, it gave me some pause. That's all.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If you look at the numbers that Blais gave us, and I know Michele is jumping in here, but there was a decrease of almost 40 students from the last year.

MS. DOCKRAY: But that decrease came, and then he said "We're at capacity," so ‑‑

MAYOR ARONSOHN: It's supposed to decrease again next. It's a hard thing to control.

MS. PETERS: I thought it was one of the more interesting statistics was looking at the past history. We had more students in the schools in past years. What we've been doing is getting less students per class. I mean, we're changing how we're teaching, we're changing the structure, that's the difference. It's called if we had to change, how many students are in a class, I think we can have greater capacity of what's there. It's just at today how many students we have per class per teacher, we're at capacity as far as the statisticsgo for right now.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So, thank you Michele.

Actually I wanted to go back one more time and read Gail's line here, because the test for proper zoning ordinance should be thus whether it reasonably promotes a balanced and well‑ordered plan for the entire municipality, and those words resonate with me, because as we're talking about school‑aged children, and we love our school‑aged children, there's no doubt at it, we do adore them; however, we are very focused on these particular units and this proposal, and it's been suggested that our seniors would want to utilize this opportunity and shift their residence to an apartment, which means there's an inventory, likely an increase, an abundant inventory of single family dwellings that will subsequently be filled with families with children, because once you displace those seniors from those homes, they will put their homes on the market. And I think when we're talking about the comprehensive plan, well‑ordered for the entire municipality, these are these unintended consequences. We're very, very hyper focused on these apartments, but when we talk about the residual, how it affects the entire community, is really very relevant.

And to Wendy's point, you know, it won't be 50 children in perhaps the fourth grade at Ridge School, but I always look at my own block, and I think that 60 percent of the homes on my little street are occupied by individuals who are empty‑nesters or have no children in the school system. So if we were to sell our homes and move into an apartment, I could sell my home to a family with five kids, and [they'd|thread] all live comfortably.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: If I could respond to that.

A couple of clarifications.

First of all, for us non‑seniors, and soon to be empty‑nester, not every empty‑nester is a senior.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: You're a kid. He's a kid.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: But ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I call him the kid.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: But, you know, one of the things I think we need to consider, again, there's a lot of variables that go to this, but I don't think providing an apartment for an empty‑nester is going to necessarily be the reason they go. If they want to downsize, they're going to downsize, and hopefully they'll do it in Ridgewood. Right now they're downsizing outside of Ridgewood, and so they're leaving, a lot of these folks, regardless, and so they're making room for that family to come in, regardless, the only difference is we're not keeping them here in Ridgewood.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: To some extent.

Some are just not leaving Ridgewood, some are simply staying here and, for whatever reason, you know, my parents are really old, I mean, sorry, but they're seniors and they live in Ridgewood and they're in a house, and so, you know, I just think to that end, I don't know, but we are suggesting that seniors would utilize this as an opportunity and it's just something, I think to my ‑‑ and I agree with you, and you're not a senior citizen, but I would say that it's something to contemplate when we talk about a well‑ordered plan for the entire municipality. That's all I'm saying.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I tend to agree with Paul on this. I think we can overanalyze the what‑ifs to death and say the what‑ifs, you know, but at the end of the day, there will be turnover of homes and there will be families that leave and families that come in. And I think part of the testimony we heard is that there will be a number who will leave Ridgewood because they don't have this amenity and find a place somewhere else. And if this can provide opportunity for them to remain here, contribute to the culture of our town, to help maintain and help preserve some of the other amenities that are important to the village, it's always a positive thing.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: But, again, we have no data to suggest that the price would be something that would even be approachable for a retiree in Ridgewood, so I think and, really, to that end, I think it's just pieces of a puzzle that we're missing, and I think maybe we'll all just agree to disagree on this.

MS. DOCKRAY: Susan, that's why I keep using the word "caution," because there are some pieces of the puzzle missing, and this is a very large change. So, you know, in my mind, I'm sort of looking for a smaller change, be more conservative, that's all.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Cautious, I agree. Thank you.

MS. PRICE: And I just want to throw in caution from my seat in terms of when you're weighing of all this, that the goals of the Municipal Land Use Law should be where you're looking, and to see whether the goals and objectives of the Municipal Land Use Law are furthered in relationship to the Village of Ridgewood. The fiscal impact and the school impact are certainly things that you can consider, I mean, we talked about that, but they should be considered in proper proportion to your overall consideration.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right.

MS. PRICE: They should not be a large consideration, nor should they be a determinative factor in deciding this particular amendment, because they're not proper, they've been held to be improper just on their basis alone, but you can certainly throw them into the pot and consider them as part of the pot.

MS. DOCKRAY: That's it, I just threw it into the pot.

MS. PRICE: Okay. I just want to caution how much we're stirring the pot, how much salt and pepper, just make sure it's the right balance, as everybody is saying.

MS. DOCKRAY: Right.

Gail, can we ask ‑‑ I know, Charles, I'm guessing we're getting near the end of the time.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think what we need to do is collect those elements that we're looking to better understand and clarify. At the beginning of my testimony, I asked if some of my points were consistent, that we get some help from Blais, which I think he's beginning to do, issues like density and height seem to be a common theme with most people, and it's perhaps common in Susan's perspective also, maybe it's a question of balance and trying to better understand how these pieces fit together so we can achieve a balance within the scope of providing benefit to those who expressed concern about that, all of stakeholders, which would include the potential folks who would be building, and also the public who expressed their concerns, which is part of the reason why I brought density up in the first place as the primary concern, because that impacts everything, it seems to impact a lot of things.

So maybe we can take a moment to identify those elements that are our concern that we can then bring back and ask Blais to help us better comprehend how we can work that into the current framework that we have. Does anybody want to start?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Again, can I elaborate on my parking idea a little bit?

So one of the thoughts I had is, right now I guess that requirement is 1.4 spaces per unit. If this board felt it made sense, maybe we could, and I'm just throwing this, this is just an arbitrary number, what if we made it 2.0 spaces per unit, and for those developers that didn't want to close that .6 gap, maybe there's a way we could sort of quantify that and they could put that that money into a fund that we, the village, could us to help build our garage, because that would go, if in fact there is a concern that there more than 1.4 vehicles per unit and we know we need to build a garage and we need to find the money somewhere, maybe this would be a place that we could provide relief to the town as we go forward. I don't know if that's doable, I don't know how plausible that is, but maybe that's something that Blais can opine on now or come back at some point.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think you need to clarify that, Blais.

MR. BRANCHEAU: I'd rather come back on that one.

MS. DOCKRAY: Blais, just relative to Paul's statement, I thought that, and correct me, that we are required to specify RSIS and that we cannot vary from that until there's a site plan in front of us, in which case we could make an adjustment.

Is that correct or you got to think about that some more?

MR. BRANCHEAU: No, I can answer that.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.

MR. BRANCHEAU: The standard is the standard. The state has basically preempted municipal regulations.

MS. DOCKRAY: So we are preempted?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.

And the state in its regs, however, does allow you to reduce, I think, the requirement in cases where it's clearly demonstrated that they don't need that much.

MS. PRICE: At the time of site plan.

MR. BRANCHEAU: At the time of site plan. And that would typically be someone coming in with a senior project, they're going to say seniors aren't owning that many cars, they don't have kids, yada, yada, yada, they don't need that much parking. They also mentioned transit as a thing. Again, there's transit in Manhattan and there's transit in the suburbs, you have to look at each case on the facts of that case, but that's all site plan.

But the standard I know is RSIS is not 1.4 today, it ranges from 1.7 to 2 per unit, in that range, I may be off by a 10th somewhere, but it's higher than that. So we can go down to 1.4, if circumstances warrant, but it's not ‑‑

MAYOR ARONSOHN: But if we did decide to do that, we can potentially, and this is something I want you to explore, sort of say that this board, if we're allowed to go up to 1.7 or 2, if the state allows us to do that ‑‑ Susan is shaking her head.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I'm confused, because I thought ‑‑ I'm sorry I didn't mean to do that to you, but I thought we were at the RSIS standard, and that's what I started to ask you, is 1.7. So we don't want to further reduce our compound parking issues.

MR. BRANCHEAU: The default is 1.7 to 2, in that range, and we would only reduce it if we were satisfied that it wouldn't overload the already deficient downtown.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: To go back to the point, but there's a range.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, it depends on the number of bedrooms. Basically, they tell you if it's a one bedroom unit or a two bedroom unit or a three bedroom unit, the number of parking spaces goes up that's required. But as far as what you actually require at site plan, whether you grant ‑‑ I don't think that's technically a waiver, it's just an acknowledgment that they don't need it. What it goes down to is different in each case, depending on the circumstances of each case.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Well, then if I could ask you just if you could, when you're going back and thinking through all these issues, is there any way to use this opportunity, this exercise, to address one of the biggest concerns in the village, which is parking?

MR. BRANCHEAU: We can look at that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Are there other comments for Blais?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: There are a lot of points that would be very useful. In terms ‑‑

MAYOR ARONSOHN: I'm sorry one other one is the special needs housing in the context of affordable housing, and what we can and can't do there.

MR. BRANCHEAU: We could certainly look at that as well. It's a cloudy issue at the moment, because of the court decision, we're still sorting out the implications of the court decision and what it means. So I may not be able to have an answer in two weeks on that one, but right now the plan does not go into detail of the composition of that affordable housing, it basically says in accordance with the law. So it might be something that when we get to the housing element and to the ordinance, that that might be the time to deal with that issue, we'll know more then, and we'll be able to better understand what we can and cannot do.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Great. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, it's actually three weeks, you'll have.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, three weeks or two months, I don't think it's going to make a difference.

MS. DOCKRAY: Blais, could you, given everyone's concern about height, could you tell us if we were to specify the height at what basically it currently is now, 45, and then 50 with affordable housing, what the relevant density would be based on I think you had ‑‑ the current parameter you had used, which I think was 1,500 square feet per unit, and tell us what the associated density would be, could you do that?

MR. BRANCHEAU: I can give you a range, I think.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.

MR. BRANCHEAU: There's a whole host of parameters that would go into calculating a density yield, that would include such things as coverage, parking, size of the units ‑‑

MS. DOCKRAY: Right, right. You're right.

MR. BRANCHEAU:  ‑‑ height of the building, you know, all those things together give you really what density you could achieve, shape of the lot, all kinds of things. Like I say, I'll give you some examples and ranges of what that can result in.

MS. DOCKRAY: That would be helpful.

Thank you.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Blais, I actually wanted to ask ‑‑ I'm sorry, Kevin, did you want to go first? Were you going to jump in there or can I speak?

Okay, sorry. So when we're talking about density and height and floor area ratio, I just wanted to approach the idea of density units per acre. And I wondered if, and actually based on a lot of numbers that were approached or ‑‑ (Interruption over loudspeaker.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't we continue.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

So back to where I was. Many who came to the podium spoke about supporting these changes, but also spoke to the number of units per acre. And in the 2008 report for the Master Plan Fair Share Housing Element, it lays out somewhat of a plan and I wondered if, and I don't know if Gail will agree to this or as a starting point, if anyone even had the opportunity to review that, as somewhat of a starting point, to give us some guidance and direction as it already is laid out in a plan with a certain density? And I just wondered if that wasn't just an idea in terms of floor area ratio, height, and as a starting point with that, is that appropriate?

MS. PRICE: I mean, I think that the board can take judicial notice of documents that have been adopted by this board and by the Village Council. To the extent that Blais has not done exercises, is relying upon those particular documents, is a question that we need to ask Blais. And if he can do so ‑‑ Blais, you're writing ‑‑ if you can do so based upon your testimony and your individual review without going back and doing a full blown additional study.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And I'm just saying it as somewhat of a starting point, because it seems to me that logically in 2008, there was a tremendous amount of work put into a plan. And so I don't know that much has ‑‑

MS. PRICE: Go ahead, Blais.

MR. BRANCHEAU: I know how I arrived at that density figure in the plan.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right. I'm just saying, not to get lost in the weeds here, just somewhat of a starting point in terms of to Wendy's point about looking at height and what number you come to and density and floor area ratio, if that's not something that you can weave into your analysis and look at that as somewhat of a starting point.

MR. BRANCHEAU: If it's allowed without breaking some rule ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: It's part of our Master Plan.

MR. BRANCHEAU:  ‑‑ I could explain what the analysis was for that, and as an example of how density can be arrived at, I can do that as one of my examples, but there's so many parameters to consider.

MS. PRICE: Well, I think I need to talk to Blais and see exactly what's necessary to stay within the parameters of this hearing process to ensure no procedural violations occur, because there are some components of prior affordable housing elements that were reviewed and included, and I don't think we want to mix those items with this record.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And I'm not looking to mix, I'm just looking, in terms to Wendy's point, she spoke about height and density and floor area ratio and whether or not that's something he can look at as a starting point. I didn't mean to do an over analysis of it, it doesn't mean to study how he arrived at those numbers, it's just as a piece that already exists, and whether or not, to Wendy's point, that's an area to start.

MS. PRICE: Okay. So why don't I look at that meeting, and I'll talk to Blais about it. And I certainly think that the requested analysis, because I think several board members, I think the consensus is that you want to hear from Blais on ‑‑

MS. PETERS: Yes.

MS. PRICE: ‑‑ a lot of these issues.

I mean, I wrote down height, parking, affordable housing, density. "Density" I wrote down about ten times.

MS. PETERS: It's the setback open space concept.

MS. PRICE: Open space and green areas.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I think if the shared parking was still on the table, that was a big issue as well.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We need clarity.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes, the shared parking.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: This is the only comment I would make. I think our current amendment is the starting point, but maybe using that as a basis of comparison, if that's what you're trying to do.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes, thank you.

MS. PETERS: Paul, because I know, I think Susan's the only person who said that she was not for the amendment as it has been presented, and I wanted to say that I'm in agreement with that, I am not for, I'm not in support of the amendment as it has been presented to us. I want that clear. And that when we're asking about this additional information to be provided to us, it's in order to go toward further amendment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Right. Understood.

MS. PETERS: Thank you.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Charles, just one other issue I raised earlier.

At some point, I'd love to have the discussion of the idea of looking at all four zones in one as we are now or breaking up into a bifurcated into a core and periphery or looking at four different amendments because it's four different zones and what the implications of that are.

MS. PRICE: Blais can do that.

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Blais can do that.

MS. DOCKRAY: Paul, do you want Blais ‑‑ I'm thinking the next time we come, I mean, this sounds like maybe our best opportunity to ask Blais for information, so that we don't necessarily have to come back another meeting if we don't need to, but if we do, we do, do you need information on your amenity concept? Can he give us any guidance on that?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yes, I think anything more he can speak to on that issue, sure, if there is anything we can do.

MR. BRANCHEAU: You're not talking about faucets?

Recreational amenities, is that what you're talking about?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Fitness center, yes, why not?

MS. PRICE: I will ask Blais to look at that and address whether that's Master Plan or whether that's something that could be included in the ordinance and how it can be included in the ordinance, and then how it would be reviewed at site plan, that's a fair question.

MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Good.

MS. PRICE: So that can be asked.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Good?

All right. So why don't we then plan at this point to carry this meeting to April 7th. Again, everyone, please look at the website to verify venue and date, should there be any change, but the plan is without further notice to carry until the next meeting, until the seventh, at Village Hall, as I said earlier, I'm just looking at our agenda tonight.

The meeting adjourned at 10:28 P.M. to be continued on 4/7/15.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: September 1, 2015

PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE/AGENDA

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

 

Ridgewood High School Student Center

627 E. Ridgewood Ave., Ridgewood, NJ – 7:30 P.M.

(all timeframes and the order of agenda items below are approximate and subject to change)

1.      7:30 p.m. – Call to Order, Statement of Compliance, Flag Salute, Roll Call - In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4-8d of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location, and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village municipal offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

         Roll call: Aronsohn, Bigos, Knudsen, Nalbantian, Joel, Reilly, Dockray, Peters, Thurston, Altano, Abdalla

2.      7:35 p.m. – 8:05 p.m. – Executive Session

3.      8:05 p.m. – 8:15 p.m. – Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board

4.      8:15 p.m. – 8:20 p.m. – Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics

5.      8:20 p.m. – 8:25 p.m. – Correspondence Received by the Board

6.      8:25 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. – Public Hearing: Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts – Board Deliberations

7.      10:00 p.m. – 10:10 p.m. – Malbin Minor Subdivision: Memorialization of Resolution of Approval

8.      10:10 p.m. – 10:40 p.m. – Reexamination of Master Plan and Development Regulations – Timing and Approach

9.      10:40 p.m. – 10:45 p.m. – Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2014; April 30, 2014; January 6, 2015

10.    10:45 p.m. –Adjournment

         In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work sessions, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings, which are always open to members of the general public.

         Members: Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Nancy Bigos, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly, Wendy Dockray, Michele Peters, David Thurston, Isabella Altano, Khidir Abdalla

         Professional Staff: Blais L. Brancheau, Planner; Gail L. Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher J. Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary

AGENDA

VILLAGE COUNCIL

SPECIAL PUBLIC BUDGET MEETING

MARCH 22, 2015

12:00 NOON

1.   Call to Order

1. Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act

MAYOR:    “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by a posting on the bulletin board in Village hall, by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including the date and time of this meeting.”

1. Roll Call - Village Clerk

1. Flag Salute and Moment of Silence

1. Public Comments (Not to exceed 5 minutes per person)

1. Discussion Items

a.   Review of Departmental/Utility/Other Accounts Budgets

1. Parking Utility

     2.   Tax Assessor

     3.   Village Clerk/Elections

     4.   Planning Board/Historic Preservation Commission

     5.   Emergency Services

     6.   Municipal Court

    7.   Attorney Fees

     8.   Finance/Tax Collection

     9.   Debt Service

     10.  Terminal Leave

     11.  Trust Funds and Surplus

     12.  Electric and Gas

     13.  Library

Review of Departmental Budgets (continued)

    

     14.  Village Manager

     15.  DEP Fines and Fees

     16.  Village Council

     17.  Water Department

     18.  Office of Emergency Management

b.   Wrap-up of the Day and Next Steps

1. Public Comments (Not to exceed 5 minutes per person)

             

8.   Adjournment

Village of Ridgewood Zoning Board of Adjustment

AGENDA

March24th, 2015

7:30 P.M.

Call to order

Pledge of Allegiance

Statement required by the Open Public Meeting Act “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by a posting on the bulletin board in the Village Hall, by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including date and time of this meeting”.

Roll call

Approval of minutes

Non-agenda items:

            Board member comments

            Members of the public comments

Public hearings

            Old Business:

           

            NEW YORK SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS – An application requesting a D1 Use variance, and minor site plan approval with other variances and waivers, interpretations, and/or approvals as are necessary to permit the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility to be located at 6 South Monroe Street, Block 2404 Lot 3 in an R-110 zone. A continuation from the February 24, 2015 meeting.

           

           

            New Business:

           

             NEW YORK SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS – An application requesting a D1 Use variance, and preliminary and final site plan approval with other variances and waivers, interpretations, and/or approvals as are necessary to permit the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility on Valleau Cemetery property located at 546 Franklin Turnpike, Block 3003, Lots 17 & 18. (Carried from February 24, 2015)

   AGENDA – CONTINUATION                                                    March 24^TH, 2015

           

            Resolution memorialization

         Discussion:    257 Ridgewood LLC extension of time

           

           Adjournment