The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of December 16, 2014.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Mr. Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Ms. Altano, Mr. Joel, Mr. Thurston, Ms. Dockray, Mr. Abdalla, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq.; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Mr. Reilly and Ms. Price were absent.
Chairman Nalbantian made opening remarks regarding safety issues and the hearing process.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward.
Correspondence received by the Board – None
Public Hearing Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts - Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. We're going to begin the public hearing on the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan AH‑2, B‑3‑R, C‑R and the C Zone Districts.
At the last meeting, which was last month, we had a rather long night, and there were about five people left with some questions that they thought they might ask. We're going to continue that process tonight, for those folks who were here the last time. Just to keep things in order, I'd like to remind everyone that these are questions based on the testimony that our planner, Blais Brancheau, gave a couple of meetings back. They should not be comments, because there will be opportunity for public comment at future meetings. These are to be specific questions for Blais based on his testimony.
Also, to work efficiently, to move things along, what we'd like to do is skip those that are duplicate questions. Our obligation really is to hear questions and answer them for the record and for the board to hear. So if you have a duplicate question, I'll ask Blais if he has anything to add, if he doesn't, we're going to have to move on to the next question.
Also at the last meeting, some people were flustered. Please remember that Blais is doing his job, so be polite when you ask the question and, again, keep it to a question, based on his testimony.
So at this time I'd like to move to open for public question of Blais' testimony. Is there a motion, please?
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to open the public questioning.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second?
MS. BIGOS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all present members respond in the affirmative.)
MS. DOCKRAY: I have a quick question. Can we close the door to the outside, because when traffic goes by, it's hard to hear.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes. Can somebody close the door.
Okay. If there are members of the public with questions with regard to Blais' testimony, please come forward.
How many people do we have, by the way?
Okay. Why don't we take one at a time and, please, again, ask three questions, if you have three, ask all three together and allow Blais to answer all three, rather than doing them one at a time.
Who's first?
MS. RAZIN: Before you begin, Blais, you were sworn previously, just for the record, correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I was.
MS. RAZIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So I'm going to ask you if you can state your name, spell your name, and provide your address.
MR. RICCA: Greg, G‑R‑E‑G, Ricca, R‑I‑C‑C‑A, 42 Heights Road.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you repeat your name? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it.
MR. RICCA: Greg Ricca, R‑I‑C‑C‑A.
MS. RAZIN: Thank you.
MR. RICCA: Sure.
Most of the questions that seem to come up seem to be around the numerical issue around density and height. So I guess, do you want us to do ‑‑ I remember this was a few times that you had the three question rule, do you want me to do what you did before?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, please. Thank you.
MR. RICCA: I do remember that. Let me see, to put them in order.
The first one ‑‑ all these questions pertain to both of those numbers, if you will. So the first question I would have is: Where was the first time or the first point and from where did those numbers appear? In other words, where is the first time that the numbers and the terms that you are proposing for density, height, when was the first time they came up, who presented them, where did they come from? And as it relates to that issue, then it would be: What's the criteria and basis under which you felt that these were the appropriate numbers to present as the new rules in the town?
And I guess the sub question of that would be, the third part, if you will, and I'm assuming that these are in fact your numbers that you're presenting that you think are appropriate, in other words, they're not like some committee, I didn't hear about the subcommittee, so they're actually what you think is appropriate, and, therefore, what's the criteria?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'll try to answer your questions. As to the first point in time when these height and density figures were raised, I don't remember. We talked about this for three years now, and I don't remember when those numbers were specifically raised, and they've evolved and fluctuated over time, but I can't say when it first started.
As to the numbers, I certainly had input in advising the board and the subcommittee, but the numbers that are in in the plan are the board's numbers and they're draft numbers, they're not final numbers necessarily. As has been stated before, these numbers, and the whole plan, in fact, is a draft that was moved to public hearing not because there was any final decision or commitment or consensus even of the entire board that these were the final numbers, but that they were, for lack of a better term, good enough for purposes of starting the public hearing and receiving public input.
So they're not specifically my numbers, they're the board's numbers, although I did have some input in advising.
As to the criteria as to height and density, we've sort of spoken about this already. The height is, for the most part, similar, I think there's a five‑foot increase over what's permitted today, and that was done for architectural reasons and for affordable housing incentives.
As to the density and the criteria of the density, that's a combination of factors, as again we've stated before, related to the feeling that density to a point is a good thing and that if there's not enough density, it's not going to be successful. At the same time, we looked at what would actually fit on a property with the appropriate level of parking and with the height that we were talking about doing and the number of stories.
So based upon certain sizes, that we wanted to encourage more upscale‑type apartments, which meant that we needed to have some larger units, so the density factored all that into the equation. So, that's all.
MR. RICCA: That's what you meant by "successful"?
You used the term you wanted to be "successful." I'm not sure of the point, the term?
MR. BRANCHEAU: "Successful" meaning to do this. We stated before the purposes of this are several purposes: To address housing needs, both market housing and particularly the housing niche that the village currently does not have a significant quantity of luxury apartments. Also, the need and obligation, under the law, for affordable housing. The desire to support the Central Business District. People on the street in the CBD that live near the downtown here.
(Ms. Peters is present at 7:45 p.m.)
MR. BRANCHEAU: So for all of those things to work, there has to be a sufficient number of these units to really make an effect. So there needs to be a certain density to have that effect as well. So if it was just 10 units here or 20 units there or 30 units there, the effect would be marginal and it would not achieve the purpose. When I talk about "success," I'm talking about success in achieving the goals of why we're doing this. MR. RICCA: Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Or why we're proposing to do it.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Ricca.
Next person, please.
Good evening, state and spell your name and provide your address.
MR. CIPRIANO: Anthony Cipriano, C‑I‑P‑R‑I‑A‑N‑O, 260 Godwin Avenue, Ridgewood.
Can I ask the questions?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. CIPRIANO: First question, this sounds repetitive, but I still can't understand how certain things are arrived at. We're talking in terms of "success," that's not a planning term. Success for the town, for the village, for the developer? I don't understand that.
The other question I have is: Right now your current Master Plan is in balance, it's a reflection of the will of the people. It reflects your budget. It reflects your infrastructure. What calculations can you show us in terms of an impact study by either a ‑‑ do you have just a planner doing this? Do you have ‑‑ when we did this in New Brunswick, we had a Professional Planner that we hired. So there are specifics that are required with something of this magnitude. So are there calculations? Can you show us an impact study that you've done? And the third thing is just an aside, density affects your easements, it affects your right‑of‑way, so I'm wondering what the density downtown, what impact is it going to have on the width of your streets? If you raise your density, you're going to need more width. That's a planning principle. That's what I was told when I was on the Planning Board.
Okay. You're the Chair.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Cipriano.
Before, Blais, you answer, let me just ask Michael to note for the record that Ms. Peters joined the board.
Blais.
MR. BRANCHEAU: First question is, doesn't understand how the numbers were arrived at.
I really don't have anything more on that, other than what I've said over the course of three years. There's been studies done by the board, by the subcommittee of the board, by various consultants. We've had input by ‑‑
MR. CIPRIANO: Excuse me, could you name the consultants? I need specifics I'm not getting.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't know if this gentleman has been at the public hearing or at all the studies so far.
MR. CIPRIANO: I've been reading the paper.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, why don't you just answer the question, then I can clarify that.
MR. BRANCHEAU: We've had a traffic consultant who looked at traffic ‑‑
MR. CIPRIANO: I ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Cipriano, please hold your questions.
MR. CIPRIANO: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: We've had traffic consultants hired by the various developers, all of whom have done a traffic study. We've had fiscal impact studies submitted by the developers. I've reviewed those. We've had input from the Board of Education. We've had input from the Open Space Committee for the village. We've had input from the Village Engineer. John Jahr is our traffic consultant, who has provided the input, as well as my own studies. So the numbers that are in the plan were arrived at based on the basis of those studies, on the basis of looking at real life plans that the developers put forward, as well as doing our own analyses, and I don't know what more I can add that we haven't already done.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I'll just add to that that there are actually minutes posted for some of the meetings on the website. More importantly, there are CDs available that you can actually see Michael to listen to the hearings that we've had ‑‑
MR. CIPRIANO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ over the last couple of years, especially since this started this year. Also, there are other documents that are posted on the website that reflect some of the data and some of the points that have been reviewed during these hearings. My recommendation would be to take a look at those online at www.ridgewood.net.
MR. BRANCHEAU: To get back on the street width, I assume you meant for traffic improvements or street improvements to address traffic impacts.
The traffic consultant that was hired by the village and the traffic consultants hired by the developers would be better to ask that question of, but my recollection was that no street widening was identified in any of the proposals and that the traffic that would come from these projects would be comparable to traffic that would come from development that's currently permitted under current zone.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.
MR. CIPRIANO: Thank you, sir.
MS. DOCKRAY: John, could I ask for a clarification? Blais just mentioned that we had testimony from the Board of Education, and the only testimony I recall from the Board of Education came during work sessions, not part of these official hearings.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's correct.
MS. DOCKRAY: So I assume that is not part of the record for these hearings. Is that correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think the word I used was "input," not "testimony," but we did get the input of the Board of Ed and I specifically spoke to the Board of Ed superintendent personally. So I don't believe I said "testimony," but if the board wants, obviously it could call that testimony.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That input was the basis of having the hearings, so it's part of the process.
MS. DOCKRAY: Right, but I just want to be clear that we're not supposed to consider Dr. Fishbein's direct testimony as part of these hearings?
MS. RAZIN: Right, it's not formally part of the record, I think Blais was just saying in his preparation of the amendment draft.
MS. DOCKRAY: Yes, he chatted with Dr. Fishbein.
MS. RAZIN: I don't think chatted ‑‑
MS. DOCKRAY: I changed my ‑‑
MS. RAZIN: Okay.
MS. DOCKRAY: ‑‑ my terminology.
MS. RAZIN: The word was "input," because I have it in my notes that it was input. So he received input and prepared it in doing the draft.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I obtained from Dr. Fishbein an assessment of the capacity of the schools to add additional schoolchildren, and what possible actions could be taken, if there were additional children added that exceeded capacity at any particular school.
Also I obtained information from the master number of schoolchildren currently residing in the downtown area and the districts that these developments would send children to.
MS. PETERS: Hello.
Something that we keep discussing down here about that, because I know, if I'm not mistaken, during Blais' testimony he said that he didn't have the numbers projecting forward. I would love for you to speak.
MS. ALTANO: Yes, I was wondering, because I came in late to the process ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I just have to ask the question, is this relevant to the public question or will that be a question that you will ask when we actually cross‑examine Blais during our process?
MS. ALTANO: We should probably ask that question later.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't we do that and the public will have opportunity this evening, because that's what's next on our list of duties.
MS. ALTANO: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please state and spell your name and provide your address.
MS. ANGUS: Felicia Angus, A‑N‑G‑U‑S, 82 Fairmount Road.
I do have some questions for Blais.
Actually one relates to what we were just speaking about.
I had the opportunity to go to the presentation of The Enclave the other day. One of the proposed, and it was interesting, and I would say that I thought actually the drawing was very attractive. It could be very beneficial to the downtown area. There were a lot of seniors there, who very much want this. So we asked Mr. Saraceno why he couldn't make it senior housing. He said there's too much senior housing in the area.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please pose it in a question.
MS. ANGUS: Okay. I was giving the background so everybody understands it.
So his thing was he said he can't get funding for senior housing, because there is a surplus of senior housing in the area. So my question then is: If he can't fill one apartment building worth of senior housing, why are we shooting for three? That's one question. The second question then is: I believe about the chat with Dr. Fishbein, and I believe the number he had said that he thought we could deal with was 50 extra students.
So since the Rutgers' studies don't quite apply to the town and we don't really know what applies to the town, doesn't it make sense to just go forward maybe with one of these proposals so we see actually what happens in terms of children coming to these kind of apartments, instead of flooding the entire downtown and then having to work backwards out of it?
And the three: I'm just a little bit confused in terms of what we're actually talking about here, because I thought it was the Master Plan amendment.
Last time I asked about specific expenses, one of the traffic studies, police and all that thing, I was told we weren't thinking of it in that regard, because it's just a Master Plan amendment. But then with the traffic studies, when asked whether they were done, they were done by each of the proposed builders. So I kind of feel as if we're talking out of two sides of our mouth, and I would just like to know: Are we really thinking Master Plan amendment or are we really thinking let's do what we can with these three guys and we'll move the Master Plan amendment? I'm sorry, but I've been confused, but I would love a little bit of clarification as to what we're really looking at.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Can you repeat that last question, I'm sorry.
MS. ANGUS: Absolutely. My understanding is we're looking at this whole hearing is for a Master Plan amendment. Last time I was here, I asked you about some of the different studies and expenses and things like that. You said that was not an applicable question, because that was more towards the developments themselves, we're really here talking about a Master Plan. However, then the next person who came up and asked a question, asked about traffic studies, and you said oh, yeah, each of the people with the proposals has submitted their own traffic study. So we all of a sudden went from Master Plan down to really where we're looking at proposals, so I guess I want to know that specifically what we're looking at and what is it that we're really looking at here?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay.
As to I think your first question is: Why we're looking for senior housing ‑‑ MS. ANGUS: So much.
MR. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ so much, if there's no demand.
MS. ANGUS: If the developer doesn't feel he can fill one senior housing and can't get the financing for it, why are we pretending this is a senior housing issue?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, first ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let Blais answer.
MS. RAZIN: Just for the record, we don't know, I don't think, I don't know if any board members attended that presentation, I didn't attend, so...
MS. ANGUS: No, no, I'm just going by what he told us.
MS. RAZIN: So Blais can comment generally on filling or talk about senior housing, but it's difficult to accept your question, because nobody else was there, I mean, I don't know who was there. We get your question, he'll address it to the best he can.
MS. ANGUS: It's fair you weren't here, I would figure any of the developers, if anybody wanted senior housing, it would be a slam dunk for anybody to say we want to do senior housing. I asked, and he said he can't because there's too much senior housing.
MS. RAZIN: Let's have Blais address the question the best he can.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I wasn't there, I don't know what Mr. Saraceno meant when he said that. We have talked about the need and the potential market for this type of housing partly being seniors who no longer wanted to maintain a single family home. When you talk about senior housing, there's different kinds of senior housing, and appealing to different segments of, what I'll call senior population, of which I include myself, there's senior housing that's of lower income type, that's age restricted, and then there's multi‑family housing that's not age restricted but which is attractive to a senior. And from what Mr. Saraceno described, it sounds more like he was talking about funding available, it's usually for age restricted and usually for lower income types than what we're talking about here.
First of all, we are not in this restricting occupancy to seniors, we've also talked about other market segments that would use this type of housing, such as singles, young couples, and what we call "bookends," both ends of the life spectrum and not just seniors. So that's about as far as I can go with that. As to the school capacity, I don't ever remember 50 being the capacity of the school system. We've been adding more than 50 per year over the last 20 years, so I would be very surprised if that is, in fact, the capacity. I know the capacity is tight and it will require, if there's additional children, regardless of what happens regarding this Master Plan amendment, because one of the things I tried to point out to the board is when you look at the overall background of the school population in the village, it's going down, it's going back up. It's not up to where it used to be. We actually have 1,500 fewer schoolchildren today than we had capacity for in 1970, because that's what we had in the school system, is 1,500 more school kids than we have today. Though I understand that ‑‑
MS. ANGUS: And the town was ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: Absolutely. We had different educational requirements and so forth back then, so it's difficult when you talk about capacity, to provide an apples and apples comparison, but if the current growth continues, and, again, these things are typically subject to fluctuation, they're subject to trends and change over time. But if none of this were currently on the table and the background growth that we've been seeing for 20 years were to continue, we would exceed capacity next year even without this.
So they are obviously accommodating the additional capacity somehow.
MS. ANGUS: We had a $40 million bond issue a year or two ago to increase schools, so our class sizes have gone up a lot already.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I understand that, but all of that has been coming from single family housing, people putting on additions, people putting up bigger homes.
MS. ANGUS: No, and the Oak Street Apartments, that not ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let him answer.
MR. BRANCHEAU: They're not new development that's occurred. So what I tried to point out in my report is that the issue of schools in the context of these developments, when you look at it in the context of the whole village, this is relatively small. My own estimate is that the schoolchildren that would come from these developments would amount to maybe a year or a year and a half of the background growth the village has seen from all of them put together. So in my perspective, it was fairly minor compared to total issue that's out there. So as to the capacity, I really can't speak to that anymore than that. That's my understanding of what the situation is. And then the last question: Are we talking about a Master Plan or are we talking about four specific developments? Well, certainly the developers were the party that sort of started the ball rolling on this, but the ‑‑ I won't say the idea, but the proposal came from them.
The Master Plan itself is responding both to what they have done, and it's also gone beyond what they proposed and it's actually not done some of what they've proposed. So it really is a Master Plan amendment and it's not merely directed solely at these development applications, these developers' applications or proposals that are before the board, it really is the whole Master Plan. Certain aspects of this have gotten confused with site plan issues and with ordinance issues, and we've tried at times to point out the difference between those, and sometimes the same thing happened with Valley Hospital, is that sometimes we got into issues that were really more appropriate for ordinance discussion or for site plan discussion. So I can understand why some issues really can't be dealt with until you get to those points and some are appropriate at the time of the Master Plan, but all I can say is that we're dealing right now with the Master Plan amendment.
MS. ANGUS: So we can continue dealing with the Master Plan and not feel as though we have to approve every single one of these proposals? Or are you ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: That's really up to the board. You know, certainly the board has the discretion, if they have valid reasons, for modifying the draft that's currently on the table to allow some, allow others, or to have different standards than what's in the draft today.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.
MR. KOSSOFF: My name is Tom Kossoff, K‑O‑S‑S‑O‑F‑F, 46 Hermance Place.
I don't want to take away from my three questions, but I have the 50 quote from Wendy Dockray, if you remember asking.
MS. RAZIN: What? What?
MR. KOSSOFF: You know, about the 50, the number that he just mentioned, about the 50 capacity for the schoolchildren. Anyway, I won't waste any questions on it, but it was brought up by Dan Fishbein, he addressed that issue, but, be that as it may, thank you tonight for the opportunity to ask our Village Planner three questions.
No. 1, regarding the actual number of schoolchildren brought in by new housing, you were quoted in The Ridgewood News at last month's meeting stating that the board should not make this their focus, noting that fiscal impact and, in particular, to the public school system, would not be the primary consideration in zoning decisions. When I heard you say this, I actually winced, grimaced. I understand the broad public benefits you laid out, but do you understand why many Ridgewood residents would question why the fiscal costs and effect on our school population and school quality are at least not equally important to the broad public benefit. Can you please explain?
That's question one.
Question two: Regarding your testimony, when personally do you think enough development is enough?
You had been quoted in The Ridgewood News: "Your decisions should be based not upon fiscal impact, but more on whether it makes sense from a land use perspective. My commute," and that's you speaking, "my commute takes me past Whole Foods a lot and I often get stuck behind people making that left turn. That's a bad thing for me personally, but a good thing for the village because it tells you that you have a successful store that brings people into downtown." Now, personally, and this is me, I also like having Whole Foods in town, but my going there does not bring me into downtown shopping any further. I travel there and park in their parking lot, because there is no other parking available, and I shop there and leave and go home directly to put the food away. Whole Foods is a congestion point in town.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Would you please get to your question?
MR. KOSSOFF: Yes, it's there.
And when I drive there, I add to that congestion and to the traffic along my route through town. If there was another very busy store nearby, yes, it might be more of a serious problem. So that's why regarding your testimony: When do you think enough development is enough? What are your guideposts specifically for Ridgewood to determine and recommend, as you do to the board today, how many new housing units in this case to approve? Do you have any limits and, if so, I would like you to state specifically what they are. That's question No. 2.
Question No. 3: Regarding your testimony, do you think it would have been helpful to do a new Master Plan several years ago, instead of waiting till the last legal moment, which is next year, to do so? Many other towns have laid out new, innovative, creative, comprehensive plans for their downtowns incorporating open space too. They saw the need early on to redo their Master Plans, we unfortunately did not and have been left to reacting, acting in a piecemeal fashion and not in totality.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please get to a question regarding his testimony.
MR. KOSSOFF: The Ridgewood News also had an editorial to this effect.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please ask the question, Mr. Kossoff.
MR. KOSSOFF: This is my last sentence. But please give me your opinion how not having a new Master Plan has hurt the process per your testimony? Those are my three questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Kossoff.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The first question about number of schoolchildren, I spoke about that and I have spoken about that at length. Suffice it to say that while I think it's an important issue, I think it's an issue that needs to be dealt with town wide and not specifically in the context of this specific amendment, because I think the cause of the problem is town wide. Secondly, when is development enough? In all fairness, I don't believe that that's a question that's capable of being answered. The board will make that decision based upon balancing the various factors that are out there. I think we all understand that this is all a balancing of positives and negatives.
As to whether it would have been helpful to do a new Master Plan several years ago instead of reacting?
Again, I don't know that that is a question capable of being fairly answered, it's more of a statement than a question. It presumes an answer that is different than if we did something today. I would hope that this board and the council would act in the public interest whether it's now or whether it's then, and hopefully the answer would have been the same, whether it had been done five years ago, 10 years ago or five years from now.
I don't know that the timing really matters, it's the facts, the issues, and the balancing of all those together that really is important, not when it's done.
MS. RAZIN: Just to follow‑up on that, Blais. The current Master Plan, the date of the Master Plan itself, can you please tell me the year it was adopted?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, there's the last comprehensive Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you switch back to the other mic?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Is that better?
MS. RAZIN: Yes. Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The last comprehensive Master Plan was 1983. There have been a number of amendments since that time.
MS. RAZIN: And the last re‑exam was when?
MR. BRANCHEAU: The last reexamination was 2006.
And I think in Mr. Kossoff's reference to the "last minute," he was probably referring to a reexamination of the Master Plan, not to a new Master Plan. The reexamination is not a new Master Plan amendment.
MS. RAZIN: Right, but and so technically we have until 2016 to require a new re‑exam. Just for to explain legally, we have 10 years before we have to perform a re‑exam. So every 10 years. It used to be six years, now it's 10 years, so in terms, I'm not sure what "last minute," because we did in 2008 ‑‑
MR. KOSSOFF: I understand your question, but I'm so befuddled and perplexed because if you're on the Planning Board, and there are so many towns, Englewood, etc., we've been through this with discussion, that did not wait a decade or even eight years. So to say okay, we're still within that technical, you know, timeframe, I just really wonder how much you're planning.
And just to address, you know, a couple quick things. For the first question, to say that, you know, these developments are not the cause and that the rest of the town is, I don't know what you have against the rest of the town.
MR. WELLS: Chairman, I never object ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.
Mr. Kossoff, in about a month we'll have opportunity for public comment. Please reserve your comments for that. All the public will have opportunity to share their views on the testimonies, what we've heard to date. The board will take those into consideration during its deliberation.
The purpose of this discussion here is specific to Blais' testimony or clarification against his testimony is requested by the public, and also the board and the applicants, so we cannot take your comments for the sake of comments, it's inappropriate, it's not good use of time.
MR. KOSSOFF: No, I agree, I just wanted to first respond, because I wasn't being technical, I was talking about being progressive, but I greatly appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you for your questions, Mr. Kossoff. Please think carefully before you speak to make sure they are in the form of questions. This is to be fair to everyone and it's also our process. And they need to be specific to Blais' testimony that was actually heard in this room, not at other meetings or what was read in the paper, necessarily. So if you wouldn't mind, again your name, spell your name and provide your address, please.
MS. GOLD: Leona Gold, G‑O‑L‑D, 300 Godwin Avenue. I have a question based on, I'm not quite understanding, when you're talking about the guesses of how many more children the projects would bring into the school system, are they taking into consideration that all these senior citizens from Ridgewood would like to move into some luxury apartments, their homes, which let's assume have no schoolchildren living in them at any point, now open up how many bedrooms for how many more children? Are those children also taken into account in these guesstimates?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that the only question you have?
MS. GOLD: That's the only question I have.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. Blais.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The short answer is, if someone wants to move out of their home to go into a different type of housing, they'll do it, whether it's in Ridgewood or whether it's in another town or whether it's in Florida, they'll move somewhere.So the school impact would occur, and what you're talking about is families moving into the former seniors who didn't have children anymore at home, moving into their house, that would happen regardless, because the seniors would want to go to a different type of housing. So if they went to Glen Rock or Englewood or to the Jersey Shore or wherever, they would leave their house and that would happen anyway, so, yes, it's been considered.
MS. GOLD: I need to argue with the assumption you're making. I've sold real estate for ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ma'am, he's answered your question. I'm sorry.
MS. GOLD: Okay, but I think his assumptions are incorrect.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, ma'am.
Is there anyone else with a question for Blais with regard to his testimony? How many more people do we have, by the way? Okay, there's 1, 2, 3.
Please state your name, spell your name and provide your address.
MR. GLAZER: Dana Glazer, G‑L‑A‑Z‑E‑R, D‑A‑N‑A, 61 Clinton Avenue.
To my question is: Blais, you were talking about the public interest, and I've been thinking about that and my question to you is: Can we have a public referendum on this? I recall that you said in the past that it's not binding, but can we still do that? And if we can do that, how do you do that? And if enough people were involved with this and the perspective were strong enough, would you adhere to it? That's it.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Two questions. Okay, Blais.
MR. BRANCHEAU: A, I didn't testify about public referendum, but, in general, to try to answer your question, I don't think there's anything illegal about having a referendum, but I do know the law does not permit zoning by referendum. So certainly the village could get a non‑binding opinion of the public by having a referendum.
Secondly, I'm not an expert as to how that's done. You'd have to ask somebody who's familiar with that, maybe the Village Clerk would be able to answer that question. And would the village listen to it? That's up to the village, I don't make the decision.
MS. RAZIN: Just to clarify, regarding a follow‑up on what Blais said, that wouldn't be something that this board would organize or control or necessarily take part in, it would be something that the Village Council would have to undertake, if they so choose, and I don't think anybody here can predict whether that would be followed and how it would be followed at this point, because, as Blais said, you can't zone by referendum. So we couldn't predict right now what that would be, but it wouldn't be before this board or part of this process.
MR. GLAZER: Okay. Thank you.
MS. DOCKRAY: May I ask Mr. Glazer a question? You're filming us, is it for access TV or some other project?
MR. GLAZER: Yes, good question, it's for public, it is for public access, exactly, right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Glazer.
MS. DOCKRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Come up.
MR. ABDOO: Brian Abdoo, A‑B‑D‑O‑O, 308 W. Ridgewood Avenue.
I have been involved in risk for probably 20 plus years of my career to varying degrees of level, and when I look at risk, risk is kind of knowing what the best case would be, the worst case would be, the medium case would be.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I hope you're going to a question.
MR. ABDOO: Of course. And making an assessment of the chances, the probabilities, of those outcomes happening. So I have a couple of questions, three to be precise. Because in all of these meetings I've been to over the past year plus, I've never seen a risk assessment done that a risk manager would look at to understand what the worst case scenario would be, so I just want to kind of get that. Again, worst case scenario does not mean it's a probable outcome but it does mean worst case scenario. And when I look through, Blais, your testimony, I want to refer to that, because I have a couple of questions on it, I come up with numbers that are different than having been spoken about. I don't think you've ever said that is a worst case scenario, I've never heard you say that, so I'm not blaming you for not doing that, so I want to be on record as saying that, I just think it should be part of the public record. So three questions.
No. 1, when I look at your report, I get to a worst case scenario using some simplistic analysis of about .45 kids per unit. And I can explain to you how I got that, but I'm wondering if you looked at that yourself, so that's question No. 1, do you agree with that? Question No. 2 is: I know, I think it was two meetings ago, you mentioned, and then you got a couple of follow‑up questions at the last meeting about what you thought the possible worst case would be again from kind of a potential knock on effect of other property owners who may live across the street saying, well, wait a minute, if they got this density, why don't I get this density? And I believe, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I believe you said something along the lines of 350 to 500.
I think the number is much higher than that, but I'd like to see math wise how you got to that.
Why don't we start with those two, if you like, the third question is just a language clarification. Charles, if you want me to do that, I can do that now. It's a very simple question.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think the Chairman wants all the questions together.
MR. ABDOO: Okay. So on page 15, if you go to Blais' testimony, and, Blais, if you want to refer to this, I'll wait until you stop writing. Thank you. There are four bullet points on that page, at least the one I have, the copy I have, to make sure we have the same copy, and just kind of a nitpicky language thing, the last part of the second to last sentence after the comment after children, nod when you see it.
MR. BRANCHEAU: In the first bullet?
MR. ABDOO: In the first bullet.
So it's basically the end of the second to the last line.
MR.BRANCHEAU: More than twice?
MR.ABDOO: Yes, it's more than twice the record's projection?
MR.BRANCHEAU: It's more than three times.
MR.ABDOO: I would say close to four times, just for accuracy.
MR.BRANCHEAU: It's closer to 4. Between 3 and 4, but closer to four.
MR.ABDOO: Thank you. If you could correct that in your report, that would be great. So then I've asked my other questions, you can answer them, or, if you'd like, I can kind of walk you through how I got to that answer specifically on the number of schoolchildren.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I'll let you testify when it's time to comment, but as to response, I believe ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you speak louder.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Let me state it again, I'll let you speak to what your findings were when it's time for public comment, but for myself, I think the actual number of schoolchildren that would come out of at least the types of developments we've been looking at would probably be higher than the Rutgers numbers, but I don't know the exact number, and I don't think I've ever stated what an exact number would be. I know what's in the area now, if you look at the CBD area, is one child for every four units ‑‑ which is one child for every five units, which is .2 children per unit, and, for the village as a whole, one for every four, which would be .25.
So .45 seems high to me, I won't deny that certain projects have that and higher in the village, approaching even one per unit, but I'm looking at averages, not worst case. As to the domino effect, if we zone for this here, could it happen elsewhere? Well, that's difficult to answer. Lines have to be drawn somewhere, and I would hope that the village would look at each case on its own merits and decide, but just because we've zoned something in one location does not entitle someone or even give them an advantage in saying me too, because I can say that about the existing zones, because we've zoned B‑1 or B‑2 or whatever we've zoned in one location, someone next, you know, right next to the line could say "me too," and that doesn't mean it's going to happen for one. Secondly, we have the right to say no. Obviously if it makes sense, we could say yes, but that's really a hypothetical, and at this point in time, I can't really comment any further on that. As to the total number of units under what has been described as a worst case scenario, I'm not necessarily agreeing that that would be worst case, but I am saying it's in my opinion unlikely. I obtained from the tax records in the area of every lot that is proposed by this amendment, and I multiplied the total area of all the properties by 30, 40 and 50 units per acre, which is what's in the plan as the maximum density, and that's how I arrived at the total number of units. So you can take 10 point ‑‑ I forget what it was, 10.4 or 10.8 acres times 30, you're going to get 300 something, if you take eight times 50, you're going to get 500 something, so that was the range and that's how I arrived at the range.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.
MR. ABDOO: Would you mind if I have a follow‑up question, this could be for you as well as ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, it has to be to Blais regarding his testimony.
MR. ABDOO: Okay.
I believe this is our only chance to ask questions of Blais, so you did make a lot of testimony and you did a very good and thorough report here. What I'm asking on the worst case scenario of schoolchildren, I understand and appreciate that you want to come back and mention that at a board meeting where I think Charles was talking about Tom Kossoff coming back, I'm more than happy to do that, but if this is the only opportunity that I get to ask you your opinion, to get maybe your statement something is wrong with my logic that you can point out, which would be fantastic, that's what I meant it could be a question for you, Charles. If you think this is not the time for me to just get that on record, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: This is a public hearing. We're not limiting your questions, we're trying to get everybody around.
MR. ABDOO: I understand.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: There are only 1 or 2 people left, so if you have a question for Blais that's relating to his testimony, just ask it now and let's move on.
MR. ABDOO: I thought I did. If I understand correctly, I thought he said he would come back, because I wanted to go through how I got to the 45 of them and see if I made any mistakes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yeah, that's not a question for Blais, I don't know if he's ‑‑
MS. RAZIN: No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You're welcome to come and make a comment to that effect when we do public comment.
MR. ABDOO: Okay. Thank you.
Oh, I did have one follow‑up question related directly to that. The other question is a simple question, so, Blais, when you just answered the question, I think very thoroughly, and I appreciate that, but I want to make sure I understood you correctly. What you said is that if you took a Central Business District and all the different B zones and stuff like that and added up all of the kind of usable property, subtracting out where these four proposals are, what's left is 10.68 acres?
MR. BRANCHEAU: No. The plan is proposing four zones, the AH‑2 zone, the B‑3‑R zone, the C‑R zone, and a revision of the C zone. I didn't count the C zone area, because the plan doesn't propose to permit housing at all there. So if you look at the acreage of the AH‑2, the B‑3‑R, and the C‑R that's in the plan, based upon the tax records, it's 10 plus acres. That's the only acreage affected by this plan and the only acreage that housing would be permitted at. So that's the acreage I used, and I multiplied by the range of densities in the plan under the various scenarios and came up with the range. If every property were to be developed for housing and housing alone, that's what you get.
MR. ABDOO: Got it, and I appreciate and I apologize, I obviously was not clear on my question, so I apologize for that. My question is: If you took the entire CBD and made assumptions that many people have told me are real, people who are in the building business, that they're not going to affect what will occur throughout the entire business district, I guess the simple way to answer is, what is the remaining acreage of the Central Business District, and one of the worst case scenarios, as a risk manager, you multiply it by 30, 40, or 50, in this case you multiply it by 50. So do you know the remaining acreage in the CBD and, if not, would you get it to me?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't know the remaining acreage. I think it would be highly speculative to suggest that the village would allow that to happen. I can't imagine that happening.
MR. ABDOO: Well, I think we're dealing a lot in speculative right now.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's not get into a debate here. Blais, please wrap it up with your answer.
MR. BRANCHEAU: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's all he has for your questions.
MR. ABDOO: I think an answer I would like to get is just what's the remaining acreage, and we'll leave speculation ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is it relevant, Blais?
MR. BRANCHEAU: With all fairness, I don't think it's part of this hearing. It's available from the tax office, if Mr. Abdoo wants to get it.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We can have an argumentative situation here, we can speculate ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let me finish. So I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up at this point. Thank you for your question.
MR. ABDOO: Is there any way I can get that number, because I do not have time during business hours to go to the tax office? I'm working in New York. I think it's a very well-known fact for these discussions.
MS. RAZIN: I mean ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: He can file an OPRA request for tax records and get copies of the tax reports.
MS. RAZIN: That's not part of Blais' ‑‑ Blais is done with questions from the public, tonight we're going to move on to the board, and then we're going to move on to the attorneys. And after that, Blais' questioning will be completed.
So he had the opportunity to follow‑up and speak with you, and one of the things that Charles was just going to say is you can follow up with him, but I don't think anybody can guarantee that they are going to get back ‑‑
MR. ABDOO: If you can send an email or something.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If you can follow offline, but it's not part of this hearing.
MS. RAZIN: Okay.
MR. ABDOO: Thank you. Happy holidays, everybody.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:Thank you. Happy holidays.
I think this gentleman was next, and I think that's it, you're the last person, I believe, this evening.
MR. WATSON: I'm Andrew Watson, 300 Highland Avenue.
Blais, in your testimony on page 6, you said the issue should not be whether multi‑family housing should be permitted at all, but to what extent and with what standards.
I have three questions.
Isn't your statement driven in part by what type of use the developers are asking for here?
Shouldn't the issue be whether any change in the Master Plan is needed at all?
And, lastly, why doesn't your report consider other alternatives, such as mixed use or all commercial use, alternatives to higher density multi‑family housing?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Watson. Those are your three questions?
MR. WATSON: Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU: It's three? I only got two, I'm sorry.
MR. WATSON: First question was whether your statement is driven in part by what type of use the developers are asking for. Question No. 1.
Question No. 2: Shouldn't the issue be whether any change in the Master Plan is needed at all?
Question No. 3: Why doesn't your report consider alternatives to high density multi‑family housing as alternatives for these zones?
MR. BRANCHEAU: All right. As to my statement as to the issue should not be whether multi‑family housing should be permitted at all but to what extent and what standards, that was not driven by the developers' proposals, it's driven by the fact that the current zoning already permits multi‑family housing in these areas. So the fact that we already permit it, I think, says that it's appropriate.
So the issue then is what should the standards going forth be, and that was the basis for that statement.
As to the second, should there be any change in the Master Plan?
I think there should be. Not just with this, but with a number of things in the Master Plan that need to be changed. But as to this, I think we stated what the purposes of this would be, and why we think there would be benefits to the general public that would result from this proposal.
The details of that are obviously up in the air. In fact, all of the proposals are up in the air as for the board ultimately to decide as to whether any change should be made.
And as to other alternatives, the plan that is before the board includes alternatives. It does not, except for the AH‑2 zone, mandate any affordable housing, any housing at all. In fact, it allows the developers to build retail, office and other types of commercial development or commercial in combination with housing and not just housing. So I think we even broadened the range of uses than what exists today in the current zoning. So we did look at those alternatives, we proposed to permit a wide range of uses. So I certainly am not advocating that we introduce single family housing in the downtown, or that we introduce industry or warehousing into the downtown. We're proposing to put a wide range of retail, a wide range of office uses, a wide range of service uses, and some multi‑family housing but at higher densities than what's currently permitted, but housing is already currently permitted and we are considering alternatives to that because we're not mandating housing.
MR. WATSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Watson.
And last question this evening.
MS. AHERN: Really quick question.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You have three?
MS. AHERN: Kelly Ahern, A‑H‑E‑R‑N, 434 Spring Avenue, Ridgewood. My very quick question is: If, through the Village Council we were able to bring forth a non‑binding referendum, I'm wondering what weight you as a Master Planner would give to the response and the outcome, which would be an accurate depiction of what the village, the public/taxpayers would want for this town? And I have a second possibly. CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't you ask it. MS. AHERN: If there was no non‑binding referendum, I'm wondering what your interest level is in what the public wants, what their interest level is in having high density housing in the downtown? And if there is no non‑binding referendum, I'm wondering is there a plan to maybe incorporate into your presentation, which I found lacking was, what does the public want, what do the taxpayers of this town want that are already living in this town?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Ahern.
Yes, Blais.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think I've already answered this, but I'll briefly answer it again. What weight would I give to a public referendum? As a planner, certainly we look at the public good. And if the public referendum were to disclose information that was ‑‑ how do I say ‑‑ truly dealt with the entirety of the public interest, and the public interest includes not only village residents but it includes residents of the region and of the state, and it includes a wide range of issues.
Certainly we would consider a referendum, the results of a referendum, it depends on what it would say, and it's hard to answer without knowing what it is. I've already said that the law prohibits a binding referendum, and there's reasons for it.
MS. AHERN: That's why I was asking your interest level.
MR. BRANCHEAU: My interest level? Certainly I'm interested in hearing what anyone has to say, whether I agree with it or not. Sometimes I'll agree, sometimes I won't agree. I'm hearing things that I'm certainly understanding. I understand the issue of schools. I've already said I think the issue of schools is not going to be cured by the decision that this board makes on this. That issue is going to remain, whatever this board does regarding this. And my feeling is that that issue really should be dealt with at a wider level, because the cause of that issue is created at a much wider level, and that this is sort of the tail wagging the dog. This is a Band‑Aid ‑‑ I won't say it's a Band‑Aid, but in the grand scheme of things, this isn't causing the problem and the decision of this will not solve the problem, and that's really the gist of my report. The problem is created village wide by other factors that have far more greater significance than what's before this board. I'm not saying that there won't be any affect. In fact, I'm saying that the affect will probably be greater than the Rutgers study would predict, but I'm saying that both for legal reasons and for practical reasons, the issue really has to be dealt with at a wider level, because I believe, and I think my statistics show that the impact of the school system of the rising enrollments and so forth are not created by new multi‑family housing, they're created by other factors. And so if you're going to solve the problem of the crowding of the schools, I think you have to look at those other issues as well, and it's really almost unfair to pin all your hopes and all the blame on what's before the board on this limited scope of proposal. It's really a township/village wide issue that has to be dealt with.
But certainly I'm interested in hearing, just as the whole board is, is interested in what the public has to say. I'll be honest with you, I don't always agree with it, but there's times that I do and I want to hear it, but it depends on what it is.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.
I'd like to just comment on that. I actually believe in our process here. I think it's one that takes a lot of facts into account. We have opportunity to ask experts questions. We have opportunity for the public to ask questions of testimony from those experts, whether it's the Village Planner or traffic expert or an expert for one of the applicants. We also have opportunity, which will be coming, I think we're targeting right now the 29th of January to begin public comment, and this is the time when all interested members of the village can come, hopefully based on what they've read or what they've heard, if they've attended these meetings, based on the facts, to comment on their views of the draft of the Master Plan that we're currently discussing. All of those comments that will be made during public comment will be heard by this board, who will balance that with their own judgments, along with the facts that they've heard, to make an important decision for this town.
So from my perspective, I do believe that we do have opportunity to hear public comment, hopefully based on a lot of the facts and information that we've been listening to for a very long time on a very important matter.
MS. AHERN: Okay. Thank you.
Third question would be: Would you consider possibly putting in a mailer to the residents of Ridgewood, because I don't know how they're going to know about these meetings, where they publicly –
MS. RAZIN: They're in the newspaper, we advertise the dates.
MS. AHERN: In which one, because I read ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The Ridgewood News and the Bergen Record for every meeting and also the village website.
MS. RAZIN: And in the Village Hall, not that you come down and check it, but it is there also.
MS. AHERN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you very much. I thank you, Michele. And Ms. Peters was also mentioning that a lot of reporting has occurred to cover the meetings that we had on this matter.
Okay, so that concludes the public questions for Blais' testimony. Is there a motion to close public questions?
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Close public questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second, please?
MR. ABDALLA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all present members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Anyone opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. At this time we've heard a lot of questions from the public for Blais, this is opportunity for the board to now ask its questions for Blais based on his testimony of his report and also the statements he made.
So why don't I begin on my left, Mr. Abdalla, do you have any questions for Blais? Do you have any?
MR. ABDALLA: No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
Isabella?
MS. ALTANO: Yes, I do have a question. A lot of the discussion is being around how many more children will be generated if all these projects are built. And one question I have for Blais, have you been given the opportunity by the Board of Education to review the reports that every Board of Education is required to compile every October, which is the projected enrollment cohort survival report? This report typically addresses how many children are projected to enter the district, and whenever there is a development projected in the town, that information is given to the demographer and the demographer then comes up with a projected enrollment based on those, typically you would have option 1, 2 and 3, and you would find out if this many units are built, how many more children. So the first question is: Have you been given the latest information on that?
No. 2, does the Board of Education give you information how many units are projected?
And, three, is there something, if it's available, that the board could have as additional information to review?
Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The short answer is, I have not seen the enrollment projections, so I don't know what the board could get in that regard.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, are you just saying you haven't seen projections, so you can't answer the remaining questions?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I can't answer the remainders, yes, because without those, I couldn't say what they project, and I don't know again what the board could get. That's what the three questions are. If there was something I missed, let me know, I'll try to answer.
MS. ALTANO: Can we request to have a copy of that report?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think so, sure.
MS. ALTANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.
Michele.
MS. PETERS: Yes, I agree with that, because that goes toward a lot of persons expressed concerns, thank you, first of all, Blais, thank you, and I thank our residents for their participation in this process.
It has been in keeping with what our mayor stated in our last meeting, it does take a lot of patience on our part also to not intercede, because what Blais has drafted was prior to our full discussion about it. And I know that there has been ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Direct a question to Blais, please, Michele.
Do you have a question for Blais?
MS. PETERS: No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.
Wendy.
MS. DOCKRAY: I'm going to borrow the mic here. I actually have quite a few questions, and which is kind of typical of me, I know, and they're not necessarily in a logical order, because I've changed some things around as I've listened to the questions from the public, which were good questions. And I greatly appreciate, Blais, all the work you've done on this. I know this has been a long walk for everybody. Okay. Starting with page 5, and some of these are just kind of conceptual questions and some of these are specific fact questions, and your answers will be helpful to me in different kinds of ways. So starting with page 5 ‑‑ I'm going to read all my questions, so I'll get them correct.
In your testimony with regard to land use, you mentioned that the proposed use of high density multi‑family housing is compatible with the surrounding uses and their zones. Looking at the map on page 5, I see the preponderance of red, meaning commercial, at the locations proposed for rezoning in accordance with the amendment. How does the surrounding all three, and, in some instances, four sides by commercial structures constitute compatibility?
Basically I'm trying to get to how these multi‑family structures are compatible with commercial all around them?
MR. BRANCHEAU: If you look at the map ‑‑
MS. DOCKRAY: I did, yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ on page 5, I'll start with the AH‑2 zone, which is, there's multi‑family housing right down S. Broad Street from that. If you look at the B‑3‑R zone on Maple Avenue, there is multi‑family housing just easton E. Ridgewood Avenue, as well as across Franklin Avenue. If you look at the C‑R zone, there's multi‑family housing on the west side of the tracks. What I meant by that statement is that if you look at that map, you'll see around the fringes of the CBD, multi‑family housing that already exists in a variety of locations. So that's what I meant by it's compatible by that pattern, it's on the fringes of the CBD, much like much of the other multi‑family housing is, and traditionally in planning terms, multi‑family housing has been considered a transitional land use between commercial areas and single family residential areas. So I think it's compatible in that sense as well.
MS. DOCKRAY: .Okay. Thank you.
On page 8, you reference 7 Ridge Road, which I understand is a building for seniors. I'm just curious, does that include affordable units? I'm just trying to understand better what we have in our downtown.
MR. BRANCHEAU: My understanding is those are entirely affordable.
MS. DOCKRAY: They're entirely affordable?
MR. BRANCHEAU: They're age restricted senior units, and I believe with the possibility of the superintendent apartment, that they are entirely affordable. I think they're operated by Bergen County Housing Authority.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you. I had no idea.
On page 9, the three properties you mentioned with high densities, 82.8, 125 and 128.6, I believe have no parking and would not likely be allowed to be constructed under RSIS guidelines because of that. Did you mean to suggest that we should consider these densities as either desirable or representative of densities in the CBD?
MR. BRANCHEAU: This is page 8, right?
MS. DOCKRAY: Yes ‑‑ page 9.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Page 8?
MS. DOCKRAY: It's page 9.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Oh, the table is page 9. I do, in describing the text, I talk about the range of densities, and I agree they don't have parking and I agree that this density would not be approved today without parking. And the only way they achieve that density is by, A; not having parking and by building, you know, historically before there was probably zoning in place. So I'm not suggesting that those are representative of the downtown, but they are there, so they're part of the range of densities in the downtown area, but they're certainly not the average, I would call them not representative.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Great.
You mentioned on page 10, that all the links within the CBD are from one to three and a half stories with all four properties having 4 or 5 stories. Could you refresh my memory, I believe there are over 300 properties in the CBD. Is that correct? Is it three or six?
MR. BRANCHEAU: The area that you're looking at that's colored, there's over 300 lots.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.
And typically how tall in terms of feet is a three story building in the downtown? Is that 30?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'd say typically taller than that. A single family dwelling, which often has lower ceiling heights than commercial development, is going to be 30 to 35, sometimes taller. So I would say ‑‑ and those are typically 2 to 2 and a half stories. A commercial building that's 3 to 3 and a half stories is going to be more in the range of 35 to 45 feet in height.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. So it's 15 feet a story, approximately?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, ground floor stories are often higher than the upper floors, so it's not a uniform thing all the time. It varies, but when you say "height," there's often parapets involved that extend the height above the floor levels, above the ceiling levels or roofs or some other type that are extending that height up. So it's difficult to give a hard and fast number that applies in all cases. I'm just trying to give you a rough average of what I think happens.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. That's fair.
On page 13, one of my concerns with regard to the amendment is pedestrian safety. I know you mentioned traffic congestion and safety, but not pedestrian safety in your report. Did you calculate the number of new people who will be residing in the downtown if the amendment as proposed was approved?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I did not do that calculation.
MS. DOCKRAY: Could you possibly do that?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I certainly can.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: It's obviously subject to, you know, it's more of a range because it would depend upon various factors, the age of the people, the number of children, the number of bedrooms, the size of units, and so forth, but we could come up with a rough range.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. That would be good, because I really don't have a good grasp of that, as I think about the pedestrian situation in the downtown. Okay. And here's where you can help me with an issue that we talked about a couple of times. On page 13, you talk about amending the village code to permit shared parking between residential and nonresidential uses. I am not certain how that would work with residential and retail, particularly in the downtown where it is hoped individuals will leave their car in the garage during the day and take public {transportation, transaction}. If a car is left in the garage during the day, the owner goes off to work, how does one share a parking space with a retail use or even an office use, for that matter? Alternately let's say someone arrives to work during the week but arrives home before five and does not take the car out on Saturday, how does one share that space with a retail use? We are evaluating an amount of a transit oriented benefit, meaning less use of cars, but I am having a hard time understanding shared spaces when a car does not go out.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. I agree that shared parking does not always work, that it frequently doesn't work.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, did you say that it frequently does not work?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Frequently does not work, because of the reasons you've accurately stated.
My comment here was that it does work sometimes, though. Probably one of the best examples is office use, where typically 9 to 5, when people are at work and not there at night, not there on weekends, when residents are there. As to the residents leaving their cars and using a train, that would have to be factored in.
My recommendation was only for those cases that it really works, we should allow it. Right now we don't allow it at all. We allow shared parking in the sense of will more than one use a parking lot, but we don't give them any credit as to the total number of spaces. So while I can use that space, I'm not using the same space, I'm using a different space. So if I had an office and a residential together, we'd calculate the parking requirements for each and then we'd say that's what you've got to provide, we'll let you share the parking in that sense, but we won't say that the residents will be using some of the office parking on weekends and nights and the office will be using some of the residents' parking during the day, and I agree it would never be 100 percent, but it's more efficient use of land to allow shared parking, but you certainly have to look at it with a critical eye and make sure that it makes sense, because, you're right, it isn't going to make sense for many retail uses and for some other uses it doesn't make sense at all either, but if it makes sense, why shouldn't we permit it?
MS. DOCKRAY: But it's not necessarily something you see, it's necessarily something we have to consider at this time as part of this amendment? This seems to be complicated.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I raised it only in the context of this amendment would permit mixed use, and so I think it's an appropriate time, and in the context of that proposal, I think it's an appropriate ‑‑ I mean, we haven't had many instances where that's really been proposed, but in the context of this, which could possibly result in a larger scale development that's mixed use, I think it would make some sense to do it as part of this change.
Again, I'm not saying that it's something that would be a right, the developer would have to demonstrate that it would not only work initially, but that if the use were to change in the future, it would still work.
So it would not be an easy thing to prove, but if it could be proved, I would certainly allow it to happen. I mean, they could do it today by the route of variance, I just think it's something that rather than having a parking lot sitting empty during the day or during the night, that if it could be used for two different uses at different times, that's just an efficient use of land.
MS. DOCKRAY: But do we have to do a Master Plan amendment to provide for that? Can't we just deal with it?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, the Master Plan amendment, it would merely be saying that whatever ordinance gets adopted should include provisions for a shared parking. The Master Plan amendment would have no legal effect on the ability of someone to do that, it would have to be done in the ordinance. But the Master Plan is supposed to be the basis for the zoning policy in the ordinance. The ordinance goes beyond it with more detail, but it really should start with the Master Plan.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you.
Moving on to page 14, you mentioned that the number of schoolchildren that currently attend the Ridgewood schools is more than twice what the Rutgers study would predict. I think it is actually pretty close to four times, I think it's 3.8, the amount based on the numbers you presented. You mentioned this should be considered with regard to the fiscal impact analysis, and I understand at this point you have not done that fiscal impact analysis, and there are issues with regard to whether we can even consider such an analysis. But my question is: The only fiscal impact analysis that we've seen so far are Mr. Burgis' and Mr. Steck's, and I think if you dropped the school factor at this high a rate into the analysis, that we might see something different than what Mr. Burgis and Mr. Steck projected. Could you perhaps do that analysis for us? Could you put in a higher rate and see how it plays out in both their pro forma?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I could do that, but, again, as I've said before, I think the school problem and there's no getting around that, that there is a crowding issue at the schools. The problem is caused township wide and I think the solution should be township wide. I will do a fiscal impact, if the board requests it, but there are some, A, legal considerations to be made; and, secondly, there's some practical considerations to be made. I've indicated what exists today, and there's a wide range of what exists today. Some multi‑family has no schoolchildren, and I'm not talking about Ridge Crest with the senior units, that actually has three, but I'm talking about some other multi‑family housing that has no schoolchildren whatsoever and there's other multi‑family housing that has almost one child per unit total. So that's a wide range. In any of this, certain assumptions would have to be made, are we working with averages, are we assuming that this is a different housing type than what exists today, and, therefore, we can expect different numbers of schoolchildren than what exists today, and at what end of the spectrum that exists today, zero or at the almost one per unit, what would you use? What's most fair for everyone? I can do that analysis, it's just in the context of the cause and the solution to the problem being village wide, I've questioned its value and its fairness in the context of this hearing, but if the board wants me to do it, I will.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. I'm just staying on that same subject, I know that you provided us with a table that showed the increase in students from, was it 1970 onward, and do you know, let's say in the last 10 years, or since 2010, what percent of the increase that Ridgewood schools had assumed comes from children in multi‑family housing as opposed to single family homes?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't know that. I don't even know if that data exists, but I'd have to ask the Board of Education, for example, what the number of schoolchildren from multi‑family housing was, say, 10 years ago or 20 years ago. If they could give me that, then we could see.
MS. DOCKRAY: That might be something that would be of interest to look at, since we've had a lot of concern about this issue, and that just occurred to me based on one of the residents' questions earlier, so, thank you.
Okay Do you know how long the Ridgewood school system has been at capacity?
MR. BRANCHEAU: No, I do not.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Going to your appendix, I found it really interesting talking about how the state plan and Sustainable New Jersey take the view on transit‑oriented developments. What was particularly interesting is that the state plan encourages the location, capping them at six dwellings per acre. I see that Sustainable New Jersey suggests a minimum density of eight dwelling units per acre for bus‑oriented facilities and 15 for rail, with a minimum of three and a half stories. So it seems to me, it seems that what currently exists in Ridgewood without this Master Plan amendment in terms of standards for multi‑family housing falls well within what is recommended and what is proposed ‑‑ I'm sorry, I am not reading this correctly ‑‑ and what is proposed is significantly higher than what is recommended as a minimum for a transit‑oriented development. It would appear to me, from the perspective of these documents, that we can achieve the benefits of transit‑oriented development at densities far lower than what is proposed in this amendment. Is that consistent with your reading of these two plans or documents?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm not sure I understand the question.
MS. DOCKRAY: I know. What I'm trying to get at here, I'm sorry, I kind of lost myself in the middle here, is you appended the state plan, New Jersey state plan and you appended a document from Sustainable New Jersey concerning standards for transit‑oriented development and multi‑family housing. And what I did is I quoted from those documents, and it appears in those documents that a minimum density, housing density that would be required to achieve the benefits of a transit‑oriented development are less than what we have proposed here.
Is that not correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think that, I'm going to quote from the first page of the appendix, and it does say "housing densities of six units per gross acre or greater within walking distance of schools, services, transit, civic, and employment opportunities." It doesn't say six period, it says six or greater, and it's trying to get housing close to the ‑‑ it's trying to basically reduce the use of automobiles, by making them within walking distance.
As to the density per acre, that's really going to depend upon the community itself and a particular location, but that served as a minimum of six per acre. Later on, in planning for transit‑friendly land use by New Jersey Transit, it talks about higher density residential, it doesn't give any specific density there. The Sustainable Jersey quotes that I had said that a minimum net residential density of 8 units per acre to serve bus and 15 dwelling units per acre to serve rail, those are minimums.
MS. DOCKRAY: Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU: A minimum floor area of 2.0 for nonresidential or 200 percent, and minimum building height of at least three and a half stories in a significant portion of the district. And it goes on to, they have some other quotes in it, and it really kind of is illustrating my answer, and, that is, I think each community has to set what it feels is appropriate for that community for any particular location, but, again, to quote the Sustainable Jersey document, it says: "It is important to remember that context is a critical part of understanding what is appropriate for each municipality. While minimum densities are represented herein as a general guideline, such densities may in fact be too low for many New Jersey communities. Context also drives decisions around building architecture size, as well as placement in relationship to the street." It goes on to say, "In the case of transit‑oriented development supported zoning, the recommended density of development is usually greater than what is currently permitted in the area surrounding the transit station. With that potential density increase comes concerns about impacts of traffic, schools and the neighborhood in which the TOD is located."
Then it goes on to say, it says that "Density is a difficult topic, but the reality is that higher densities is an important factor in the success of a TOD neighborhood. The scale and character of a place, as well as the relationship between the building and the street, rather than the density, should be the focus of community conversation around transit‑oriented development. Citizens are often surprised to find that higher densities are often associated with the type of places they like, that it's because higher density promotes walkable neighborhoods that contribute to the viability of a wider range of businesses, resulting in more destinations to which its residents can walk. It also supports housing choice and affordability." And it goes on to talk about, it says that, for example, according to New Jersey trends, in planning for transit friendly land use, seven dwelling units per acre is the minimum density required to support local bus service in residential areas It goes on to say that for moderate to high transit ridership levels, frequent transit service, active street life, and viable neighborhood businesses, higher densities of 15 to 24 plus dwelling units per acre are required.
Ensuring adequate densities that will support the level of transit available or desired, the vibrancy of the neighborhood is probably the second most critical element of the TOD supportive zoning ordinance, after ensuring a mix of land uses.
The level of density authorized will depend on the amount of existing density present and the willingness of the residents within the TOD neighborhood to accept high densities.
Then it goes on, it talks about the 8 and 15 units per acre as minimums.
So the numbers you cited are really what I would say minimums, and I am not saying that the numbers in the plan are sacred or that if the number were lower, that the thing would fail, but I think the point that the state plan and that New Jersey Transit and that Sustainable New Jersey are trying to make is that there's a positive side to density as well as a negative side, and that you have to factor in both the positives and the negatives when considering what an appropriate density is, as well as the context of the community and the neighborhood.
So what that magic number is really one of the things that this board has to decide. So I'm not going to tell you that anything lower won't work, I'm only going to say that the more density you have, the more street life you have, the more support you have to the downtown area, and that's a good thing. Obviously certain bad things come with that as well, and you have to basically find whatever balance you feel is appropriate.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you.
Okay. I'm going to move on to a whole different topic here. The AH district on S. Broad, why are we requiring housing to be constructed there I see the commercial properties on all sides of the zone and would think allowing commercial development in the AH zone as well as multi‑family housing would be compatible in the area and provide more options for development to the current landowner. So my question is: Why are we requiring housing in the AH district?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, the simple answer is that it's currently in our housing element, which is another chapter of the Master Plan for that purpose. So we are trying to be consistent with the balance of the Master Plan, which recommends housing be required there. We talked before about for purposes of receiving credit from the state in your housing plan for planned affordable housing, that you have to actually require that that housing be built. To provide another development option is not viewed favorably by the state in housing plans. So the reason the housing plans said it is because simply the state requires that it be that way.
And because it's in the housing plan, we wanted it to be consistent in the Land Use Plan.
MS. DOCKRAY: So then the affordable units we might require in the other district, we will not get credit for?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't believe you will, unless they are built.
MS. DOCKRAY: I mean ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: We won't get credit in the plan, but if they get built, we'll get credit for them.
MS. DOCKRAY: I see. Okay.
On the issue of height, the amendment provides for having 55 feet to provide incentives to construct affordable housing. Going back a while, I recall, I've been to the subcommittee, I am not sure where I picked up this piece of knowledge, that at 50 feet, a one acre site could accommodate 43 units per acre and meet RSIS requirements. I think we calculated that based on 1,500 square feet per unit.
So my question is: Why do we need another five feet, when we know 50 feet will work and a preponderance of buildings in Ridgewood are three and a half stories or less, why do we have to go to 55, if we went 50 it would work for 43 units?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think we've stated that there are two reasons. One was as an incentive for affordable housing, and secondly it was to get architectural variety, particularly in the roof line, whether it's a pitched roof, or whether it's gables or pediments or other similar features that would get away from the boxy look of a flat roof or a simple parapet, that was the reason for the additional height.
MS. DOCKRAY: Correct me, if we were to proceed with the amendment as written, couldn't they build a 55‑foot building with a flat roof?
MR. BRANCHEAU: No. We've talked about in the ordinance if we were to get to a point of an ordinance, we would write in the requirements. For example, it might say that any portion of a building over X feet would have to be designed this way or buildings are limited to 50 feet but would be allowed to go to 55 feet if they incorporated these features. So that was the intent of that additional height, to do it that way. So it's not spelled out here, but the general policy is, the details are not.
MS. DOCKRAY: I have to think about this a little bit, because I think we could still ‑‑ I don't know what evidence we have that 43 units at 50 feet we wouldn't be able to get any architectural features.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I didn't say you wouldn't have any architectural features, it's in the roof line the five feet additional. And I'm not saying you couldn't, a lot of variables there, like what's the floor level of the first floor, how high are the floors. If there were parking underneath the building and let's say you needed 13 or 14 feet for the first level and you needed 11 to 12 for the next three levels above that, you've got, let's say 14,11 and a half times three, that's 34 and a half and 14, it's 49 and a half with that. That only leaves you room for a one foot flat parapet and not much else. So to get a roof line, that additional five feet would give you some opportunity to do some variation in that, either variation in the parapet or a pitched roof or whatever, there is a variety of ways of dealing with that.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you.
I assume that if, you know, we had the range of 30 to 50, I assume if we were to limit density to 30 units per acre, that would work at 50 feet and maybe even far less height, assuming the same 1,500 square feet per unit?
MR. BRANCHEAU: It's possible.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. This is a more conceptual question.
I know the affordable housing regulations are in flux, but at least at this point in time, to the best of your knowledge, is it a requirement that a town offer both height and density incentives to a developer? I know you do not want to set forth requirements that are unbuildable, but I just want to make sure we have the opportunity to craft our incentives in a way that hopefully keep the buildings in scale with their neighborhoods in our village.". Are there other incentives we can offer?
MR. BRANCHEAU: The incentives largely are in the economic area. We've talked about this in the past.
The key one is density, as spelled out in the state's rules. They've always been in the state's rules, so despite the extreme flux that is in the state's affordable housing policy, density has been a constant. Height is not specifically called out in the state rules, so, strictly speaking, height is not required by the state as an incentive for affordable housing. But, again, I bring you back to, it's not just for affordable housing that we add the five feet of height, it was because of the architectural treatment as well.
But to the extent that height also affects what density you can achieve, it does relate to affordable housing, so density is the key consideration.
MS. DOCKRAY: Are there any other incentives?
MR. BRANCHEAU: There can be. The state's regulations suggested various cost‑cutting measures for affordable housing, reducing the level of improvements, reducing fees, connection fees and other fees.
MS. DOCKRAY: Oh, fees?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Like sewer connection fees, for example, you could reduce them for affordable units as incentives. There's a variety of ways that you can incentivize affordable housing.
So I'm not suggesting to you that height is the only way or even has to be a way to provide an incentive, it was included though partially for that reason, I am told.
MS. DOCKRAY: Now I just need to confirm I understand here. I think at one point, not in your recent report, maybe it was the subcommittee, maybe it was during work session, I'm not sure, you said that height needs to be uniform in the zone, that we couldn't say that multi‑family structure limit the height ‑‑ if there's already a height of 48 feet for commercial structures, we have to allow 48 feet for multi‑family structures. So if that's the case, if we allow 50 feet or 55 feet for multi‑family structures with architectural features, will we need to allow to provide that same height to new commercial structures in the downtown?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, the state law says that the standards for a particular use have to be uniform throughout a zone. Now, granted, multi‑family is a different use than commercial. I'm not saying that the standards for one always have to be the standard for the other, but in looking at building height, the issue is the same whether it's multi‑family housing or whether it's commercial. And the height of a building has a lot to do with the visual impact of the building and the context that it's in. Whether it's an office building or an apartment building, it could look identical from outside the building, so why would you regulate the height differently? I don't see a valid basis for a distinction in that case. Now, I might see a basis for different standards on other issues, but not on height, not in this context, anyway.
MS. DOCKRAY: Can we go backward? Can we say we want to limit building height in the village in the CBD to 45 feet, period?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, we already allow 50.
MS. DOCKRAY: Yes, so can we go backwards? Can we lower it?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Can we lower it?
MS. DOCKRAY: Yes, for everybody?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, that 50 feet that's in the plan today for affordable housing is part of our housing plan that's before the state, so if we were to lower that, the state, I think, would probably consider that a violation of our certified housing plan for the second round. And they would say you just removed one incentive for affordable housing that we approved. So we probably would have a problem eliminating the 50 that's currently allowed.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.
It was brought to our attention by Ms. Bogart and others this scenario and I think you've been asked this before, but I want to be clear on it. If the Stop & Shop were to move and the property was left vacant, just as an example, and the owner wanted to seek a rezoning or variance to construct high density multi‑family housing similar to what might be approved here and met the same criteria as the properties rezoned for multi‑family housing, one acre, walking distance to the train, etc., would they have a valid argument?
MR. BRANCHEAU: You know, I'd have to ‑‑ it's almost, it's a hypothetical situation, I can't answer it.
MS. DOCKRAY: But it seems to be behind a lot of people's concerns.
MR. BRANCHEAU: We'd have to deal with that at the time. I don't think that we would certainly be under a legal obligation to approve multi‑family housing beyond where we've decided to approve it. It would almost be like saying, because we have the R‑4 and the R‑5 zones today on E. Ridgewood Avenue and on W. Ridgewood Avenue and of course on Terrace and so forth, that now we have to approve more multi‑family housing because those are there, I don't think we have to. I think that the law gives the municipalities enough zoning control that it would not be obligated to do so.
Now, whether it chose to do so or not would be a different matter, and that's up to the town at the time that such a request was made, but I don't think we would be obligated to do a "me too" somewhere else.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Great.
You mentioned in your testimony the fact that the apartments might be attractive to seniors who no longer want the work of maintaining their homes. Are you aware of any surveys or studies of the Ridgewood population, particularly seniors, to determine the character or the type of housing they would like to see built to accommodate their needs? There are many factors, as you know, many factors go into the decision to rent or purchase a home, including location, size, cost, availability of outdoor space, etc. Have we ever conducted a study to determine what would best serve our senior population here?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I have not.
MS. DOCKRAY: No. Okay.
I only have 1 or 2 questions, maybe not that many. The last time you testified, you mentioned the CBD in terms of possibility for park use, and I don't recall doing that. I do recall Mr. Curry coming, but I don't recall looking site by site in terms of parks and, you know, suitability for parks and I also don't recall any discussion so far as to whether we should require any open space within the areas that we're rezoning or may rezone for multi‑family use. Did I miss something? Possibly?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think so.
In between the last meeting and this meeting, I had the opportunity to listen to the tapes from the
September 17th and September 23rd meetings, as well as the October 15th. These are all 2013 meetings. These were the meetings after the subcommittee met and the board was deliberating what to put in the draft to put out for public hearing. And at that time this very subject was discussed. And it was determined that, I think a committee recommendation was that the committee felt they wanted to encourage the residents of these housing units to use the downtown facilities. And that if any amenities were provided, it would be either on the roof or inside the building, not outside the building. So that's what I heard on the tape. And so I do believe it was discussed.
MS. DOCKRAY: I guess I'll have to go back and listen, because I really don't recall that and I don't recall that we actually studied it. But I'll go back. If you could just maybe email me the dates again or repeat those dates.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think Michael is going to make you those.
MS. DOCKRAY: It's on the tape?
MR. BRANCHEAU: It is on the CD, yes.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. I can listen to that.
I guess that's it, and I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but you've been really helpful, and I'll pass it on to Richard.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Wendy. Thank you for your good questions.
It's 9:30. We're going to take an eight‑minute break ‑‑ ten‑minute break. Why don't we plan to resume at 8:43.
(A short recess is held.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
Michael, will you please call the roll?
(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken with Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Councilwoman Knudsen, Chairman Nalbantian, Vice‑Chairman Joel, Ms. Dockray, Ms. Peters, Mr. Thurston, Ms. Altano, and Mr. Abdalla present, with Mr. Reilly absent.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael.
We finished with Wendy, so why don't we begin with you, Richard.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.
Thanks, Blais, for your testimony, it was very informative, and I guess the takeaway from it is I guess the balancing, and I guess we're able to consider the present conditions of the property, are we not?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: So we can take that as a factor in balancing?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: You didn't hear it?
MR. THURSTON: No, could you repeat your question.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Could we take into account the present conditions of the properties at issue? He indicated yes.
Can we take into consideration what can be built as‑of‑right?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. and can we take into consideration that the present zoning ordinances are not causing any positive development to be happening at the current sites?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, yes, although buried in that question is sort of an unproven cause and effect that the zoning is what's preventing the development of the site. And it may have a factor in it, I'm not going to say it doesn't, but the reason for the lack of development is, I think, unknown at this point in time.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
With respect to the balancing, is there one factor that you can think of that should carry more weight than any others?
MR. BRANCHEAU: When you say one factor that carries for weight than any of the others, I'm going to say no. I mean, I think there are some factors that carry more weight than other factors, but as far as singling out one factor, I can't say that just one stands out in my mind as the one. I have some that are more important than others but not one particular one.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Which ones would be more important?
MR. BRANCHEAU: When you say factors, as I see it, there are factors on the positive and on the negative side.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I'm looking at it, there's probably a big four, the intensity of the use, the scale of the proposed use, and then traffic parking and safety is another component, and then school students is another. Would that be a good way to conceptualize it to certain factors?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, it's not, in my opinion, the same key factors. In my mind, I'm balancing the positives of helping the downtown, and by helping the downtown, I think we're helping the whole village on a number of fronts. I'm looking at the positives of providing housing of a type that we don't currently have much of, and by that I mean higher end multi‑family housing, I'm looking at the positive in addressing affordable housing, and I'm balancing that against and in locations that would encourage the pedestrian traffic more than, let's say, in the single family areas where it's too far to walk to stores or shops or restaurants, no question some people will still thrive. But I think these locations, one of the positives is that people will walk more. So I look at those as the key positive factors, as well as redeveloping properties that are underutilized currently. And I view these as certainly an upgrade from what's there visually, if for no other reason. As far as the key negative factors, I think in my mind the visual impacts of the height and the mass of the buildings is a key consideration. The ability to provide appropriate architecture. I think the traffic impact, I stated in my report on the traffic. While the traffic is no worse than what could happen from a conforming project, at least at certain times, I have some concerns that the traffic improvements that were called for in the traffic studies may or may not be able to be implemented, because the village lacks a comprehensive approach to using any payments from the developers to make improvements, and by that I mean the way the law works today, the payments have to be made specifically for an improvement that relates to that development project, and only on a pro rata basis. So let's say a development adds additional traffic to an intersection, and let's just say for the sake of discussion, it's adding 10 percent to the existing intersection. The developer only, this is rough, but the developer only has to pay 10 percent of the cost of the necessary improvement, because he's only causing 10 percent of the problem, and you have to spend it at that intersection. So the question is, where does the rest of that 90 percent come from?
Whereas, if the village had a transportation improvement district, the money you receive from all the developers could be pooled, you may not get all of the improvements you want, but at least you'll be able to use the improvement money as you see fit, but right now that is not in place. So that's a concern I have in the area of traffic.
But as to the total amount of traffic, again, I think the studies have shown anyway that the amount of traffic is comparable to what could happen if we don't amend the Master Plan. So I have a concern, though, as to the implementing of the traffic improvements, the way it is today.
So to me those are ‑‑ and I think, while I recognize the school and the fiscal thing, as I said before, I think that's a town wide issue, and that these projects and this Master Plan amendment is not going to create the problem and it's not going to solve the problem, if they're denied. The problem goes much wider and deeper than this. And I think if the village is serious about dealing with that, it really needs to look at it from a village wide basis.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: In reviewing this, we're going to determine if it's in the public good, so I guess we're weighing the pros and cons, and every project is going to have cons, no matter what.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: So we just have to weigh it and see, I guess, if the pros are that good and they really outweigh those cons. Would that be fair to say?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Absolutely.
You can say open space, where do you lose?
Well, first of all, you have to buy it. Secondly, you have to maintain it. You need staff to cut the grass, you need staff to basically keep it up. So even open space, while everyone seems to like it, there are cons. Sometimes people don't want to live near it, because of the noise and activity and the privacy issues that it raises. There's cons with almost every type of land use that you could think of. I mean, open space is a huge fiscal loss. So that's a con, you know, but we often think that it's worth the con, and it's no different with any other land use, you try to see what's good about it and balance it against what's bad. And if what's good outweighs substantially the bad, then it's generally a good thing to do, not always, sometimes the bad is just, for whatever reason, if you don't have sewer capacity, you don't have sewer capacity, you may have ticked off all the other bells, but if you can't serve the thing with sewers, you can't serve the thing and it can't be built. So sometimes one little thing can be enough to derail something that otherwise would be a good thing to happen. So generally you try to balance the two.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MS. RAZIN: Can just to clarify, Blais, or I guess follow‑up on what Blais was saying, I think it's also important, though, to look at what the language of Section 28 of the Municipal Land Use Law says with regard to Master Plan adoption or an amendment adoption versus something that could be analyzed directly to a variance.
So while I think from a practical, with respect to Blais is probably very correct in what he's saying in terms of a balancing and you have to take into consideration the benefits and the detriments or the negative impacts that might be created and what overall positives may be created, the language of 28 I think is the key language to look at from a practical perspective. How you interpret that and how you perform that analysis, it's part of what this board is charged to do, but I just want to differentiate slightly from what the variance proof would be from what 28 says the proofs would be.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I quote from N.J.S.A. 45:D‑28 from my report, and I quote a short thing, it says, "The Planning Board may prepare" ‑‑ I'm reading from page 3 of my report of October 31st:
"The Planning Board may prepare, and, after public hearing, adopt or amend the Master Plan or component parts thereof to guide the use of lands within the municipality in a manner which protects public health and safety and promotes the general welfare." What I'm saying is that in determining whether it protects public health and safety and whether it promotes the general welfare, there's a balancing within that that is needed to determine in fact if it does in fact promote the general welfare and whether it protects public health and safety. It's not to say that there's no bads, because, like I said, there almost always are bads with anything. It's that weighing of things in the balance that is needed to determine whether it meets the statutory criteria.
VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thanks, Blais.
No further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Richard.
Michele, you said you had a question?
MS. PETERS: Thank you. This was what I was trying to put together. Our traffic expert testified that other current allowed uses currently allowed under the Master Plan would have a greater impact on increasing traffic. And my question is: Why are we not discussing modifying the current uses, rather than centering on only amending to allow additional use?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't think that that's before the board, but if it were before the board, of down zoning or eliminating the uses that generate traffic, that's something that would depend on a number of factors, and suffice it to say, I think the quote that Tom Kossoff quoted saying was to give just one example. On my way home, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of having to wait for traffic to clear in front of Whole Foods so I can go through and get around the left turn, waiting to get in there. At the same time, I see that traffic as a positive for the downtown and that you want traffic to a certain point. And so if we were to say let's get rid of Stop & Shop, make it not a permitted use, make King's not a permitted use, make Stop & Shop not a permitted use because they're high traffic generators, while it might alleviate traffic, it would also cause harm to the downtown area and to the village as a whole. People would now have to drive farther to buy their groceries. They deal with traffic on Route 17 and in other areas as a result of that. So it's not a simple fix to say, well, let's get rid of traffic generating uses.
MS. PETERS: But, Blais, in the commercial zone, didn't you recommend you're changing the commercial zone to allow the multi use housing and the persons who have the motor shop, the body shop that were there, they're going to be grandfathered to permit them to continue their use, isn't that what we're saying a little bit here, we're modifying the uses in that area being done and I know that we did discuss what ‑‑ I remember, and I can't remember here how long ago that we were discussing it, where you were commenting about, we were discussing hotels, taverns, about what was 24/7 operation versus a lesser hour opening. I know I'm getting back into the subcommittee a little bit, because we discussed this at great length.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm not sure I understand the question, but if you could restructure it.
MS. PETERS: In terms of modifying uses, I said that I believe that you have proposed something like that, akin to that in the current commercial zone to allow the multi use housing, the multi‑family housing. And I believe that you had recommended not permitting the commercial use of I believe the body shops, they're going to be grandfathered, the ones that do remain there. You had made recommendations to disallow these uses continuing in this area, correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, in the C‑R zone.
MS. PETERS: Right. So this is all part of a discussion, I feel, of what, you know, I hope more, and I know I have to keep asking questions here, a discussion of really what should be happening in our Master Plan itself, and that's very inherent as to what is being proposed with the amendment to it, that we should, as opposed to just taking these three areas, the spot zoning, which has been an accusation which has been made, which we do not view it as this, but it's something that we feel is for all of the CBD, that perhaps among this discussion is really what is currently permitted to be there, should that continue to be. I know we had the discussion in the subcommittee about the C zone. I believe there was discussion, I think there was sports club, meaning hunting, this support of use, I'm really going back to over a year and a half ago, discussions that we had. Would that or am I overreaching that we should not be discussing any modifications at this point, other than what you have proposed for this one C zone?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I guess what I'm saying is that I think the whole downtown is certainly something that we could study on various fronts. I know we've been studying, and when I say "we," I mean the village has been studying, some say it's studied too much, some say it's not studied enough, but talking about the parking, for example, like there's been parking studies for decades and yet we have yet to build any new parking in the downtown area. But we're continuing to study, to see if we can find a way to do that. But certainly there's been discussion about the mix of uses that are permitted in the downtown area, the need to update that. Those are all worthy of study. We've talked about pedestrian safety downtown, and I think that's worthy of study. We've talked about traffic downtown, and that's worthy of study. Those are all worthy things to study. The use of the upper floors of buildings, the use of the ground floor of buildings, those are worthy of study, driving uses downtown. There's a few that I could talk about that are worthy of studying in the downtown area.
I misunderstood your first question, it was more focused on traffic and that's what I was trying to respond to. But certainly there's more that could be done, but I think that's ‑‑ I mean, it's up to the board to decide, but those issues are not currently on the table right now. I'm not saying they shouldn't be on the table ever, I'm just saying they're not really part of this, and that's why I thought it was a traffic comparison based question, and there's a sort of a double‑edged sword with traffic, you could have no traffic but then you'd have no business and you'd have a failing downtown. So there's a happy middle ground of traffic, just like with most other things, but as to the other issues that the downtown needs study on, absolutely, no question.
MS. PETERS: I thought this was supposed to be, this is an encompassing discussion as to the Master Plan. We are discussing what should be the best use of this area as a whole, I believe. Am I mistaken?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't think that it is that specifically. I think this started, as we all know, requests by various private parties to amend the Master Plan to permit higher density multi‑family housing than what is currently permitted in the downtown area and in different configurations. It wasn't a request to look at all of the policies in the downtown area. Now, granted, that's just a request, and we did do, I think, a fairly comprehensive study of issues related to multi‑family housing and, to some extent, issues related to other commercial uses in conjunction with that in the downtown area, but we did not do a comprehensive study of all those other issues of solving the parking problems downtown, of dealing with issues of pedestrian safety, of dealing with historic preservation, of dealing with everything in all of the areas of all of the downtown. Our focus in the study has been issues related to multi‑family housing in the downtown or around the downtown area. So it has not been more than that, and so I don't know if I'm answering your question or not. It was comprehensive in one sense in that it looked at issues related to multi‑family and areas in all downtown in a comprehensive fashion, but it wasn't ever trying to deal with all of the issues in the downtown area.
MS. PETERS: We did discuss the use, because this is not isolated, we have proposals in front of us which have caused a question to come up as to our general, the encompassing idea of what the Master Plan should be about, so we can't look at it in a vacuum, it has to be looked at in the totality, and that's what I feel we need to keep the big picture in mind as we look at an amendment.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't know if that's a question or a statement.
MS. PETERS: I believe he disagrees with me.
MR. BRANCHEAU: No. Let me put it this way. If you're suggesting that we can't look at anything unless we look at everything, I would disagree. Some things are irrelevant to looking at one thing, and the statute clearly allows amendments that are not part of comprehensive evaluation of the Master Plan. So, you know, to say that we should not look at multi‑family housing in the downtown unless we look at the traffic problems on Route 17, you know, that's an obvious hyperbole, but I think we all agree why do we need to do that, how are they connected?
If you were to say to me, we need to look at parking for shoppers, we can't look at multi‑family housing without looking at parking for shoppers, I'd say, well, how are they really related? If we're requiring that the multi‑family provide all their own parking, they're not contributing to the downtown parking problem, why do we need to look at the downtown parking problem to look at multi‑family housing? That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying that looking at parking in the downtown area is not a worthy thing to do, it is, it's just I don't know that it's needed to look at this.
MS. PETERS: It's all interrelated. If we're looking at the CBD, everything that is suggested there has an effect on everything else. Everything that's currently there affects anything new and anything new affects what is there. So I believe that our thought process and our discussion needs to be comprehensive as we look at the matter. And I think, Charles, it's getting late and I'm sure there are our persons who wish to comment. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you, Michele.
MS. PETERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mayor.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Thank you very much. First of all, Blais, I just want to thank you for this report, your presentation, and for handling all these questions. You do so and I appreciate it, I know we all appreciate it, but you really approached this task with a lot of professionalism and grace and your commitment to this committee is very apparent, so thank you for that. I just have three sets of questions. The first one is, I want to approach this issue of how in the amendment we sort of set up the zoning, what's being proposed in the amendment itself, recognizing again as we've said several times, that this amendment is a work in progress, it was something put down so we could begin this hearing process, and then we're going to be looking at the amendment at the end of this process. But having said that, we have it so basically the amendment proposes a creation of three zones and a change of one zone. And to a point that Michele sort of alluded to, but something that's still on my mind, I know I want clarification on it, is: How is someone to look at those three zones, if you will, and say that that is not spot zoning? That's my first question.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, first of all, spot zoning is not called spot zoning solely because it's a spot.
Regardless of what you feel about Valley Hospital and their expansion plans, it is a single property zoning that I would suggest is not spot zoning to have a hospital there. What is key to spot zoning is not only that it's limited, in fact that's probably secondary to what spot zoning is, spot zoning is when you do zoning that is contrary to public interest, and it's designed to solely or primarily benefit private interests, and, secondly, when you haven't considered all of the relevant issues in it, that's what makes spot zoning. The zones that we've proposed here are different, largely because of the uniformity clause in the statute. By the "uniformity clause," I mean that the standards for the same use have to be uniform throughout the zone. These different zones have different standards, and they have different standards because of their location and their context.
So I'm not saying that this is the only way it could be done, far from it. What I'm saying, that the way it's been done, there is a logic to it and a sense to it. But there's probably half a dozen or more different ways you could do this and they would have a logic as well. It's not an exclusive thing to say that this is the only way. You know, we could move those boundaries, we could change those standards, as you said, this is a draft, but that's the simple reason for the different zones, there's different uses in the different zones, there's different development standards in different zones, and we have to have new zones to have those different standards. We can't have one zone with different standards for the same use, it's illegal. So I don't know if that answers the question or not.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yes.
No, I appreciate the clarification.
And you started going down the road that I want to go down is, you know, we put this down on a piece of paper a year ago, and now we've gone through a lot of testimony, we're still not finished with this process, but as you're looking at it, as you're thinking through this, as you give your report, did you think to yourself, you know, maybe there is a better way to do this? We had talked about overlay zones, we talked about a bunch of different things early on in the process. I had thrown out the submission of bifurcation or looking at this as two sort of different zones, a core and periphery or I think as you refer to it as core and fringe. Having now gone through this process looking at this report, in your mind is there a better way to do this?
MR. BRANCHEAU: There are certainly other ways of doing it. There is not ‑‑ I'm not ‑‑ let me put it this way, I don't know whether there is a better way. If I were presented with an another way or if I were to study another way, I could perhaps better answer that question. Whether I think it was superior to this one, but I don't have that before me so. You know, certainly these are not perfect. They never are. There are limitations imposed upon us by various factors, including affordable housing policy and other factors. I certainly would be open to evaluating different approaches, if these were viewed as problematic or not the best way of doing things.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: You know, I'm not saying this is it or nothing.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay. Again, we have a chance later in the process ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: Absolutely.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: ‑‑ to revisit this.
So my second question goes to, somebody has asked a question, aside from the way the amendment has these zoned right now, someone had asked the question, and I don't remember who it was or exactly when it was, but it was about the possibility of limiting the number of these types of apartments, whether in this amendment we could put in, let's say we decide to move forward with this but we decide in the village we don't want more than X amount of high density multi‑family housing that sort of fits this bill or it can't be a greater than X percentage of all housing in Ridgewood. And I think, and I could be wrong, I think your answer was you didn't think so at the time. But I was wondering, could we get clarification on that, because I think that goes to address a concern that a lot of folks have, probably including the board members, that if there was a way to sort of limit, put a finite number on this or finite percentage so we would be able to prevent the possibility, as remote as that possibility may be, of sort of these proliferating, these type of apartments proliferating throughout the downtown?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think the answer to that really depends upon the rationale. I would suggest that just a bare statement in the plan or ordinance that no more than X units without some supporting rationale would probably not fly legally, but if there were supporting reasons that were valid reasons, then you could, but not as a bare number statement. For example, the reasons for limiting density or limiting locations of housing, there can be many reasons why you would or wouldn't. It can relate, we looked at various factors, it could include is the land use compatible. Is the roadway network able to support that type of density or that use in that location. Do the bulk standards necessary for reasonable development, do they provide for compatible development. We could go on with a number of other reasons why you would or wouldn't. To me the best analogy is sort of, if you look at that existing land use map and that zoning map and you see the R‑4 and the R‑5 zones that ring the downtown area, does that mean someone can march in tomorrow and say I want R‑4 garden apartments, I want the same standards that you gave to those projects for me?
And to me the simple answer is, you are under no obligation to grant that. You have the ability to make the determination as you see best, as long as your reasons are valid and given equal reasons for this versus that, even if they could demonstrate that our reasons are just as good as the reasons for what you're doing, you could say, fine, well, we choose to do this anyway, because there's good reasons for what we've done, and we're not obligated to choose among competing good reasons, we can choose this good reason. And that's why you don't have to, if you give this to someone, give it to somebody else. As long as your reasons are sound, then I think you're protected. Obviously if they're not sound, then it's a whole different story.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure. I appreciate that. I suppose I'm less concerned about us or future Planning Boards feeling obligated than being able to put a limit on it for future Planning Boards decided they really wanted these all over the place, they would be limited in some way moving forward. My request would be, as we go through this process, if it would be possible for you to do some research to see if any other communities have imposed such sort of like a ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: A cap?
MAYOR ARONSOHN: A cap, if you will, a percentage or absolute numbers.
MS. RAZIN: Can I just say on thing on that? My only thought is there may not be a prohibition on putting something in the policy document in the Master Plan to that effect about what rationales. I think what Blais is saying is important about rationale. When you get to a zoning ordinance, you may run into some trouble in terms of effectuating a particular number maximum, because somebody is always allowed to seek a variance. And so you have to just keep that in mind, that even if someone wanted to seek a Master Plan amendment and then zoning ordinance amendment, you're always allowed by law to seek a variance, and then somebody would have to come in and make those proofs still. So whichever way any future developer would come in, Blais is right, whether they came in through a Master Plan or an ordinance process or they came through any type of municipal land approval process, they're always going to have to meet their individual merits, whether it's a variance or something else. So just to think about it, there may be some overall broader policies that we can incorporate at this level, but it may be trickier when we get to a real specific number, but Blais and I can both look into that.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I agree. If we can find out what our options would be in terms of putting a cap in there in a policy statement or something in the ordinance, some kind of check process for future benefits.
And my last set of questions, my last questions go back to, and Wendy had asked you about incentives with respect to affordable housing. I want to sort of address that question in the context of age restricted housing or we talked about at one point about public good, trying to incentivize somebody to get green space in one of those properties. Are those still the same incentives? And what is the process, and what would we do if we wanted to sort of incentivize age restricted housing or another public good?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I think we talked about this, I think in those on the tapes there's some discussion on the disk that you have, and I'll say I think what I remember saying then is that, generally speaking, an imposition of a restriction on the age of a resident of a home is viewed as a discriminatory action, unless there is sufficient basis for doing it. I think that's why you've asked it in the way of incentivizing it, as opposed to requiring it.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU: And I think you could incentivize age restricted housing, you have to give something to get something, and so I think what one of the things we talked about is if you wanted to incentivize age restricted housing, you could, for example, give it a higher density than for other housing types on the rationale that it generates less parking demand, therefore, you have more room for parking and you could fit more units. Secondly, it generates less traffic, it's going to have less impact on the street network and so forth, particularly if you have a street network that was congested. So I think you can incentivize it by, for example, density. Again, you have to factor in that effect of that density in larger buildings or taller buildings and what that affect would be, but that's one way of trying to incentivize age restriction. It doesn't mean you wouldn't allow anything else, it just means the density for regular housing would be X, the density for age restricted housing would be Y.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Thanks again, Blais. I appreciate all your work on this.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks, Paul.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I just want to set this up so I get my notes. Thanks, Blais. Thank you for your report. I also wanted to thank the members of the public for their questions, which have absolutely helped me frame some of my questions to Blais as well. So, Blais, Wendy Dockray had asked a question and it was one of the first questions on my list. I'm going to approach it a little bit differently than she did. Page 2, the map depicting the existing conditions or showing, in my view, and I think it is what Wendy attempted to convey or did convey, was that the subject properties are squarely in the B‑1, B‑2 or C districts, and are squarely within the Central Business District. So I'm concerned actually with the encroachment of residential into what is the centerpiece of our town, our Central Business District. And according to our existing Master Plan, our efforts should be to promote business, to encourage businesses, and to have that foot traffic in that context, with the less emphasis being on the residential component. So I'm interested in better understanding, and I just was going to point out, a gentleman just asked a question, Mr. Watson asked a question about this mixed use component, and you said that the projects would allow for mixed use, but currently, it's required. So there's a distinguishable difference. So in the B‑1, in other words, the B‑2 zone currently requires residential ‑‑ I'm sorry, retail or business on the ground floor. Would that be accurate?
MR. BRANCHEAU: B‑1 or B‑2?
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I'm sorry?
MR. BRANCHEAU: B‑1 requires retail and certain services on the ground floor. B‑2 would require commercial on the ground floor but, beyond retail.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Business?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So commercial ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: That allows housing on the upper floor.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: But it's required on the ground floor presently.
So the distinguishable difference becomes what someone is allowed to do versus what they are required to do. Is that fair?
MR. BRANCHEAU: That's one, not the only.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So what I'm interested in understanding better is why we would want to undermine to a certain extent, I'm not saying in terms of the density of the housing, just in the retail components, the ground floor, why would we want to undermine what is really the jewel, the centerpiece of the village is the expansion or the promotion of a walkable retail environment?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, two things.
When the ‑‑ and you'll hear it on the tape, if you listen to it, I believe it was September 17th, when the committee made its recommendations, to the full board. At that time, the recommendation was in fact commercial on the ground floor, and it was in discussions with the full board that that was, it was not required, it was allowed but not required. But maybe the broader issue is that in my mind, I'm not viewing the housing as so much as an encroachment into the downtown as a benefit to the downtown by putting people on the street. I know when we were looking at sites, we were concerned not to put housing in locations that would wipe out viable commercial properties. So, for example, we looked at properties of an acre or greater and we said why would we want to zone King's, Stop & Shop, Whole Foods, for housing? That would wipe out the commercial use of those areas, which we felt was valuable. So, yeah, I agree with you 100 percent, we don't want this to harm the downtown, but in another sense, this is widely viewed as, and not just me, as if you put housing near the downtown, it can help the downtown. So in a different way, it's helping the downtown. And in many locations that we've talked about, I mean we can debate where that exact boundary would end, but, for example, on Chestnut Street, it's in a location that, in my mind, while you might be able to put an office there, I don't really see it as a retail location, I don't see much of Chestnut Street as a retail location, so I don't view that as really killing a viable retail location. And perhaps the same could be said for S. Broad Street, it's really getting beyond the main areas of the downtown. And so I don't view that as. The other two properties of the developers are closer to the downtown area, they're sort of edge properties, so there is a gray area there, you could debate that point whether those should be more retail or not. Certain core periphery argument that the Mayor has promoted, but I really don't see this ‑‑ we've really made effort to try not to harm the commercial base of the downtown and to try to help the commercial base in the downtown.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So equally, and I actually want to go to another point that you had made during the public question as it relates to your report, a gentleman from S. Murray, Oliver, he had asked a question, how does this benefit ‑‑ let me just see ‑‑ who does this benefit other than a developer?
And you responded, one of your points was that the CBD would become a more fun place to be.
And I'm just wondering how is it better or more fun for someone from the more broader community, and, in fact, wouldn't the inclusion of a retail, a promoting retail, actually in some instances, we're actually removing that component, so wouldn't the expansion and the inclusion of retail and commercial support variety and also generate more foot traffic? Isn't that a plausible scenario as opposed to exclusively residential?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm certainly not opposed to ground floor retail or mixed use, if that's the direction that the board wants to go.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: As far as benefitting the town, I think there are many reasons the CBD benefits the downtown. I don't know if we need to go into those, but if you want, I can, but I do think that the viability of the downtown and the fact that it's an attractive downtown, it's a downtown that I think much of the village is proud off, it has its issues, but many towns would be happy to have a downtown like Ridgewood's. I think the health of the downtown is important to the village as a whole. Even if you don't shop there, I think you benefit by it in a number of ways.
So I'll leave it at that, unless you want me to go beyond.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: No, no, that's fine. Okay. Just for explanation, on page 6, you have a note that the Master Plan, higher density is recommended but was never adopted. Could you just expand on that? I think it's on page 6.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Where are you at? Oh, was never adopted ‑‑ the ordinance you mean?
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU: For the AH‑2 zone?
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Uh‑huh.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The way it typically works when you do a housing plan is, because there's some uncertainty whether the state will certify that plan as meeting its standards, and because there's a potential for objectors, and in fact there was objectors when we filed our housing plan with the state, those objections have never been resolved.
Typically what happens is you wait until those objections are resolved through mediation and you wait until the state approves your housing plan, because the last thing you want to do is adopt an ordinance and have the state not approve your plan or have an objection and then you're in sort of this limbo regarding your zoning. So you typically wait until those issues are resolved.
They were never resolved in the case of the village. Not through any fault of the village's, but because the state itself had its rules invalidated by the courts and the whole premise of the plan was put in limbo. So we couldn't move forward, because the state couldn't move forward, and that's why the ordinance never moved forward.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: On page 8 of your report, I was actually very surprised by the omission of Blocks 1912, Lots 2 and 3, which represent the Oak Street Apartments. So what I was interested in understanding is your method, the exact method you used for determining which were included and which were not? And I think that that would go also to the same point of the counts for the schoolchildren, because you used the same units. And in fact, I'll even ask you a couple of questions on that, once you respond.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I would say proximity, because I do believe there is a difference in the downtown versus other areas. As to the exact boundary, I can't tell you sitting here why I drew the boundary in one particular place. I did include the schoolchildren for all multi‑family in the table on page 14 ‑‑ I'm sorry, that's the CBD. I did include them in the table on page 16. So Oak Street is on the table on page 16, as are all multi‑family in the village. It does show that there is a difference overall.
I did do table in the work session for multi‑family for the entire village as to the densities. I can give you that to you, but I think the issue of density around the downtown area is different than the issue of density, say, at the Bellaire Condos or in some other area that's completely surrounded by single family housing. So that was the basis for a distinction being made. As to precise boundaries, though, I can't sit here and tell you why I did that, I can only tell you that was based upon proximity to the downtown and that I made a decision that certain developments were just too far away from the downtown to really count.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: But when you're thinking about that and, again, I'm just trying to understand better, when somewhere you made a decision to include, to exclude, and I just wondered how many residents of Ridge Crest would walk from Ridge Crest to the Central Business District and get on a train as opposed to how many from the Oak Street Apartments might walk downtown and board the train to go to work. Just in terms of walkability, I was just trying to figure out how we just made that decision or why Ridge Crest, and in fact to the purpose of this density report, I guess, is where I'm going with it, the density that was evaluated at the end, the average density was dramatically changed by the inclusion or exclusion of certain buildings and complexes, and so I find it interesting one of those built in 1915 was prior to any zoning, another one from I think 1920s, 1920 exactly, prior to any real zoning, would it have been prudent to look at what was built during a time when zoning was implemented? And I guess to Wendy's point also was the issue was there's no parking at the one unit, there's absolutely zero parking, so again I'm just trying to, I'm wondering how did that affect your average units per acre and how did it change it?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, first of all, the densities in the plan are not based upon the average units per acre.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I know that.
MR. BRANCHEAU: All right. So we ‑‑
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: But ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: So we have not used, it was just there for comparison. And, to be fair, regardless of when they were built, the density does exist in the downtown area. It may not be relevant as to what you could do today, because you'd have to account for parking, but it is relevant as to the size, the height, the mass of buildings in the downtown area. So they were included for purposes of being comprehensive, but, like I said to Wendy, I totally agree, I'm not suggesting that those densities are appropriate for the downtown area that are on those properties. Just like I included along with the density of 4.8 units per acre, I'm not suggesting that's appropriate either, but they were all included, because they were located in or near the CBD, and I wanted to show you what the densities were. It's not suggested to indicate to you what densities are appropriate, it's just what exists.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I only ask, because you did the subtotals at the end and that's actually the reason I was asking, because those subtotals were interesting. It changed, it changed the dynamic of it. But just moving on from there. When Paul, Mayor Aronsohn just asked a question about controlling the density. Is it possible that the density is controlled through the floor area ratio and the inclusion of retail, so you're not dictating the number of units per acre, but if you're controlling floor area ratio, then you again, you're controlling what happens, there is a limit based on floor area ratio. Is that fair and is that doable?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Absolutely. The two are inextricably related. There's nothing to say that you have to have a floor area ratio or that you have to have a density, both, you could have one or the other. In fact, for many years floor area ratio was used solely on nonresidential and density was used solely on residential. The reason we used both was both as a limiting factor as well as an accommodating factor. By that I mean, it was expressed that there was the desire for higher end housing, which generally means larger units than smaller units and it also means larger area for amenities. To get those larger units, to get those amenities in a building, you need a larger floor area. So that was part of the thinking that went into the floor area. And as Wendy indicated, we did look at a hypothetical situation, we looked at different unit sizes and what kind of densities would result, and we came up with densities that would result anywhere in the range of 43 I think was the low to 70 something, depending upon the unit sizes. So even though you could build a smaller unit size, we capped the density less than just the floor area would allow. But clearly you want floor area ratio and density to be working together. You would hate to have a floor area ratio that you could never achieve, because you'd exceed the density or you don't want to have a density that could never be achieved, because yourfloor area ratio would prevent that from happening. So, you know, certainly there's some overlap and they don't always work out 50/50, but, yes, we could, those are tools both for incentives and for limiting to be done and they can be used to achieve different objectives.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Thank you.
I too actually like Wendy was fascinated by the appendix. I have to go into that. The TOD, transit oriented development, there was a direct benefit to obviously New Jersey Transit.
Of the three subject properties, as New Jersey Transit has broken it into three separate entities, the light rail, train and bus, which one, I guess the Maple Avenue area is more oriented toward the bus, would that be, they take a proximity to the property and determine who's more likely to use what form of transportation?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think walking distance is the key indicator there. Obviously whether I take the train or the bus may depend upon where I'm going as well and when I'm going, the frequency of the routes, there's a lot of factors to consider. But generally walking distance is one of the primary considerations. If I have to walk a mile to go to mass transit, I'm less likely to use it whether you have to walk a quarter mile, whether it's bus or train.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So when New Jersey Transit develops this transit‑oriented development, obviously they want that for one reason, because it increases their ridership, that is their objective. Is that fair?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'd say that's one of their objectives. I don't know, you know, I think the whole issue of mass transit itself is there for a number of reasons. I think the whole subject of the mass transit is involved in the New Jersey Transit things. Certainly New Jersey Transit benefits by increased ridership, but I think in another sense we all benefit from increased ridership of mass transit, because we reduce automobile usage. It reduces congestion on the roads, it reduces pollution. For a number of reasons, it's a good thing to do. So as to New Jersey Transit's motivations for it, I don't know what those are, but I do know that the state, whether it's New Jersey Transit or other bodies, encourages mass transit usage is for those other reasons, not so that New Jersey Transit can pad its bank account.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: But for Ridgewood, necessarily, we're not reducing our vehicular traffic, if you will, we're not reducing our vehicular traffic. We're just bringing people in to new units who are going to ride the train and the bus, Ridgewood will not see a reduction in traffic based on this, it's just new bodies.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Of course not, no. If that were the only reason you were doing this, I would say ‑‑
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: No, I'm not suggesting it's the only reason, because it's part of your report, I can't help but at least explore it.
MR. BRANCHEAU: This is what I would call a broader public benefit, like using green energy, okay. While we may benefit in cost savings, the whole region benefits in not having exhaust emissions coming out of our chimneys. So that's a good thing to do for the region as a whole. All of us who travel the highway will thank you for encouraging mass transit, because it makes our life easier, it makes the state's transit system breathe easier. And when I say "transit," I don't mean necessarily mass transit, but I mean the highways and so forth, we all benefit by that. So while the village specifically may not see reduced traffic, the surrounding area and the region will. So there is a broader public benefit to putting housing in a location near mass transit, near shopping, near other things, where it's more likely to walk than drive. But you're right, as to the specific area of Ridgewood, no, we're not going to reduce traffic.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. One last question.
The Rutgers study, in terms of the discrepancy, was it Brian Abdoo said it was four times the number, was the discrepancy.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. That was a mistake.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So Ridgewood essentially is an anomaly as far as that report is concerned, is that a fair ‑‑
MR. BRANCHEAU: If you mean that the average numbers represented by Rutgers are not representative of Ridgewood, I would agree. If you mean that we're the only municipality that has higher numbers than the Rutgers study, then I would say no, other municipalities have that characteristic. The Rutgers figures are averages, they don't represent the full range of what can happen.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So is there any other information that as this process is moved forward that might also hold true in the same way that, I guess I won't call Ridgewood an anomaly, but that Ridgewood might not hold true to the standard?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm not sure what you mean, are there other ways?
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Are there other reports, other material that ‑‑ the Rutgers study studied the number of kids that were able to be counted through the Board of Ed was a very concrete number, you were able to establish a very concrete basis for that discrepancy. Is there anything else that could show up as a discrepancy later on down the road that we heard as testimony here where we haven't had the same ability to have a concrete number? Am I framing my question right?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, yes, it's difficult to answer. One that comes to mind as a possible is parking.
The Master Plan, though it doesn't really make a stand on that, it says current law on parking is that we have to use the state standards, we can deviate from those standards, if adequate proofs are put forward to demonstrate that parking is not needed. But that would be dealt with at the time on a case‑by‑case basis. So as to when that time comes, I would recommend that the board, the council, whoever, most likely the board, look very carefully and not necessarily accept the average numbers by ITE or somebody else, but clearly look at the characteristics of Ridgewood itself and other areas that are like Ridgewood to see what the actual parking demand is and go there. So that's one that I think of, but I can't think of others off the top of my head.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: All right. Let me just, it's getting late, I'll let Nancy go. Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think the mayor had a question.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: A really quick clarification. Going back to the question that Susan had raised about the impact on traffic and this idea that by bringing in, let's say you have an apartment building, you would bring in all these people, New Jersey Transit might benefit, but there would be an increase in traffic in Ridgewood.
But isn't it important, and this is where I got a little confused, because I think as you testified in the past and as our traffic consultant has testified, the proper way to look at this is not just looking at the apartment building or the apartment proposal in and of itself, it's looking at the other uses, and that compared to almost every other use, this would have less of a negative, I guess, an impact on traffic, that there would be less car traffic with an apartment building in one of those spots than there would be if we had a bank, if we had a convenience store. Is that how you look at this?
MR. BRANCHEAU: My recollection on the traffic testimony was that the traffic that would come out of multi‑family housing in general is less than some permitted uses that could be developed in these areas.
Something that wasn't done for purposes of being conservative was factoring in pedestrian traffic. For example, if you build a store, an office building on these properties, it's less likely that people are going to walk to the office building than people who live there would walk downtown. And no reduction was made in trip generation for the housing use, when in fact you would likely see some reduction in the trip generation of the housing use, because some people would in fact walk to the train or to the bus stop or to the restaurants or the stores, whereas an office worker probably would have to drive to work and very few people commute to Ridgewood, they may commute from Ridgewood, but not many people are going to be commuting from somewhere else to come to work in Ridgewood, some are, maybe take the bus or something like that, so what I'm saying is the traffic study found that the traffic from housing would be similar or less than what could result from some permitted uses in the downtown today. It was conservative, because it didn't factor it even lower traffic because of pedestrians that live there walking to different things. So, yeah, I think that answers it.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Thank you. I appreciate it.
MS. BIGOS: Blais, I too thank you for your professionalism and dedication to our village residents.
Mine is more a question regarding the process moving forward.
We have listened to years of testimony. We've heard from experts. We have listened to various interest groups. We've had reports from departments heads, the Board of Education, and, most importantly, our fellow neighbors and friends. I think very soon we're going to need to come to the point where as individuals and collectively as a board we would again like the opportunity to opine on all of this knowledge that we've been able to gather through these last couple of years. And I'm just curious, how do we get the opportunity to revisit this draft document before us and then begin the discussion moving forward?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I think that opportunity will happen after all testimony and cross examination has occurred and all public comments have been received. I envision then the board would deliberate, and how it deliberates, if that's the focus of your question is an open question, the board could choose to look at certain issues and explore those, discuss those. It could go in a number of different ways. But that's kind of how I see it. And based upon that deliberation, if the board chose to accept this, it would vote. If it chose to reject it out of hand, it could do that, or it could choose to say yes to parts and no to parts and say we need to amend the plan. And if you amend the plan, then I think you would extend the hearing to deal with the amendments. You don't have to revisit everything all over again, but you'd have to deal with the part that you've amended on notice and in a continued hearing with testimony, cross examination on only those issues. I don't know if Katie has anything to add to that.
MS. RAZIN: I would generally agree. I think that you can make any of those decisions, I think the testimony, I know there's still a couple of follow‑up witnesses and public comment that remains. And at the time of deliberation, like Blais said, there are a bunch of different options, and I think it would be up to the board whether it wants to hear more, if it was going to choose to make a change, it would be I guess up to the board whether it needed more testimony or just more testimony from Blais or for Blais to just come back and explain it, I think that would be up to you guys. But you could choose to accept, reject it or make a change. And as Blais said, that would have to be noticed, whether it was a substantial change that would have to be noticed, so there would be that built into that, I think otherwise he probably summarized it correctly.
MS. BIGOS: My question is: When do we have this discussion? Before we go before public hearing or after public hearing?
MS. RAZIN: You mean public comment?
MS. BIGOS: Public comment, yes.
MS. RAZIN: Well, you're always allowed to make any comments that you want at any time during the proceedings. I think at this point you've come to a point where we're pretty close to hearing from the public, hopefully in the meetings starting in January we're going to get to them, hopefully, although things take a long time, but assuming we can get through that, I would think you would want to wait and hear that, because now we would have heard from almost everybody else from that point, except for anybody needing to come back or anything like that. So, again, you're always welcome to make any comment, I'm sure everybody would want to hear what everybody else has to say. But I think in terms of a concrete deliberation process, it should wait until the public comment begins.
MS. BIGOS: Okay, that makes sense. Thank you, Blais.
MR. THURSTON: I'd like to, Blais, pick up where Mr. Reilly left off and making inquiry about the balancing act.
The first question I have for you, though, and Katie maybe you will fill in on those as well, was Ms. Peters suggested that maybe we should be looking at down zoning these sites, and then the mayor mentioned about spot zoning. Wouldn't down zoning these sites be spot zoning, in order to avoid the balancing act with the current uses versus the proposed uses?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I guess I'd have to ask more the specifics than why. You know, any zone has to have good reasons in support, whether it's up, down or sideways. But without knowing specifics in a particular down zoning, I would say this, that, generally speaking, to treat particular properties in one area different than the surrounding properties there needs to be valid reasons for doing so. So, for example, if you were to say, say these properties are limited to 30 feet in height but right next door and all around it would be allowed to have 45 feet in height, I'm not saying it would be illegal automatically but I'm sure it would be suspect and you'd have to explain why different treatment. All right. There are cases where it may be valid, but this just raises flags, it raises flags legally. If you're going to consider something like that, you would need to consider it for the surrounding area as well and you need to consider more importantly your reasons. And I'm not saying there aren't reasons, I'm just saying is that at the core of the question is the fairness to all, not putting the burden on particular properties to solve a problem that's caused by the wider area.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you wouldn't mind, the acoustics in here are very difficult, so for the remainder of this meeting, please, if you have something to say to your neighbor, please take it outside. Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU: So I don't know if I answered your question, but you have to be careful.
MS. RAZIN: I would agree with what Blais said, and just to go back to that issue, there was an issue I think Michele raised about grandfathering and I think that was one of the issues, grandfathering. With regard to the uses that are more farther down Chestnut that we talked about with the more auto body related uses, if there's an existing use and you change the zoning, that use becomes a nonconforming use and it's allowed to continue in its current form. But when there's not a use presently occupying a site, it becomes more complicated potentially about what's grandfathered.
So down zoning may have different impacts and changes in zoning is going to have different impacts as you look throughout the different uses.
MS. PETERS: Yes, it never used the words "down zoning."
MS. RAZIN: I know.
MS. PETERS: It has to do with the use of the space, because what was very much in my brain the whole time here is about applying for a variance is that when you go in front of the Zoning Board and what is really in my mind was what was reported about the stealth tower going on top of the cross at the Presbyterian Church and residents were saying, it's going up too high. And now that's really kind of interesting, it's like, they can make an application, it comes to the site plan examination and they can say, I am making application to go higher for my particular use. We're supposed to be talking about the big picture. We're supposed to be talking about what is the best use, what should be here and used, and I feel, Susan, I thank you so much for what you said about was this an encroachment or a benefit to the CBD, this is all about the big picture is what I feel we should be discussing and talking and keeping our focus on. So I didn't mean to go into this, but I felt like I had to say, it's not down zoning, that's not what I'm talking about here.
MR.THURSTON: Then moving on, the assumptions we have to make of the balancing act, we're to make between what could currently be put there and the proposed amendment. Is that correct, Blais?
MR.BRANCHEAU: Well, I think that's part of it, I don't know whether that's all of it. For example, you may feel that in general the idea of multi‑family housing around the downtown is a good thing, but you may not agree on the specifics. All right. So that's neither of the two, just elucidated. It's not this or nothing, there are perhaps, as the mayor suggested, different approaches that could be used that would achieve much of the public good of this proposal, just be done in a different way that might reduce the negatives.
You know, you may view a third alternative as neither of these that is worthy of pursuit, but that depends on the details of what that alternative is.
MR.THURSTON: But if then we decide, any of us, that it is a benefit to the public for multi‑family housing, don't we then really have to do an economic analysis in order to determine what sort of density works?
Because what I'm hearing is people are talking about getting less density. It gets to a point where it doesn't economically make any sense and, therefore, if you believe that the benefit to the public is multi‑family housing, and it won't be built because it doesn't economically make sense, then you're going to lose the benefit to the public.
MR. BRANCHEAU: If you mean economic analysis, you mean an almost a pro forma type analysis where a developer looks at the bottom line at the end of the day, cost versus return, I would say generally that's not done, although you do have to have an understanding of the economics, and I need to clarify a little bit here.
Just because someone doesn't make money doesn't mean you should change the standards so they can make money. It still has to fit within your vision of what you hope to do. And if they can't make money within that vision, well, it just didn't work out.
On the other hand, you know, we shouldn't be trying to regulate how much money somebody makes, that's not what we're about. If they make a windfall from something, well, you know, as long as what they're doing is generally in the public interest, then I would hope they would make money, because no one is going to build anything without making money. Where you get into trouble, I think what you're suggesting is if you zone for something but you zone it in a way that doesn't make economic sense for somebody, you've wasted everyone's time and you have to reach a point, I don't think you'll ever have precise understanding of that when you go through the Master Plan and do that.
I mean, we have a different situation here in that we have specific developers, but typically when you do a Master Plan, you're in a vacuum, you don't have particular developers or interested parties before you seeking to do something.
You're kind of, you have a general understanding of land values, you have a general understanding of construction costs and what's needed to make a go of things, but it's never precise.
So we don't normally go and do that type of analysis. Now, if someone were to come forward and said here's our analysis and what you're proposing at say 20 units per acre doesn't make economic sense, and if you would raise this to 22 per acre, it could actually work, then you might say it's close, all right, and, you know, better to get half a loaf, so to speak, than none. If we could live with the compromise a little bit, maybe by adjusting this standard or that, we could allow an increased density without having a corresponding negative effect, yeah, then you might look at the economics more closely, but normally not.
MR.THURSTON: Okay. Thank you.
MR.BRANCHEAU: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay, David.
I'm looking at the time, it's about 11:15. I have a few questions. It will probably take sometime. I know Kevin Reilly isn't here. So why don't we resume with more questions and professionals' questions and then cross-examination by counsel at the next meeting. Let me just go over a few calendar issues.
Looking at the calendar, our next meeting is on January 6th. It will be at the high school. So we'll continue with the board questions, and then cross examination by the attorneys. I'd like to request, though, that the applicant attorneys and interested parties come prepared for any rebuttal they may have for the sixth of January, so that if we are prepared to begin that, we will begin that on the sixth. And we'll continue that likely on the 13th, which will be the following meeting. So again January 6th, January 13th. We've currently targeted as a Special Meeting the 29th of January for the meeting to continue. And at this point, it looks like that may be the day for public comment to begin. So either on the 6th or the 13th, probably on the 6th, I'll go through the process for public comment in anticipation of the 29th. Again, that's not firm but that's a projected timeframe that we currently have for public comment.
MR. WEINER: Where is the 13th?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The 6th and the 13th will be at the high school. I believe the 29th is as well.
Michael, is the 29th also at the high school?
MR. CAFARELLI: Yes, also at the high school.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please note that the 29th is a Thursday, it's not a Tuesday. The 6th and the 13th are Tuesdays and the 29th is a Thursday.
February 3rd, which I think, I believe is the first meeting in February, will likely be at least an additional day of public comment, and then we'll have more information later as we go through our progress with each of these sessions.
MR.WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question. We had talked about wanting the applicant or the developers to actually ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Correct.
MR.WELLS: ‑‑ make a presentation, and I understand ‑‑
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That will be after public comment, I believe. Was it before? MS. RAZIN: No.
MR.WELLS: So that will be on the 6th, I think you said?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The 6th or 13th.
MR.WELLS: And then you mentioned something about legal counsel, legal counsel would be the very end, correct?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, rebuttal or statements, be prepared on the 6th.
MR. WELLS: So, for example, Mr. Leventhal would be testifying.
Mr. Nalbantian: Yes.
Mr. Wells: And then closings would be at the very end?
Ms. Razin: Additional witnesses or witnesses that you would like to address the issues, on the 6th, they would be on the next meeting and continued on the 13th, if necessary, but of course you would be allowed to do, you legal counsel would be allowed to do a closing.
Mr. Wells: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Nalbantian: Of course.
So this meeting will be carried then until the 6th of January 2015 at the Ridgewood High School student center without further notice.
(Whereupon, the matter is adjourned at 11:16 p.m., to be continued on 1‑6‑15.)
Adoption of Minutes: February 4, 2014, February 18, 2014, and October 21, 2014
The Board voted to adopt the minutes for February 4, 2014, February 18, 2014, and October 21, 2014.
The meeting was closed to the public.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Cafarelli
Board Secretary
Date approved: August 4, 2015
