Planning Board Meeting Minutes 20180320


The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of March 20, 2018. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.
 
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Torielli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Following members were present: Mayor Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Chief Van Goor, Melanie McWilliams, Francis Barto, and David Scheibner. Also present were Board Attorney, Christopher Martin, Esq., Village Planner, Autumn Sylvester; Village Engineer, Christopher Rutishauser, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Richard Joel was not present.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – None were reported
Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics – Mr. Scheibner reported on three Site Plan Exemption Committee applications. 
Correspondence received by the Board – None were reported
Ordinance #3625, which amends Chapter 190, Land Use and Development to permit certain illuminated signs in the B-1, B-2, and C Districts – Discussion on the ordinance was postponed.
200/210 South Broad Avenue, LLC, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan and C Variance, Block 3905, Lot 6 and 7, Pubic Hearing continued from November 7, 2017 – (The following is a transcription of the audio file of the Village of Ridgewood Planning Board Meeting of March 20, 2018 concerning 200/210 SOUTH BROAD AVENUE LLC application. Audio File starting at 6:59.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: All right. We'll move on to Item Number 5 on the agenda, which is 200 210 South Broad Avenue, LLC, preliminary and final major site plan and (c) variance, Block 3905, Lot 6 and 7. This is a public hearing continued from November 7, 2017. 
MR. COLLINS, good evening? 
MR. COLLINS: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. 
My name is Charles Collins. And I'm an attorney here in Ridgewood. I'm here tonight on behalf of this application which is presented to you by two limited liability companies, both of which have as their principal, Dr. Anna Korkis, who is in the room tonight with us. I'm looking at the board, I don't believe that I've seen MS. BARTO before or Mr. Van Goor, so I'm going to give a brief recap of why we're here so that everybody starts on the same page, if that's all right, Mr. Torielli? 

The matter was originally brought before the zoning board, and it was brought before the zoning board because the building at 210 South Broad Street, which is vacant at this time, consisted of two floors, and the intention of the proposal was that both floors would be occupied and used for a purpose. The difficulty with that proposal, however, was that it called into play a floor area ratio variance because of the use of the two floors. And we were strongly encouraged to eliminate that floor area ratio variance if we wanted to get ahead in the world. And as a result, we did reduce the occupancy of the basement by 50 percent, which took it out of the jurisdiction of the zoning board of adjustment, and sent us before this board for approval of (c) variances that the application invokes. And we'll talk more about those later on.
We had our first hearing in November of last year; that is the only hearing, and it became very clear in the give and take that a principal concern of the board was parking. The reason for that is that 210 South Broad Street can only accommodate ten on site parking spaces. And we had indicated that it was a possibility that the use of that property would be medical. We all know that the zoning regulations do not depend upon the use, they depend upon area, and as a result the ten parking spaces were    which were originally approved by the zoning board were an element that we were carrying into this application. But I could tell, it wasn't difficult to tell that everybody said, well, where are you going to    if it's a medical use, where are you going to park? And with that as a motivation, we put our heads together and this evening we are going to offer you a shared parking arrangement for your consideration. And I don't say that it comes variance free, there will be a variance attached to it. But it will be better than the one that was presented to you back in November which was ten parking spaces offered against 30 parking spaces required. We've done a good job of slimming that down for the board's consideration, if you want to put it that way. I don't know that there's anything else that I need to give you to bring you up to speed, Mr. Van Goor or MS. BARTO. So with that, Mr. Torielli, I'll start with my witnesses.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Sounds good. So last time, just for the record, we heard from your engineer, MR. SHORTINO. We did not hear from your architect or your planner. Will we have more testimony from your engineer tonight or are we going to go right into the architect? 
MR. COLLINS: No. What I thought we would do is deal with the architect right away, and then bring MR. SHORTINO back because he's critical in addressing the parking problem. And then, finally, we have as our planner John Szabo from the Burgis firm who will try to sum up for us.
CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Sounds good.
MR. MARTIN:  MR. COLLINS, Jordan Rosenberg, I think, was called, but I'm not sure if he was qualified. 
Do you want me to just walk him through real quick? 
MR. COLLINS:  Yeah.  The   
MR. MARTIN:  Just to move forward.
MR. COLLINS:  Jordan    you're talking about the architect? 
MR. MARTIN:  Yeah.
MR. COLLINS:  Yeah, sure.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay. Mr. Rosenberg, raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? 
MR. ROSENBERG: I do.
J O R D A N  R O S E N B E R G, 27 North Broad Street, 2nd Floor, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: And just for the record, full name, business address, please? 
MR. ROSENBERG: Jordan Rosenberg, 27 North Broad Street, 2nd Floor, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
MR. MARTIN:  You're a licensed architect in New Jersey.
MR. ROSENBERG:  I'm a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey since 2004.
MR. MARTIN:  And you've been qualified as such before different boards, including planning boards and zoning boards? 
MR. ROSENBERG:  I have, yes, quite a few.
MR. MARTIN:  Any other admissions? 
MR. ROSENBERG:  Not that would be relevant. Licensed in other states, as well, but...
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  License in good standing all around? 
MR. ROSENBERG:  Yes.  Yes, sir.
MR. MARTIN:  And in terms of highest degree obtained? 
MR. ROSENBERG:  Excuse me? 
MR. MARTIN:  Highest degree obtained. 
MR. ROSENBERG:  A master's of architecture   
MR. MARTIN:  From? 
MR. ROSENBERG:     and bachelor's from Tulane University.
MR. MARTIN:  Very good. And qualified as a professional architect tonight. 
Thank you, MR. COLLINS. Go ahead.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. You are the architect on this project?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you prepared the plans which have been submitted to the board?
A. I did.
Q. I'd like you to go over them briefly, but as usual, thoroughly, and so the board realizes what we're dealing with in terms of the structure itself.
A. Certainly. I'll be brief but thorough. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
So we have an existing one story building that, if you've had an opportunity to drive by it    
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Jordan, just for the record, we're all referencing your plans that are dated March 1st, 2018? 
THE WITNESS:  That's right.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay. Thanks. 
MR. MARTIN:  We can mark that, what are we up to, A 3? 
Let's mark this package, A 3.
THE WITNESS:  Did you say A 3? 
MR. MARTIN: Applicant 3.
(Whereupon, Architectural Plans dated 3/01/18 are received and marked as Exhibit A 3  for identification.)   
THE WITNESS: If you've had an opportunity to drive by this building you'll see it's in quite a state of dilapidation. It hasn't really been upgraded. It's a bit dreary looking from the outside.
The intention, of course, is to give it an extraordinary facelift. Clean    you want me to use this? 
MR. CAFARELLI: Either one. Speak into that or use that, either one.
THE WITNESS:  Speak louder into this one?
MR. CAFARELLI:  Yes, please. 
THE WITNESS:  Okay.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  No problem.
If I may, I'm going to jump to the elevations first on page A 02.  Just to show you, the house is    a house.  You can tell me I'm a residential architect, as well. The building is 2,936 square feet.  The    we're going to be providing a new cornice molding, new colonnade entrance, new windows, new stucco, new window facing, new stonework, and a very elegant and homogenous color composition. It's going to look clean, pretty, elegant. It's not going to be an eyesore anymore. And, essentially, it's going to look new. It's going to look like a new building, even though it's going to    been there forever. Now, if you're    as MR. COLLINS stated, it's currently vacant, although when I first started this project in measuring there was a tenant there that had occupied 100 percent of the building on both floors, and there were previous tenants as well. The intention is to gut the entire inside and to create two medical use tenancies of unknown medical use at this time. We don't have tenants. Each    the first floor will be divided into two tenants, with a shared fire rated two hour lobby. Then they each have their own reception room and waiting area. Each tenancy will have four exam rooms and two, what's called, private consultation offices. And then, of course, ancillary uses that an office would need. The basement, only 50 percent of the basement is being proposed as finished and 50 percent will remain as unfinished basement area. The 50 percent that is finished will be used primarily for office administration, file storage and a small lounge area for people that are taking a break, employees and such. We are upgrading the property to be handicapped code compliant with a new ramp in front, barrier free. And it's basically everything inside is going to be new and upgraded. That's about it.
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. The building, itself, is not being expanded?
A. No. The building is    not only is the building not being expanded, but there currently is a two car    as it stands there today there's an oversized two car garage attached to this building, which the use of the garage was abandoned many years ago. And when I was measuring the building two years ago, when I started this project, the garage was actually being utilized as a workshop and for the tenants. And it had all kinds of wood shop equipment in there and steel cutting equipment. So it wasn't even really being utilized as a garage. Therefore, the garage, in theory, would have been counted in the FAR. So we are actually taking that garage and demolishing it entirely, which is    which is    it's not for me to testify on, that's what Brian's here for, MR. SHORTINO. But by demolishing this garage it really does open up the site to better flow of circulation and parking. And it also reduces the size of the building which helps us considerably.
MR. MARTIN:  So the footprint's not being expanded and, in fact, the garage is being demolished? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.  
MR. COLLINS:  I have no further questions of Mr. Rosenberg, if the board does? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Board Members, I guess we'll start with our right. 
Mr. Voigt?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So a couple questions on that. They're going to be medical uses, but you said they were undefined medical uses by specialty. By    you don't know what kind of specialty's going to be in the building? 
MR. COLLINS: You know, the doctor is here and I was talking to Bill before the meeting and he said, you know, it's very difficult to get a medical tenant in this day and age, and that is    that remains our preference. We're not withdrawing it, but it is possible that the force of economics may ultimately require that we abandon that in order to get a tenant in there.  I don't say that's going to happen, but it is a possibility.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, the reason I ask on the specialty is because I would imagine that, you know, based on the specialty you're going to see a certain number of patients on an hourly basis, like there's going to be a flow of traffic in and out of there based on the number of patients that you're seeing, whether it's primary care or orthopedics or    and that would help me to understand a little bit more. And maybe the physician wants to    not now, but physically might like to talk about the number of patients they see in an hour. The other question I have is, you said there's four exam rooms per floor; is that right? 
THE WITNESS:  Per tenant.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Per tenant, okay. 
So there's eight exam rooms.
THE WITNESS:  That's correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
And I would imagine those eight exam rooms would probably be all there    at any period of time, probably 100 percent occupied, I would guess. And so you're looking at    I don't know, you're looking at eight patients and maybe some people will come and    so you're looking at    you're looking at parking spaces for those patients. Then the other question I have is on the staff coming, what would be the staffing of it? I'm assuming there would be physicians, but there may be nurses and even practitioners, and that would help as well as far as understanding    I'm really kind of driving at what the parking needs are going to be at any particular time. So that kind of information would be very helpful. And you may or may not have it, or you may be able to provide some insight into it. And maybe do it at a later time, but that would help.
MR. COLLINS:  Well, I'm not    I'm sorry.  Is this working? 
My mellow tone's coming over.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah, you're fine.
MR. COLLINS:  I'm sorry, would you repeat that again for me, please?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  The whole thing? 
MR. COLLINS:  No.  No, no, no, no.  No, no, no.  No. No. No. I don't want to carry this into next month.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Can you speak about the occupancy based on the... 
MR. COLLINS:  Yes.  Well, the difficulty, of course, is that the parking requirements are based on area and not on usage. We've been very candid with you regarding what we would prefer to have there. But in the long run, you're going to measure parking based upon the area of the floor, and if there are insufficient parking for the particular use, we're just going to have to look up and down East Ridgewood Avenue and South Broad Street and North Broad Street to see the many, many stores and retail uses in the B2 zone which don't have any parking. 
Now I'm not saying that we won't do our best to provide parking. But we're not going to be able to do it if we have a high usage measurement that we have to meet.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So, Chris, can I ask you a question? 
So, by law, how do we    how do we interpret this? Because, you know, our    you know, intensity of use is based on the area of the space or one space for 250 square feet or something like that. And so do we use that law or do we have to    do we have interpret it based on what we believe to be, kind of, the intensity of the use? 
Again, it's unfortunate that our   
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Well, it's the area of both uses (inaudible).
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN: I think there's a person who actually has analyzed this sitting at the table over here   
MR. COLLINS:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:    who can probably let us know what spots are necessary under   
MR. COLLINS:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:    the proposal here is medical professional.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. Yes. So, Bridgette, you don't have to    maybe not now, but (inaudible). 
MS. BOGART:  I can answer the question from Jordan   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah, okay.
MS. BOGART:  (Inaudible). 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, yeah. I think    I think I'm done, I'll just wait for Bridgette to opine. 
MR. MARTIN: (Inaudible).   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, okay. Fair enough. I think I'm good, thanks.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Anybody else? 
David?   
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I don't have any questions for the architect.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Chief? 
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  No questions.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Susan? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Like old times. Okay. Jordan, just in terms of    so we have the four exam rooms and four exam rooms, and then the downstairs, the basement portion that's finished. That basement portion, is that intended    is that designed to be a support office space for this    these two upper facilities?  Is that   
THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's correct.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:    how that's intended. 
THE WITNESS:  It's not a third tenant.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And then is that    are those    they don't appear to be separate offices, so it just designed to facilitate    to be the support office space for one or both? 
THE WITNESS:  I asked that question   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh, you asked that question, too? 
THE WITNESS:     of the doctor before and   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh, okay.
THE WITNESS:    and the understanding is that it would be rent    the    the hope is that one of these two tenants, doctors, would rent out and they would assume the entire    that    that 50 percent area of the basement.  And   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  But then it's also feasible, it could be a third tenant, I guess? 
THE WITNESS:  That's not    that wasn't really a discussion.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  But let me rephrase the question, Jordan, then. 
In other words, it's designed to be either support for one of those two medical offices, or as a standalone operation in reality the way it's designed, and that's what I'm looking at, is the way it's designed it could, in fact, be a standalone office. 
THE WITNESS: I would say    I would say it could be, unless, of course, some stipulation was placed upon a resolution of approval that said it couldn't. Otherwise, I guess there would, theoretically, be nothing to stop them   
MAYOR KNUDSEN: But because it would be a third tenant then, right? Okay. All right.
THE WITNESS:  Although that's not how it's designed, of course.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. But, you know, and I guess the question then is, and    to MR. COLLINS, that the difficulty in renting out medical office space at this point, the question then is if not medical, then what?  And if    if not medical and then office space, then office space necessarily might not require additional office space as support, so then you would essentially have created three separate tenancies in that location. So it's just    it's what it is. Right?  Okay. I'm good for the moment.  Thanks. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Frances.
MS. BARTO:  (Inaudible).
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I think I just have similar concerns with    I mean, this is clearly set up, if I look at the proposed basement plan, as an administrative office, a billing office. There's a file room. There's a lobby and a lounge area in the basement area. And I have  I    you know, again, I don't know if they're necessarily questions for Jordan as much as they're questions for, you know, how this could actually all fit here on that street and in the area that it is with the level of traffic and congestion that's already there, but I'm not 100 percent sure my questions really are directed at you in any other way than gauging what – what will go in any of these spaces.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Debbie?  
THE WITNESS: I would just say, for the record, that it wouldn't be reasonable to disqualify the entire use of the basement. These tenancies of the first floor would absolutely need support use, like, storage rooms and file rooms and other ancillary uses, which aren't provided on the first floor. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Right, no I under    no, I'm not   
THE WITNESS:  So it would have to be down there.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm saying    yeah, no. I got it. I got it. 
THE WITNESS:  Okay. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I actually thought we were all going paperless so you probably would need less of a file room and just a bigger computer, but I don't know anymore. I don't know what you have to keep medically.
THE WITNESS:  True.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  Thanks.
MS. PATIRE:  So, Jordan, from our actual meeting back in November, right?  One of the concerns obviously that came up, as was stated earlier, was parking. Did you ever look at this plan in cutting the back left of the building off to allow for more parking? 
THE WITNESS:  Sorry, I didn't hear the last part of your question. 
MS. PATIRE:  Did you ever look at cutting the back half of the building off to allow for more parking? 
THE WITNESS:  So I'm not    I'm not really qualified to speak about the parking because I didn't    I wasn't the civil engineer that did the planning.
MS. PATIRE:  So let me readdress, did you ever look at  
THE WITNESS:  As far as   
MS. PATIRE:    cutting   
THE WITNESS:  As far as the building is, as it stands today, it's only 2900 square feet first floor plan. So it's not an excessively large building. And I was directed, of course, by my client that she felt that taking off 500 square feet, eliminating 500 square feet of the building as it has existed and been occupied for decades upon decades was enough of a    kind of a give and take to, hopefully, meet some sort of middle ground that would be a reasonable request.
If we took off, if we lopped off any more of this building I feel that    well, that would be unreasonable.
MS. PATIRE:  So you didn't look at cutting it off from our last meeting? 
THE WITNESS: No. Plus, taking off more of the building would expose the basement and, you know, the garage was an easy part to take off. It was on a slab.
MS. PATIRE: Understood. So, no, was the answer to the question, right? So no. 
THE WITNESS: I'm so sorry, I didn't   
MS. PATIRE: Sorry. So "no" was the answer to the question about looking at the back part to try to make   
THE WITNESS: There was    no, it was never   
MS. PATIRE:    parking.  Okay.
THE WITNESS:     contemplated to demolish the building   
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:     below 2900 square feet.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Jordan, I have just a couple questions about the occupancy of the building.
THE WITNESS:  Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  And how you calculated it. I see you have one occupant per every 100 square feet, which is typical for the IBC for business use, but how'd you calculate the occupancy or how are you classifying the occupancy of the cellar space? Storage? 
THE WITNESS: Give me one moment here. So    oh, you're talking about in terms of occupancy, in terms of   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Occupancy.
THE WITNESS:     egress, occupancy load? So at this particular moment, believe it or not, for the purposes of this planning board approval, I have not yet ran the calculations for occupancy because    well, I oversized the entry doors and exit doors because I know that even if we calculated the most stringent occupancy, we would    we would meet it. But, theoretically, the basement, being that it's used as ancillary storage space, would be calculated not at the    not at any business use occupancy, but at a storage use occupancy, which is much less. 
Again, the use doesn't really tie into the parking as it is tied to square footage   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Right.
THE WITNESS:     but we'll certainly    the intent was that    well, I do apologize, I don't have an occupancy calculation as per a business use or medical use. 
But I can certainly do that for you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So  
THE WITNESS:  Now, the reason I didn't run the calculation, and I apologize, is because the calculation of occupancy based on square footage and use is primarily used to determine egress, and I figured at such time as the building was approved and I was proceeding with construction documents at that time I'd do a very detailed, in depth zoning code    zoning review as it pertains to use and occupancy.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Sure. But I guess the    to get to the heart of the matter, so the first floor is fully occupied. But the question that I have really gets down to the cellar and how much of that's going to be considered habitable and how much isn't.
THE WITNESS:  Well, we know that 50 percent of the cellar is unfinished   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay.
THE WITNESS:     and unused space, and that's   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  But you're also replacing the windows in that part, right? 
THE WITNESS:  In the unfinished or in the finished basement? 
Well, we're certainly replacing the windows in the finished area, and we're replacing some windows in the window wells because they do face    the unfinished basement because they do face the parking lot and we don't want to look at some, you know, haunted house looking windows.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  But you're replacing those windows as in or like for like.  You're not expanding them and making them egress windows or anything like that.
THE WITNESS: No, those it happens that those three windows right there that you're looking at the rear of the building   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes.
THE WITNESS:    in the unfinished area and the rear of the building of the appendage sticking out are all clear story windows.  They don't    none of them are taller than 3 feet. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  And most of them are less than 2 feet in height. So that none of them are able to be egress windows. They're clearly more than 42 inches off the floor. So they would not meet egress because of that. The window wells are very shallow, in fact.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  What was that? 
THE WITNESS:  The window wells are very shallow.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, that    okay.  Got it.
And you said they're 42 inches off the floor? 
THE WITNESS:  So, to be constituted as a    to be considered an egress window you have to be less than 42 inches from the floor and we're higher than 42 inches above the floor, so they wouldn't constitute egress windows. They wouldn't comply with egress windows. 
Plus, they don't meet the required minimum square feet of operable area to be considered egress windows. They're more like ventilation windows.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I don't even think the whole    so I get the unfinished portion of the cellar that's there, you have per shade in gray. Mechanical spaces and unfinished, that makes sense. But then the area that you do have occupied, you have spaces, like, billing and collecting, lounge area. Those seem to be beyond what you consider to be, like, traditional storage of files and materials.  So you're probably having people    is it the plan to have people working down there, like, the billing department work down there, and can you explain a little bit about this lounge area that's off the elevator lobby? 
THE WITNESS:  So, I can't really speak as to the tenancy and the use, but the assumption is that if they are to be used as ancillary to the main functional use, then people will be going down there to file, to    there could potentially be one person working down there doing billing and collecting since there really isn't an office upstairs that does billing and collections and stuff like that. But the intent really was for it to be ancillary to the primary use upstairs. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So for MR. SHORTINO's work in calculating the required number of parking spaces, I assumed he got the square footage    the habitable square footage from you? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes, he did. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So what number did you give him? 
THE WITNESS:  So for the first floor, obviously, I gave him 2,936 square feet. For the basement area, the area of finished basement I gave him 1,442 square feet. And the area of unfinished basement I gave him 1,494 square feet.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  What was the unfinished? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  What was the unfinished number? 
THE WITNESS:  1,494 square feet is the area of unfinished basement, and 1,442 square feet was the area of finished basement. So the area    the percentage of basement that's finished is actually 49.1 percent. Just under 50 percent of the basement is finished.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So just    what's the total square footage you gave him of finished area? 
THE WITNESS: The total finished area would be    and if anyone has a calculator they could help me    2,936 square feet for the first floor plus 1,142 square feet for the   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  4378.
THE WITNESS:  That's right.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Did you say 1,042 or 1442? I thought you said 1442.
THE WITNESS:  1,442 square feet is the finished basement.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And then the 2900. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  2936.
THE WITNESS:  2936, plus 1442 equals 4,378.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay.  Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Are there any questions from the public for Jordan regarding his testimony? This is just questions for the architect on what he testified on. If you have any questions on what he said or need explanations, this is the time to ask it. There'll be an opportunity to give your comments later, of course.
Just come on up to the podium. And we just need your name and your address.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Yes, excuse me, ma'am. That mic is not working but there's a hand mic in there.  Okay.
MS. ROKER:  Okay.  Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Roker. I'm a resident of (inaudible) housing and also on the board of directors there. I'm concerned about the parking. They first said that they were going to have a parking at the entrance. And we were concerned that they would be reversing onto South Broad Street and we were concerned because of the pedestrians.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Right.
MS. ROKER: And also something about the garbage disposal, going to be placed near the wall? And I    we have disagreed with that because the residents have their bedrooms on that side and that will be disturbing. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I   
MS. ROKER:  Right now they have a disposal, we have businesses now, and at 6 o'clock in the morning where I am it's noisy.  And we disagree with that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay.  Can you spell your last name, please?
MS. ROKER:  R O K E R.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: R O K E R.  Got it.
MS. ROKER:  Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I appreciate your comments and they'll be    I promise you, you'll get a chance to give us all your comments on it, but this is a time just to ask questions of the architect.
MS. ROKER:  Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  But if you have any questions for him    that's okay.  If you don't have questions for him, that's okay. The engineer is going to speak next and he'll talk about the parking.  And you'll have a chance to ask him questions, too.
MS. ROKER:  Okay.  
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Is there any rendering that they can see? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah.  Can Elizabeth take a look at the    the elevations, because I don't think they've been   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Do you have a rendering of any kind for these audience members to look at?
MR. MARTIN:  Can you hold it up?
Elizabeth, if you want to take a look at the rendering?
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Put it on the easel.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  That way if you have questions for the architect...
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Are there any other questions from the public for the architect? (No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Any questions from Brigette? Chris, for the architect?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  None from me, thank you.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So why don't we just give them a minute to look just in case they might have questions   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Sure.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:    because they haven't been able to really look at those.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes, sure.
We can do Brigette first if you have anything.
MS. BOGART:  I just have one question.
MR. MARTIN:  Just for the record, MR. COLLINS, you stipulate to MS. BOGART as a professional planner? 
MR. COLLINS:  Yes, I do.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you. I'll stipulate to Mr. Szabo's, he's, again, doing his homework over there. Very good.
MS. BOGART:  Just with regard to the architecture, you said that you're going to cover the facade with stucco? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, currently it's like a cement finish on the outside. 
MS. BOGART:  Correct.
THE WITNESS:  And we're either going to cement parge it and clean up the existing stucco if it's salvageable or we're going to redo a new stucco, yes.
MS. BOGART:  Okay.  From an architect's perspective, do you feel that that might be an issue, given the circulation and the tight circulation on site with cars hitting the stucco and breaking the building? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, I believe that there should be   
MR. CAFARELLI:  Excuse me.  Can you please talk into the microphone? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, I forgot.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Actually can we    can we actually also, Brigette, 'cause I can't hear you either   
MS. BOGART:  I'm sorry.  What I said    what I had asked was that from an architectural perspective, does he feel that given the tight circulation on site, is the stucco an issue with vehicles hitting the building and breaking the facade? 
THE WITNESS:  It doesn't appear so because MR. SHORTINO had included those    and I don't know the technical term for them, the concrete curbs that stop the car from   
MR. COLLINS:  Wheel stop.
THE WITNESS:  Wheel stop? 
That they're depicted on the parking spaces, so they're going to stop the car at a point before they could smash into the building. And there are only two spots that are    potentially three that are subject to being parked directly adjacent to the house, the building, and then there's the other spots are    are on the peripheral of the lot.
MS. BOGART:  My concern was not only those two spots, but also the entry driveway where the building is butt up against the circulation aisle.
THE WITNESS:  I see.
MS. BOGART:  And also the way the dumpster is configured, if a truck is trying to maneuver in and out of there, if they hit the building, is there anything that you could recommend from a   
THE WITNESS:  Certainly a concrete bullion can be installed right there at the corner of that    at the    is that the southwest corner of that little appendage where    where the entrance to the driveway is.  I'm certain of    I'll let MR. SHORTINO testify to that because he is the parking planner, parking designer. But that would be    that would be   
MS. BOGART:  I think   
THE WITNESS:  That would be one way to prevent    
MS. BOGART:  Okay.  I think that's an issue that   
THE WITNESS:     some people   
MS. BOGART:     that needs to be addressed at some point in time because if a vehicle hits that building, the    the facade is going to be destroyed. Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I'm just going to give them a minute to take a look at the architectural plan, see if they have any questions before we move on. 
MS. PATIRE:  Can I    I just have one other question.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Please.
MS. PATIRE:  On your drawing, sir, it says, "Proposed elevated sidewalk."  
THE WITNESS:  Can you speak up, please.
MS. PATIRE:  So    I'm sorry. On the drawings it says, "Proposed elevated sidewalk." 
Are you changing the sidewalk? 
THE WITNESS: We have to that sidewalk is actually the barrier free entrance for handicapped accessibility, so when we say "elevated sidewalk" what we really mean is top of the ramp.
MS. PATIRE:  Okay.  Understood. How much of the existing    that, in fact, takes up some portion of the existing sidewalk; yes, no? 
THE WITNESS:  One more time.
MS. PATIRE:  That    does that eat into the existing sidewalk?  I'm looking at your    it's so tiny at the moment I'm    it does, I believe.
THE WITNESS:  It does, yes.
MS. PATIRE:  That's already, like, just a very, very narrow sidewalk that leads directly onto Broad Street.
THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure if we're talking    we're talking about the new concrete walkway that's abutting the building, right?
MS. PATIRE:  Right.
THE WITNESS:  The front of the building?  So that's completely new and that's to get...
MS. PATIRE:  So the question is:  Does that eat into the existing sidewalk?  If so, how wide is that existing sidewalk?  And then how wide are you proposing   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  That's not the sidewalk.
THE WITNESS:  I don't believe there is an existing    there's no existing sidewalk there.
MS. PATIRE:  Covered sidewalk    what? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  One at a time, please.  
Jordan, go ahead.
THE WITNESS:  Okay.  At the area where we're proposing the new concrete ramp with landing for    which is essentially, looks like an elevated sidewalk with a ramp attached to it, that's new.  What currently exists there is just grass and dirt and a couple of window wells.
MS. PATIRE:  Understood.  Okay. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Do you have any questions about the architectural plans or elevations? 
If you do, yep, come on up.
MR. MARTIN:  You've got to bring the plans up, too. 
Thank you.
MS. STROUD:  My name is Janett Stroud (inaudible) Broad Ridge I'm on the board.
MR. CAFARELLI:  No, can you speak into the microphone please?  
MS. STROUD:  My name is Janett Stroud.
MR. CAFARELLI:  I can't hear you.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  It might not be on.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Speak directly into it.
MS. STROUD:  My name is Janett Stroud.
MR. CAFARELLI:  It's not working.
MS. STROUD:  Janett, J a n e t t S t r o u d. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Try this microphone here, this might be...
MR. COLLINS:  This is guaranteed. 
MS. STROUD:  My concern is   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Much better.
MS. STROUD:  Well, our concern is not   
MR. MARTIN:  Wait a minute, S t r o e d, correct? 
MS. STROUD:  S t r o u d.
MR. MARTIN:  I'm sorry.  Thank you.  Go ahead. 
MS. STROUD:  I'm not familiar with the plan, I'm not familiar with the reading of these plans, but we realized    we would have someone to come down to the village to read them. 
But my concern now is that I heard something about handicapped off the sidewalk.  That's one of our concerns of parking in front of that building, putting a park in front of that building and coming off of that sidewalk.  That's one of our concerns.  So...
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Jordan, can you   
MS. STROUD:  Trying to say something about the parking.  I know the last time we was down here they was talking about putting parking in the front of the building?  
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  We'll get to the parking when we get to Brian.
MS. STROUD:  I thought I heard him say that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  But, Jordan, can you talk a little    can you explain, kind of, the raised sidewalk and the ramp, where that will be on the site? 
THE WITNESS:  When    when you renovate an existing building you have to bring it up to code for handicap compliance, so what we're just trying to do here is create a barrier free entrance, which means accessible entrance into the building, and we have to build a ramp adjacent to the building to allow pedestrians to get in.
Doesn't have to be handicap accessible by wheelchair, it could be blind, it could be any impairment, but they have a ramp in order to get in.  And that's what I was    
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  But maybe just to explain   
THE WITNESS:     discussing.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I'm sorry, Jordan.  Just maybe explain where that   
THE WITNESS:  Oh, where that is   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Is that parallel to Broad, perpendicular to Broad?  That would help, I think, everyone understand where that ramp is.
THE WITNESS:  The opposite side of the building to where your residence is.
MS. STROUD:  I know the building very well.
THE WITNESS:  It's on the north side of the building    
MS. STROUD:  Uh huh.
THE WITNESS:  Okay.  And it's    this is the ramp right here.  This is the north side. 
MS. STROUD:  Uh huh.
THE WITNESS:  And that's the ramp right there (inaudible).  And that's the railing, because when the ramp gets more than    about 24 inches above the ground it's (inaudible) to protect people from falling off.
MS. STROUD:  Okay.  So this ramp is going to be here. 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MS. STROUD:  That may not    like a van or a handicapped van or something going over   
THE WITNESS:  No, there will be a   
MS. STROUD:  Oh, see, see that's   
THE WITNESS:  It's a ramp, ma'am.  It's not the parking. 
MS. STROUD:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  It's only 3 and a half feet wide.
MS. STROUD:  All right.  I understand that.
Another concern I have about    that she didn't mention is I don't know if you're going to do something about the roof, because the water stands on that roof.
THE WITNESS:  I know you can see it from your window.
MS. STROUD:  You can see from our window   
THE WITNESS:  The whole length.
MS. STROUD:     and it create bugs, smells, and last year we had to keep calling someone to get it cleaned. And years, for years we had to have    keep calling for somebody to come and do something about it. 
THE WITNESS:  The whole roof is being    the whole roof is being re roofed with a white or off white colored or light gray colored waterproofing membrane and three roof drains with overflow scuppers.
MS. STROUD:  Well, that's    there's some of our concerns about this building.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  Jordan, the handicap access (inaudible) looked at it for handicap access (inaudible). 
THE WITNESS:  When I was referencing    when I was talking about the ramp?
MR. MARTIN:  Yes.
THE WITNESS:  I was referring to sheet A 01, proposed first floor plan.
MR. MARTIN:  And the roof that you referred to just...
THE WITNESS:  The roof I was just referring to is sheet A 02, detail number 5, proposed roof plan.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Are there any questions from    Susan?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah.  So is that    the whole roof is flat, and that's    so the roof is flat; is that the whole  
THE WITNESS:  The roof is    the roof is flat.  It's got pitched in    rigid insulation board that directs the water to the three drains. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So how   
THE WITNESS:  Essentially it's flat.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So how confident are you that your design resolves the issue of the standing water that was a concern? 
THE WITNESS:  How do we resolve the standing water? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No.  It would be    are you comfortable that that results  
THE WITNESS:  Oh, absolutely, we are going    we're not going to have an issue with standing water, not when you hire a professional commercial roofer to install tapered rigid insulation to direct the water to the drains.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And what is the problem currently, why is the water  
THE WITNESS:  It's old.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  It's just old. 
THE WITNESS:  And it's flat.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And it's not designed  
THE WITNESS:  And creates deformations in the roof that are collecting water.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  It's wavy up there.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  All right.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Any other questions from the board or public for Jordan?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  There being none, MR. COLLINS, next witness? 
MR. COLLINS:  Brian? 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. COLLINS,
MR. SHORTINO will remain sworn and qualified as a professional engineer. 
Thank you, MR. SHORTINO.
B R I A N 
S H O R T I N O, having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows: 
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. MR. SHORTINO, if you recall, we have parking as a central issue in the minds of   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  MR. COLLINS, please use the mic.
MR. COLLINS:  I'm sorry? 
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. I'll start all over again.
MR. SHORTINO, if you will recall, we have several questions regarding parking that we have to address this evening. At my request, did you look at the possibility of expanding the field for parking requirements to include Lot 6, which is 200 South Broad Street?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And were you able to find a specific provision in the code that dealt with the possibilities of shared parking?
A. Yes, we did also.
Q. And would you tell the board what steps or changes those inspections led you to make to the plans?
A. Essentially what we did was, it was brought to our attention that if    this site and the adjacent site at Lot 6, 200 South Broad Street, if we used shared parking, that the ordinance provides a different calculation for shared parking, and the site on its own, when we did the calculation we had used one space per 200 square feet, and that's where we were required to have 30 spaces and we only had indicated ten. But when we used the shared parking on adjacent Lot 6, the calculation changes. The ordinance provides for shared parking, and the calculation is one space per 250 square feet. So what we did was    what we did was, we did the calculation for both lots being combined, so for Lot 6, which is 200 South Broad, there's an existing building there and it contains 5,000 square feet. And there's existing on site 23 parking spaces. On Lot 7, we used the calculation that was provided by the architect for the amount of floor area, which we had as 4,378 square feet. So what we did was we combined the square footage of both buildings and we divided it by the calculation of 250 square feet, and we determined that there was 38 spaces required for both buildings when you combined the parking requirements for both of them. And since there was 23 spaces on Lot 6 and on our site, I'll just reference what we changed on it, we had originally 10 spaces and there was concern by the board at the previous hearing of two of the spaces, so we actually eliminated them. So we only indicated eight spaces on the site. So we had a total of 31 spaces for both lots combined where the requirement is 38. So we're requesting a variance for seven spaces. And that's what we did on the plan. What I'd like to do is just reference    this was the previous exhibit that we had prepared. It was Exhibit A 2 dated November 7, 2017. This is unchanged, but I'd just like to point out to the board what two spaces were eliminated. The one space that was eliminated was the tandem space in the rear, and we also had a space that was perpendicular to South Broad Street adjacent to the entranceway to the building. So we eliminated those two spaces, so we had ten and that reduced it to eight, combined with the 23 spaces on Lot 6, gives us 31 spaces. And as I mentioned, the calculation requires 38 spaces and we have 31. So we're requesting a variance for seven spaces for both lots. And there would be a joint agreement between the two properties for this combined parking    for shared parking.
MR. COLLINS:  For the board's records, the shared parking section in our code is 190 121 A(3)(d), which will indicate the basis for our use of the shared parking formula. 
You'll see, based on MR. SHORTINO's testimony, that instead of a deficit of 30 spaces, which was what we had left this room with back in November of 2017, we are now in a position to say to you that we do continue to need a variance for the parking requirements, but our deficit is only seven spaces, rather than the 20 that we had before. And we have eliminated that parking space in the front of the building that was creating problems not only for the board, but for the residents at Broad Ridge, but also for us, because we didn't like it there, but we had to find parking spaces on the lot. I don't think I have any other questions of MR. SHORTINO at this time. I'm sure the board may.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I'm sure we do.
Jeff?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah. So you said the other building, you're combining the 4378 was the     the    I guess the size of the    the square footage of the other building. What's    what's the size in that? 
THE WITNESS:  5,000 square feet.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  5,000? Okay. So 5,000, so    all right.
And what's that space used for? 
THE WITNESS:  Excuse me.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Do you know?
What is    what is the other building being used for? 
THE WITNESS:  I believe it's medical usage.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  It's a dentist office.
MR. COLLINS:  Yes.  It's DR. KORKIS' office building. 
MR. MARTIN:  Lot 6, right? 
MR. COLLINS:  Lot 6. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  How does the    how does this shared parking work?  I'm a little confused here. You have a dentist's office which sounds like it's going to be pretty busy. And you have a medical office which sounds like it's going to be pretty busy. What are you sharing when it sounds like they're both going to be    probably be packed? 
MR. COLLINS:  I'm sorry, Jeff.  
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes, MR. COLLINS.  Yes.
So I'm just a little confused.  You're going to be sharing the parking? 
MR. COLLINS:  Yes. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  The problem I have is that it sounds like both buildings are going to be relatively busy, so based on the busyness of both buildings, how are you going to be able to share the parking.
MR. COLLINS:  Well, I'll tell you how. I have prepared, for the execution by the owners of these two lots, an agreement called "Driveway Easement and shared parking agreement," which, if you approve our application, will be executed and recorded in the office of the Bergen County Clerk. And, thereafter, the use of the parking spaces in this shared parking arrangement will be managed in accordance with this document. Now, I'll say to you in some situations people may not want to use it. People may park on the street, which they do now. But this is a way and it is the way to handle and execute a shared parking arrangement. And I    I urge you, when you get a change, to take a look at that section of our code which extends the explanation for it.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.
MR. MARTIN:  COUNCILMAN VOIGT, it's a good question, essentially   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.
MR. MARTIN:    you combine both properties and make it one in your mind and whatever that one property is required, in this case the testimony is 38, they're looking for a variance of seven. So if you're saying how can two busy properties have it, it has to be in your mind considered one busy property if you consider it busy. The planners will then speak to issues that you're concerned about in terms of the variance which is the key question. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yup.
MR. MARTIN:  As a lawyer, I'm concerned with what MR. COLLINS said. That's the ability tightest, as a matter of law, that can be done for this type of arrangement, so he's already satisfied my mind as to the legal arrangement.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Right.
MR. MARTIN:  It's whether the variance is appropriate or not.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
No more questions?
Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  David? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I'm    I'm mathematically challenged at the moment, but what I'm    what I'm trying to calculate, the    so the    the basis of this shared parking is that the requirement is one space for every 250 square feet? 
MR. COLLINS:  That's correct.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  As opposed to, if they were separate it'd be only 200 square feet.
MR. COLLINS:  That's correct.
MR. SCHEIBNER: So I'm trying to come up with a number of how many square feet are represented by 31 spaces, per    per space? 
MR. COLLINS:  Don't look at me.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  It    but it's somewhere between 200 and 250, right?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I just want to    can I ask a question? I just want to    I think I know where you're at, but if I were to do that calculation if we didn't have that 250 square feet and we reduced it back to the 200, both spaces, without shared, would require together combined 47 spaces.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Okay. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So now we are at 47, and they've shaved off the nine spaces as a result of the shared parking, right?  And then are continuing to look for the variance on the seven spaces. So I think you're doing it back   
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:    the opposite way.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Yeah, I'm trying to look at it from the   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So if you would   
MR. SCHEIBNER:     other side   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:     4370    just did it to get a concept of how many square feet of building is... for    for each of the   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  You want to do the 31 times 200.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, you can't. You have to do the 31 divided into the other number. Okay.  I got it.
MR. SCHEIBNER: I just wanted to    to be able to look at it from    from another perspective, but obviously I'm not able to. So I    I don't have any further questions.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  CHIEF VAN GOOR.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Wait, can I    is your question that the    the 31 spaces is the    is so significantly less and that increases the amount of square footage; is that what your...
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  If    okay. If    if we have the total number of spaces for 200 square feet    
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:    or even 250 square feet per    per space, how    how high is that number?  Is it 275 square feet per space   
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Got it, okay.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:    or is it 280 square feet per space? 
I just wanted to get a    look at it from a    from a different angle like that just to    to get an idea of what we're talking about.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Can I    sorry.
CHIEF VAN GOOR: If somebody's more skilled at    at statistics than me, I would welcome their input. Well, the quick math, in the big parking lot you have on the one site, seven spaces. But one of the spaces is the drive through to the back of the apartment. So it's probably not a space. There's only going to be six spaces along that side (inaudible).
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, our office did that original site plan for 200 South Broad Street, because I looked in our record files for the past for that site, and that's what we had indicated that there was 23 spaces and it was 5,000 square feet. So I'm not sure exactly what's required for that easement to the rear, but that's how many spaces were there.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Well, it says it's just supposed to be used for a drop off, not a parking space. 
THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure. I'm not sure. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: Well, it's even on your plan. It says "drop off." While in fact there   
THE WITNESS:  No, it says dropped curb.  It says dropped curb.
CHIEF VAN GOOR: Dropped   
THE WITNESS:  I mean that's how you get access to the adjacent building.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Building?  All right.
THE WITNESS:  I mean the adjacent property, not building. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Yeah. So it's supposed to be left open, to get   
THE WITNESS:  No. I don't know if that's the    I don't know. I can't testify either way. I'm just saying that the dropped curb, that means if you need access to get to that adjacent property, you don't have to go on a full curb, you have    it's more or less   
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Yeah, it says    it says smaller curb. It's asphalted up so you can drive up it.  It's supposed to be    
THE WITNESS:  No, it's not asphalted. It's a    it's a depressed curb as any depressed curb is for any driveway and any street. That's what it is. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: Yeah, but it    no, but then past the curb is asphalt going into the back of that... 
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't know if there's asphalt there or not.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  So there    I went back and looked. There is.
THE WITNESS:  Well, I don't know so I can't   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: MR. SHORTINO, did you    did you visit the site? 
THE WITNESS:  I was at the site, yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Did you observe that condition? 
THE WITNESS:  I wasn't    I don't remember that being asphalt back there. But I don't    but I don't remember. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Do you have photographs or  
THE WITNESS:  I don't remember.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Do you have photographs or any reference material from your site visit? 
THE WITNESS:  Not with me.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: From what I understand, that's supposed to be left open. It's supposed to be just a drop off. So there's really only six spots along that curb line.  
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Right, because that's an access   
THE WITNESS:  I'm not disagreeing with you. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: That's an access to the back of the  
THE WITNESS:  You may be right.
CHIEF VAN GOOR: So clearly you have one less spot. That's all. 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, I don't know what the arrangement is with that access being there.
MR. COLLINS:  So    so if I understand the give and take, if you're correct, Mr. Van Goor, that means that instead of a variance for seven spaces we need a variance for eight? 
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Correct.
MR. COLLINS:  Okay.  Thanks.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  You bet.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I mean, that's nothing to sneeze at. Really I mean that's sort of the insinuation with that comment, it's not nothing, given the congestion in that area. That is an extremely stiff variance. However, (inaudible) ultimate request.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  First, I just want to make sure that's left as an open spot.  It's not designated as a parking space. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  That's my point to this.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Chief   
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  My other    my other question is the dumpster that's next to the apartment building.  Can that be moved?  Can that be shared with the building next to it?  That could be another parking space.
THE WITNESS:  I don't think that could ever be another parking space, but we could look at another area for the dumpster. This is where we've indicated the dumpster. There's a landscaped area in here that's possibly being considered for a smaller dumpster, there's also a landscaped area here when it gets to the smaller dumpster. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  It's right next to these guys.
THE WITNESS:  This, I think, is small for the dumpster but you can    you can maybe fit a smaller dumpster here or here and we're going to make that little area    so there is a possibility by reducing the size of the dumpster that we can fit it in different location away from that (inaudible) corner on that southwest area. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Okay. 
That's all I have.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  My first question is, now, you have to have a separate dumpster or space for medical waste? 
Is that a requirement? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure on what the issues are with medical waste.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I'm sorry? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure what the issues are on removing medical waste of what is necessary. What    what is necessary.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So you don't know if you need added, like, a different    I mean, you couldn't put medical waste in the same dumpster, right? 
THE WITNESS:  I don't think you can, but I can't testify. That's what I'm saying.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. So we would have to find out.
THE WITNESS:  We would have to find out. I can't testify to that. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.
THE WITNESS: We have representatives here that may be can answer that question.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  All right.  So let's go back to parking. So if we were to keep these parking lots not shared, the actual    the lot    lot    the second lot, which is the second lot?
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Six.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Lot 6, I'm sorry, thank you. Lot 6 has a deficit then of two spaces under the current zoning requirements; would that be accurate? 
THE WITNESS:  No. I don't think so. I mean, you want to know what the parking requirement would be for Lot 6 based on   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Well, that    yeah. 5,000 square feet, right.
THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah, that's always    well, Lot 6, based on 200, that's 5,000 divided by 200 is 25. And we show 23.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And you have 23? 
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So you have a deficit under existing    under current zoning and under the current conditions, technically you have a deficit of two on Lot 6.
THE WITNESS:  That's what the calculations indicate, I agree.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Three.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Three, if you count (inaudible).
THE WITNESS:  Three if you count the one space that we believe may not be allowed or permitted or included.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you for that. All right. And so    and then if we were to do our    if we weren't using shared, then based on the 200 square feet and like my colleague, what Dave was saying before and just    he was doing the opposite of what I was doing, but then we would require 47 total parking spaces for both; would that be  
THE WITNESS:  For both if we weren't using    if we weren't using shared, so we have 5,000 plus four... yeah, if you round up, that'd be 47 spaces.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  47.
THE WITNESS:  For both lots, based on the square footages we have indicated.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And so based on now what we just    we took that one out, so what is our new deficit? 
THE WITNESS: So you would have 22 plus eight is 30, and if we're saying    so that would be 17.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay. I don't know who just said it, but they could park on the street like they always do. I don't know who just    did you just say that? 
MR. COLLINS: Did I? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Did you say they could park on the street like they always do? 
MR. COLLINS:  Yes, I did.  Yes, I did.  I did.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  I thought that's what I heard you say. 
MR. COLLINS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  I'm good.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay.
Frances? 
MS. BARTO: I guess my only question is, I think I missed it, is the shared parking agreement that we're discussing, have you gotten preliminary    a preliminary agreement from the property owner for the dental building?
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Speak up, please. 
MS. BARTO:  Okay. I'm just wondering if there has been a preliminary agreement to this proposed shared parking agreement that you've drafted? 
MR. COLLINS:  Are you    are you referring to agreement for the shared   
MS. BARTO:  Between the two buildings, between the dental facility and    
MR. COLLINS:  Yes, yes.
MS. BARTO:  There has been?  Okay. 
MR. COLLINS:  It hasn't been executed.
MS. BARTO:  I understand that.
MR. COLLINS:  But there is an agreement, and I'm going to hand it out to the board   
MS. BARTO:  Okay.
MR. COLLINS:  So that you might as well have a    have a look at it and see what it says.
MS. BARTO:  Yes, please. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  If you want to do that now, that's okay, just   
MR. COLLINS:  Have somebody mark it.
MR. MARTIN:  I don't know what we're up. I think we're up to A 4.
(Whereupon, Share Parking Agreement is received and marked as Exhibit A 4 for identification.) 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Thank you.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Thank you.
MS. PATIRE:  Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay.
Frances, were you done with your questions? 
MS. BARTO:  Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay.
Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I might have misspoken when I called    I said the dental office.  I'm thinking of the building over from where they are and I didn't    you know DR. KORKIS' office is in between there, is what I'm understanding. With a second tenant in the    in 200 on Lot 6, there's a second tenant other than DR. KORKIS, or just DR. KORKIS is in there? 
MR. COLLINS:  No, just DR. KORKIS.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.  For now. Okay. So I    I mean, even just on the pictures here that I have of this    and I've spent a great deal of time in that neighborhood and traveling that street, I see probably at least two to three times a day the parking enforcement agency in town ticketing cars parked all along there. Both sides of the road, on Leroy, on Brainard, that are overflow from the gym, which is overflowed to the point where you    it's the only place in town that I actually agree you can't park. And I'm one of the proponents that I think there's parking to be found in town. So, I'm curious to see, when you have patients coming to see a retinal specialist, they're not probably going to be walking very far, given that there may be a vision    I    I    I just    I struggle to see how you're going to fit any more congestion in this area and    and the shared parking    I have gone back there.  I think I had misunderstood the shared parking agreement without having seen this, so I need to read it over. I just    I really don't know with the congestion    with that tight area back behind the building and that congestion in that    in that exact spot on that exact street, how any more traffic could possibly be added or parking on the street. Is on street parking permitted right in front of that office?  Right in front of the    the 200 and 210? 
MR. COLLINS:  I don't know the answer to that. 
I mean, I have seen parking, for instance, you know if you go closer to town there are meters   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Oh, sure.  Yeah.
MR. COLLINS:     and you can park there. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: They end right at    right at    the meters end, if I'm not mistaken, at Hudson Street. On that side, on the side of the street that that's on, on the opposite of the street I think they may be continue a little further down. There's certainly some by the gym and by the church, but I see the parking official there all day ticketing cars parked on the street.
It's a very narrow, narrow road. It's not even    I don't    I think in one of the previous applications we had about it    about    on South Broad, I think we determined it was only 30 feet in width. I    I    I have concerns. And I    it    the shared parking agreement just seems to have taken a problem, that's a known problem and an actual problem in that neighborhood, and sort of cheated it. I don't really have any questions other than that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Debbie?
MS. PATIRE:  MAYOR KNUDSEN brought up my point before, so I'm good. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just    I had a question about the    the second building, because if we're doing a shared parking and I   and we're saying that it has 5,000 square feet on a    is that the first floor and full basement being used, or what is that comprised of, that 5,000 square feet?  Do we know?  Because it doesn't   
MR. COLLINS:  We're not using the full basement.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No, no, no. In the other building. In the building    you're doing a shared parking  
MR. COLLINS: We    we have assumed that that is completely used. In other words, what we've had is a situation when you had 3,000 square feet in one building, 1500 on each floor. And then in the building next door only 1500, because the basement would be only half used. Now, those numbers are    are for purposes of me describing the situation. They're not completely accurate as   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.
MR. COLLINS:     MR. SHORTINO has testified.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, I    I just was in    when I    when I saw there was 5,000 square feet I was just wondering what that was comprised of, just so I understood where that    all that space was coming from. That's all right. Go ahead, Joel, I'm sorry.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  No, I'm good. Any other questions for any other board members? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I have one more question. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes. 
And the engineer's   
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:    having a conversation or something.
MR. COLLINS:  The doctor is here and she will testify now to this issue   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I'd like her to testify and not have conversations.
MR. COLLINS:  Of the business about the medical waste and the   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Understood.
Brian?  Brian, can you join us? Thanks. Jeff?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Having said that    so my question relates to the handicapped parking.
There's three    three spots in the Lot 6, I guess. How do those factor into the shared parking?  I mean do they?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: The handicapped spaces? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes. Are they    I guess my concern is that, you know, you're    you have three handicapped spaces. My guess is they probably won't be used that much. They may be used. But so    so you really are at a    my guess is you're probably at a deficit, you know, you're saying you have 38 spots    well you need 38 spots and you really only have 27 spots actually for people coming in and out because of the handicapped spaces. My guess is they'll probably remain open a fair amount of the day. They'll be more    they'll be more open than the other spots would be. So how    what    what do you do    what do you do about that? 
I mean, it    how does the    how does the shared ordinance address handicapped at all? Do you know?  
MR. COLLINS:  It doesn't.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  It doesn't.
MR. COLLINS:  It doesn't.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. 
So I don't know if that's a concern or not, but, you know, it really    it really cuts the available spaces from 30 to actually 27 for 38 spots. So you're looking at not really a deficit of eight, you're looking at a deficit of probably 10, 11 spots.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  You're using in that number your saying that it's actually a greater deficit?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes.  I think it's a greater deficit. It's not    you know, it's not    you know, you need 38 spots, but you really only have 27 spots because of the handicapped.  So you really only have    you're missing not    your variance is not for eight spots, your variance is really for 11 spots.
MR. COLLINS:  I tell you, it's not easy working with formulas. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Any other questions from the board for Brian?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  There being none, any questions from the public for the engineer? This is the opportunity to ask questions about parking. If you have any questions about parking. 
MS. STROUD:  Okay. 
(Inaudible.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  If you had any questions about the way the site is designed or the dumpster or anything like that, this is the chance to ask the engineer questions and you're allowed to answer them.
MALE VOICE:  If you want to bring her up.
MS. STROUD:  Sidewalks? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes, sidewalks, parking, anything like that.
Just    for the record, sorry, again, just need your name and    first name and last and your address.
MS. STROUD:  Janet Stroud. I'm a board member of Broad Ridge Housing Corporation. 
We're    like I said, we are concerned about the parking. We are concerned about their disposal of their garbage. That's two of the concerns. And the    three is the roofing. And can I state all my concerns? Just them?  
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  It's really    it's really    this is really the time to ask questions.
MS. STROUD:  Because I don't know how it goes.  So   
I don't know how it goes.  Well, where would you put the garbage? You're going to leave the garbage in the same spot it's in? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, the board just asked us that, and I gave the board some options of where we could move the dumpster. What I testified is the landscaped island adjacent to the building, on the southerly side, that we could put the dumpster area there. There's also an area on the opposite side where we possibly could put the dumpster. So there are alternatives where we could put the dumpster and eliminate it from where it's presently located on the plan.
MS. STROUD:  Right.  On the opposite side.
I heard you stated that in that area is two parking spaces.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Use the microphone.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Janett, can you use the microphone. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  Microphone. 
MS. STROUD:  Yeah, okay. In that area you    you stated that it's two parking spaces there, right? That's where the basement    and that's where the garage is at. 
THE WITNESS:  The garage is being eliminated. 
MS. STROUD:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  No more garage there.
MS. STROUD:  So in the space where you take the dumpster from, you're going to put a parking space there or what? 
THE WITNESS:  No.  The board may have suggested that, but it was my testimony that I don't think we can get a safe parking space there.
MS. STROUD:  I don't think so either.  Okay.
So, and that driveway, there's going to be parking on that side or it's going to be just a drive through? 
THE WITNESS:  We have a cross line orientation from the driveway. You enter on South Broad Street, you exit onto the access drive which is the adjacent property of 200, and you can exit onto South Broad or you can actually now    we do use the share parking, we can still make it the rear parking area there.
MS. STROUD:  Oh, so you're going to enter in between 216 and 200, you're going to enter in that driveway and go around? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, I'm not sure what the address is on the property, because it's south.  Is that 216?  I don't know.
MS. STROUD:  Yeah, 216 (inaudible). 
THE WITNESS:  Well, our site is 210.
MS. STROUD:  I know    your site is 210 or 200? 
THE WITNESS:  210. 
MS. STROUD:  201.
THE WITNESS:  And the site next to that to the north is 200.
MS. STROUD:  210? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  There are two parking spots. Her question was are there parking spots on the side that's    that faces   
MS. STROUD:  The wall.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  There's two.
THE WITNESS:  Against the wall there is no parking spaces. 
MS. STROUD:  I know it's no parking spaces.  I was speaking of entrance. 
If you're going to enter on that side where the wall at, and going out the opposite side, are you going to put parking spaces on the side where the wall at? 
THE WITNESS:  No.
MS. STROUD:  Because I think it was the basement or the garage or whatever that was over there before when the dumpster was there, so it was two spaces or three spaces was there with parking before. So I don't know what you're planning and I don't know    I'm not familiar with the plans, but this is our concerns. I'm just trying to state what was stated to me that we prefer the garbage on the opposite side. Going in and out that driveway, we really concerned about parking on that side because it's a problem. It's a big problem now.
And if someone    if they come and park on our side, that wall that sits on it now and    and the    all the people is complaining, we really don't want no addition traffic over there for our benefit, you know what I'm saying? 
THE WITNESS:  I apologize, but I don't understand what you're saying.
MS. STROUD:  I know, I guess you     well  
THE WITNESS:  What we've indicated is more or less existing conditions. 
Actually the site now, when we do these improvements it would be much better because there's only one driveway on South Broad. With the garage there, all the cars, I don't know what they did, wither backed out into South Broad or they turned around somehow with the garage there.  But the    the driveway used to be two ways. This is a significant improvement which, in my opinion, makes it much safer. We don't have any parking along the wall or along the southerly parking    along the southerly property line. There's parking in the rear along the southerly property line, but there's no    there's not a wall there. 
So I believe   
MS. STROUD:  Well   
THE WITNESS:     we've addressed your concern.
MS. STROUD:  Can I go    yup, this is    this is the wall, right?  Am I right? 
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
MS. STROUD:  Okay.  And this is the driveway. 
You said it's a two way    entrance, no, it never was. It was always one way going around the building and coming out.
THE WITNESS:  No, I don't think so. There was also grass there.
MS. STROUD:  There wasn't.  No. It wasn't grass there before. 
It was a driveway on the side and there's a driveway on that side.
THE WITNESS:  Well, it's the driveway for the adjacent property, 200, on the opposite side.
MS. STROUD:  But the    okay. They never came out this way. I don't think so.
THE WITNESS:  Well, I think they had to.
MS. STROUD:  They had?  Since I was there, I don't know. 
THE WITNESS:  Well...
MS. STROUD:  Well, maybe not. 
THE WITNESS:  There's    there's    there's curbing    right now there's presently curbing all the way along the access easement.  They'd have to come out that way. 
I'm sorry, but    but I disagree.
MS. STROUD:  Maybe.  I don't know.  I'm not sure. But I know, my understanding, it was    it used to go around. But    oh, I don't know. Well, that's my concern about the parking.
And as far as parking on the street, that's another concern, we have parking in front of    we can't park in front of our own buildings. And    without getting a ticket. I mean and your own floor parking in the front of our buildings, we really wouldn't care for that. If we can't do that, you know, we don't want all that additional traffic in    in front of our building. You understand what I'm saying? So that's another concern. Okay. I'll wait on the other. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Thank you. Are there any other questions from the public for Brian?  (No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Seeing none.
Chris, any questions? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yep.
MR. MARTIN:  Please raise your right hand. 
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yes, I do.
C H R I S T O P H E R  R U T I S H A U S E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MR. MARTIN:  And, MR. COLLINS, you stipulate to the village engineer as a professional engineer? 
MR. COLLINS: I will certainly admit him.  
MR. MARTIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Thank you. One comment, at the end of the proposed ADA access walkway into the structure, down by where it enters the parking lot I recommend that a detectable warning surface be considered. I don't believe your plans show that at this time, unless I'm mistaken. 
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, I didn't    I didn't hear your question.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: I'd recommend a detectable warning surface where you currently show an "R" for a ramp at the sidewalk, the ramp discharges to the paved area before an individual would cross into the ADA space.
THE WITNESS:  Oh, at the ramp at the base    yeah, we    yeah, if that what the board determines, yes, that can be installed.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay. That's it. Nothing further.  
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Brigette? 
MS. BOGART: Thank you. My only question goes back to when the architect testified to the stucco material on the building facade. What would you recommend to protect the facade along the property or the    the circulation? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, if that's a concern, I assume the concern is the corner of the building.
Is that your concern? Well, we could put, like they do at fire hydrants, things like that, we can put a bollard there that would, you know, reduce    it will protect the building, painted yellow, it advises the motoring public to, you know, yellow is a significant "be careful" that    that there's something they can be aware of, not to come close enough, bollards that would protect that corner of the building.
MS. BOGART:  Okay.  I would recommend it be board approves this, that that be added to the plan. 
That was my only question.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  All right.  Thanks.
Seeing no other questions, MR. COLLINS, your next professional, please?
MR. COLLINS:  DR. KORKIS? 
MR. MARTIN:  You can come up.
MR. COLLINS:  Stand.
MR. MARTIN:  Please raise your right hand. 
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
DR. KORKIS:  I do.
A N N A    K O R K I S, 200 South Broad Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:  
MR. MARTIN:  And just help me out with the spelling of your name and your business address, Doctor? 
DR. KORKIS:  And my spelling of my name and? 
MR. MARTIN:  How do you    what is your fist name? 
DR. KORKIS:  My name is Anna Korkis, A N N A, K O R K I S.
MR. MARTIN:  K O R K I S. And your business address? 
DR. KORKIS:  200 South Broad Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
MR. MARTIN:  Your witness, MR. COLLINS. 
DR. KORKIS: Before we begin, MR. SCHEIBNER, if I would    if you would accept my deepest condolences on the passing of your friend or colleague. May successes in life always inspire you and give you strength and to your family. I'm sorry.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. So, Doctor, what is the area of your practice?
A. I'm a gastroenterologist.
Q. And your office is at 200 South Broad Street?
A. It is.
Q. And are you the principal of 200 South Broad Street, LLC? The owner of that property?
A. I am.
Q. Are you also the principal of 210 South Broad Street, LLC, the owner of the property immediately to the south of 200? 
A. I am.
Q. You are here before the board this evening to attempt to get major site plan approval of the development of 210 South Broad Street; is that correct?
A. I am, yes.
Q. An issue has been raised this evening regarding the disposal of trash and other garbage, if you want to put it that way, from the    from the location of 210 South Broad Street. 
There's a question as to whether medical waste is included in the garbage that is put in the    whatever container is    is on site for purposes of collecting garbage. Can you expand on that for the board indicating exactly how the garbage and other detritus is held?
A. Sure. 
Our medical waste is really just paper. The sharps containers are red plastic containers in each room. And we have a company that comes regularly to pick those up. So those never leave the building, except when they go into the hands of the waste management company. 
So our waste is really paper, paper gowns, that's it. And it's regular garbage. 
So the only thing that is different is medical waste that is sharps, but that is not outside the building.
Q. I think that's in response to the issue as to whether there was medical waste that was leaving the property and was it to be commingled with regular garbage that might be in a    in a dumpster? 
MR. COLLINS: Is that correct, Mayor?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No. Actually, I think my question was whether or not you needed a separate trash receptacle for medical waste, not that it would be commingled, but whether or not a separate receptacle    I    I    I thought responsibly you certainly wouldn't have commingled that.
MR. COLLINS:  So that answers your question?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yes, it does, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  One other question, you mentioned the sharps are taken out by a separate contractor, but what    what about if you had, like, a gauze pad with bodily fluids or something like that? 
THE WITNESS:  You could put them in there. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  That all goes in there.
THE WITNESS:  In a little plastic    red plastic container, in each room, exactly.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So it's anything    
THE WITNESS:  Anything fluid contaminated, in that container.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Perfect.  That    that adds clarity to it. 
So it really    the dumpster is for traditional office waste, paper and   
THE WITNESS:  Sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:    maybe food waste from lunches if people are eating lunch there and stuff like that.
THE WITNESS:  Exactly.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay.  Thanks.
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. Now, are there any odors that are perceptible from the container that these    garbage is in, not necessarily the ones that are picked up from the interior but from the exterior?
A. No, sir. Nothing different than    no. No, we've never had any complaints. And I    we're in and out of the office regularly and there are no odors.  
MR. COLLINS:  I have nothing further of the Doctor. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I guess whether or not garbage smells is somewhat subjective, but if it's paper and stuff like that, fine. But if you're, you know, there was another nice power outage in Ridgewood and you're cleaning out the fridge you're going to have some problems or people eating their lunch or putting their leftovers in there, you're going to have food waste in there, too. So I guess I'd assume you have a regular scheduled company come and empty the container once a week or something? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay. Sealed properly on the top and all that kind of good stuff?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Was there a question before about sharing a container? Was that   was that asked before?  Did somebody ask that question?
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  I asked that.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh. 
And did we answer    was it something that   
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  (Inaudible). 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  The question came up earlier as to whether or not the two properties could share a dumpster.
THE WITNESS:  You mean 210 and 200?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah.  And whether or not   
THE WITNESS:  They can share the dumpster.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:    the dumpster could be moved elsewhere then, if that was doable? 
THE WITNESS:  I think offices always like their own disposal.  Our's not large.  I mean it's more than adequate. It's not impossible, but I think it's preferable to have two dumpsters.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So but then that requires two different pickups, right? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So    yeah. 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  Well, you shared parking. I thought maybe you'd share a dumpster or something I don't know.
THE WITNESS:  I    I    yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  All right.  I have no other questions.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Any other questions of the doctor from the board? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes.  I'm over here. (Whereupon, off the record discussion is held.)
MR. COLLINS:  Do you want to testify to that effect? 
THE WITNESS:  If I may just clarify one issue, there seems to be a little confusion on the dump curve. That site is not an easement, and in the original proposal we, in good faith, established this chain for the fire department to allow access for the fire trucks to go through the back lot because the adjacent buildings do not have adequate width in their front yards for the fire trucks to pass. It was not a requirement. We did it in good faith. There is no easement. And there is no restriction of parking in front of that chain. And, you know, certainly the fire department knows that. So there is no easement there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Just so happens, the fire department's right here.
THE WITNESS:  Oh, okay.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  That's not what I understood. I talked to the...
THE WITNESS:  We can look at the original proposal, but that is correct.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Well, yeah, I got my information from the fire official who was part of this.
THE WITNESS:  I apologize?
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  I said I got my information from the fire official   
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:    who was apparently here when that easement was talked about.
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  And he was under the understanding that there wouldn't be a parking spot, it could be used for    if somebody had to drop somebody off and they were parking there but they didn't leave their car.
THE WITNESS:  I can only speak for what the proposal had said, so   
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  The car can be moved quickly  
THE WITNESS:  And we can certainly  
CHIEF VAN GOOR:     so we could get through there.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh.
THE WITNESS:  My statement stands. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  That was my understanding of what was    what the agreement was.
THE WITNESS:  My statement stands, so I don't know what further to say.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Yeah, I mean even if there's a car there, then it doesn't matter if there's a chain there or not.  Wouldn't that agreement be part of the resolution of the   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Original approval.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:       the approval of the    of the site plan for 210    or 200?
MR. MARTIN:  200, yeah.
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  I missed that.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Would the agreement as to the use of that space as a pass through be part of the resolution approving the site plan for 200 South Broad. 
MR. COLLINS:  John   
MALE VOICE: (Inaudible) fire official so I would be shocked if it was.
MR. COLLINS:  I don't know.  I don't think it is.
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  So how do we look that up?  
MR. MARTIN:  Well, you have to go through   
MR. COLLINS:  No, I    I think it's my obligation to look it up, but    if we're going to look it up because I'd have to go back to the hearing on 200 to see what specifically is said, but   
MR. MARTIN:  I disagree, and I think it's up to the particular fire official.  This is a new application anyhow so the board is (inaudible).
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Can I    can I ask you a couple questions real quick?  If you feel    at this point    right now your gastroenterology office is the only practice in 200 South Broad? 
THE WITNESS:  No. 
I think that was    I think MR. COLLINS misunderstood the question. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  It's a 5,000 square foot building and the front half of the building are retinologists   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:    and the back half of the building is me.  It's only first floor occupancy.  Basement is not used. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Just, it's storage.  It's empty.  It's     
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  There's not even a billing person down there or  
THE WITNESS:  No, no, no.  No.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  There is no use in the basement. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  That's    that's   
THE WITNESS:  And   
MS. McWILLIAMS:    not even my question at this point. 
But does the retinal specialist that's in that building, do any retinal surgeries in there?  Any day surgeries? Any in office procedures? Laser surgeries? Anything in that office at all? 
THE WITNESS: They evaluate patients and I don't, you know    they may do little procedures, but their turnaround time is quick. 
So let me give you a little sense of what our office hours are like and   
MS. McWILLIAMS: Can I just finish my questions real quick? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes, Um hmm.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Because that's not what I'm getting at.
And you're not sure what sort of doctors' offices might go into 210 South Broad.  It could be  
THE WITNESS:  No.
MS. McWILLIAMS:    anything, and it's  
THE WITNESS:  The    the environment now is    since the Obama administration, the demographics of medicine have completely changed.  There will be a    
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I work in the field, so...
THE WITNESS:  Bear with me one moment, if you would be so kind. The demographics are such that private practitioners can no longer stay in practice because of the in affordability of medicine and the regulatory mechanisms in place, and so what has happened is internists, private practice    family practitioners can no longer be solo. And as you see, Valley Hospital has bought out about 98 percent of the practices and they all practice across    well, they eventually will all practice across from the duck pond in the Old Tanzer (phonetic) Plaza. And so now what we have is the only people that really can afford    amazing that we can    that we're even saying this, can really afford to be in practice are sub specialists because they have procedures and procedures are a revenue stream for physicians. And so what happens is now, physicians that are independently practicing, for the most part, are only in offices like half the time because they are doing procedures outside of the office. And for us, we are very much in that scenario. And so, to dispel some of the concern and the tension about volume, well, first, we wouldn't go on a lease it to someone that we couldn't provide parking for because there would be nothing but havoc and dis    you know, discord. And we don't want someone who is not content with the space. Number two, we would never get    private practitioners and family practitioners are no longer solo practicing and they're very rare and ultimately they're all being bought out, and I know that because I am in the circle and we know whoever's an independent practice right now eventually within a year or so will not be. Now, having said that, we, as sub specialists, predominantly in the office maybe 50 percent of the time.  For myself, on Monday I'm there 9 to 1:30, Tuesday 1:30 to 6:30, Wednesday 1:30 to 5, Thursday 9 to 11 and Wednesday [sic] 7 to 1:30. 
We always have ample parking. We have never had patients have to park in front of the building.  We've never had anybody ticketed. We have a very, very    I mean, we would not be offering this as a solution because to do that and short ourselves space, or my tenant, would be of no use, none. It would be of no service to anyone. So we always have ample parking. And sub specialists are the ones that we really realistically would be leasing to. And that's just the demographics of medicine now going forward. Sad as it is, Valley has 98 percent of the physicians. And so, this is what we are looking at. So to dispel your concern with parking and traffic, that is not even, you know, that is not the future as medicine is now. No further. No further. You know, that is    has been    we've never had a patient complain about not having space, you know, nobody ever parks in front of the street. I come into that lot and we don't have people parking in front of our office. We just don't. So, to request this type of tenancy, if we didn't feel that we could fulfill a tenant's needs, would be foolish.  It would be completely foolish. There would be no point. And (inaudible)   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Can I just    can I just ask a couple of my questions now.
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  Sure, of course.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Thanks.
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.
MS. McWILLIAMS: So, I'm not sure if, you know, if I can, if    you know, I understand you're    you're a doctor. I'm not 100 percent sure at all if I can accept any kind of testimony about within a year any person in private practice is simply not going to be practicing.  That's    I mean, you used a lot a lot of statements there   
THE WITNESS:  No, not practicing   
MS. McWILLIAMS:     like always and never.
THE WITNESS:  No, no, no.  Family practitioners, internists. It is just the statistic. I mean, it    I'm just giving you the statistics. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm not    I wasn't even    I don't even think that's my  
THE WITNESS:  But it does dispel a huge concern.
MR. COLLINS:  Let her complete her questions?  All right.
THE WITNESS:  My apologies.  I'm sorry. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I think    well, that's for traffic and engineering probably testimony that, you know, we would    either way, I wanted to discuss medical waste.  I was    that's where I was at. So you    my question had been something along the lines of the procedures are performed in a    in a    in a retinal specialist's office. If another doctor    if you put a lab in one of these    in the space over at 210 South Broad, is there    is there not the potential for medical waste to be dropped off to a lab to be examined?  And in medical waste, we don't have to get graphic here, but we can all imagine what that could be. That needs to be disposed of in a medical waste container. That can't    not all of it can get shoved into a sharps bin.
THE WITNESS: Yes. That's exactly how all the independent labs work. There is a red bin, and as soon as it is filled, then they're put in a box and with a red plastic liner. As soon as that box is filled, it's out of the building. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Where? 
THE WITNESS:  It's    the medical waste company comes and picks it up and puts it in a truck.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  The medical    so you're putting the red lined bags out on the sidewalk, out on the curb   
THE WITNESS:  No. No. No.
MS. McWILLIAMS:    behind the building  
THE WITNESS:  No, no, no.  Oh, no.
MS. McWILLIAMS:    in their own dumpster?   
THE WITNESS:  Before it's filled, the medical waste company is called. That    that never, ever is an issue.  That's just how it works because that is just the efficiency flow of any office.  That's how all the labs work.  They never go outside, never. 
MR. MARTIN:  How often does the medical waste company come to the property? 
THE WITNESS:  As often as we need them.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So how often is that?
MR. MARTIN:  Is that, like, a daily thing?   
THE WITNESS:  No.  It doesn't occur that quickly, no. I would say that basically for us, our medical waste is minimal. Once a month. Minimal. I mean we can't fill a box   
MS. McWILLIAMS: How often if there's, like, four doctors working four different sub specialists    
THE WITNESS:  Same.
MS. McWILLIAMS:    if you have four sub specialists  
THE WITNESS:  (Inaudible) the retinologists don't draw blood. So there's no medical waste for them. And gores by law does not have to go into those receptacles, but we do do it.  That is not even a worry, you know, so     
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm    I'm saying in this    in this plan, am I incorrect, you guys can help me here if I misread this, is there not somewhere on here a lab  
THE WITNESS:  Laboratory is the area that we   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I mean   
THE WITNESS:    we reserve so that patients don't have to just sit in a room and wait.  You know, you don't need to have a "lab."  It's just    it's just a name for an area where they go and just get their blood drawn and then they leave.  It's just a flow. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  (Inaudible) are dropped off any sort of samples of any kind that they might have to bring from home, correct? 
THE WITNESS:  Sorry.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Wouldn't they also then be bringing any sort of samples from their own home that perhaps you had requested for any sort of tests?  As a gastroenterologist when  
THE WITNESS:  If we need a stool specimen, but that goes to a lab.  It's not a waste.  So if they bring that   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  They didn't go to a lab such as one that's proposed in this building next door.
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry?  There's no lab being proposed next door.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Was there not a lab on this plan?
FEMALE MEMBER: (Inaudible) blood drawn (inaudible).
MS. McWILLIAMS:  And that's why I asked, would you have somebody bring those sorts of  
THE WITNESS:  No, in a room    so when    if there's a label of lab on a room, that doesn't mean we're    that it's a lab from    that is a company lab.  It's just an area.  It's a label of an area where we just bring the patients to just so they can get their blood drawn.  That's all.  That's it. So we call it a lab, but it's nothing more complex than that.  We can just draw the blood in the room, but for a patient flow purposes, we scoot them into another room, so that    you know, so that we can get another patient in and just flip them over. 
That's all.  So that's all that is.
MR. MARTIN:  Is it fair to say it's not lab located (inaudible). 
THE WITNESS:  Right.  Right.
MR. MARTIN: (Inaudible.) Gastroenterologist if an individual comes with a stool sample then it would    it's provided and it's taken off site, is that    
THE WITNESS:  Exactly.  It's placed in a plastic hazard bag with a label on it with a request to the lab and it gets picked up that day by the lab to be processed. That's it.
MR. MARTIN: (Inaudible) the waste that you would (inaudible) you said maybe once a month, I thought.
THE WITNESS:  Right. We don't generate much. 
MR. MARTIN:  (Inaudible.) Labs that are taken off site, that's a daily thing, correct? 
THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay. So you have vehicles coming in on a daily basis and parking and going in to pick up stuff? 
THE WITNESS: That's after hours.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  It's still vehicles coming in and out, though.
MR. MARTIN: (Inaudible.)  Ins or outs (inaudible). 
THE WITNESS:  It's a lab box outside and they have a key.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  So we leave it in the lab box   
MR. MARTIN:  It's outside?
THE WITNESS:  I apologize?  
MR. MARTIN:  I've seen the lab boxes, they're outside, right? 
THE WITNESS:  That's exactly right.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh. Yeah. Because they don't come during the day because we're still collecting, so they always come after hours. They come late in the evening. And the samples are refrigerated with ice packs, so they're preserved if there's    if it's warm out and that's just    yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  A lot of good medical information. 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I feel sad for all the private practices that    you know, family doctors, it's...
THE WITNESS:  It's very unfortunate.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  It's sad to say    it's an unfortunate state of affairs.
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  Sad. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Could you go over your hours again?  You said  
THE WITNESS:  Sure.  On Monday, 9 to 1:30; Tuesday, 1:30 to 6:30; Wednesday, 1:30 to 5; Thursday, 9 to 11    some Thursdays I take off, but 9 to 11 in the worst scenario; and Friday, 7 to 1:30.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Are you in your practice by yourself, is there another physician with you? 
THE WITNESS:  I am not by    I'm a solo practitioner. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  How many patients do you see per day in    on    with this schedule?   
THE WITNESS:  It varies.  If it's a new patient it's an hour, 45 minutes actually, slot.  Otherwise, it's every 15 minutes. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So you see a patient every 15 minutes and then they might scoot over for labs? 
THE WITNESS:  As soon as a patient    as soon as a patient goes    right.  But it's a    it's a nice turnover.  Uh huh.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So they might see you for 15 minutes, then scoot to the lab for 15, 20 minutes, go to, you know, check out, make another appointment  
THE WITNESS:  Well, the lab is five minutes. The lab is five minutes.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Well, it isn't five minutes. What    I mean, it could certainly   
THE WITNESS:  Well, we did it   
MS. McWILLIAMS:    be if you are working  
THE WITNESS:  Well, we have a very efficient flow. It has to be, you know. And it's    as I'm seeing one patient, they're drawing    they vitalize and draw the labs on the other patient, so really it's an extremely efficient flow. I mean, there's no other way to survive in medicine any more. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I think I'm, sort of, trying to also ask and    and have you sort of acknowledge that you might have that efficient flow, but if you're putting two separate other practices    say you stayed here at 200 and you have the retinal facility there as well.
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Then you have two more doctors seeing a patient every 15 minutes and a shared parking arrangement.  With your staff and your patient load that you just described, it is absolutely not possible to park all those people.  I don't know where you're parking them.  So staff, lab draws, this  
THE WITNESS:  We've never had a problem. We've just not had a problem.  And I can only speak from my experience, but I'm telling you the truth.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  You know, it's    it is what it is.
We could not sustain our practice if our patients couldn't park.  We just cannot.  
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Do you have a    is the retinal surgery practice, do they have different hours than you? 
THE WITNESS:  I apologize?  Do they have    
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Do they have different hours than you? 
THE WITNESS:  They do.  They do.  And they're part time, as well.  It's the same thing.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  You know, they don't work all day.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah. 
THE WITNESS:  We    we    and we don't    we don't have conflicts. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So    go ahead.
So the different hours are they    I mean, are they almost diametrically opposite of yours?  So, for instance, from Mondays, 9 to 1:30, they're working from 2 to 6? 
THE WITNESS:  They're    we're very often altered, but sometimes we do co    you know, we sometimes do see patients at the same time.  Absolutely.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Can you coordinate with the practices so that they have off hours from other practices, so that it would make it easier for parking?  Is that    is that possible? 
THE WITNESS:  Arrangements can always be made amongst each   amongst each other.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  That    that may help with the shared parking situation. 
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  If you're working from 9 to 1:30 and you had the other practice work from 2 to 6, that would help significantly.  Is that something that's doable? 
THE WITNESS:  I mean, that's all just    that's all just negotiable and arrangeable amongst whoever they    the practice is, so that's    you know, it's not an impossibility. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  And you think that might be possible in the 210 building as well    are you going to move to the 210 building or are you staying in   
THE WITNESS:  No.  I'd be in 200 South Broad Street.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  You're going to stay in 200?  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So the other two practices in 210 will be sub specialists   
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:    and it might be possible for you to get them to work off hours; is that right? 
THE WITNESS:  It's a possibility, absolutely.  
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.  Thank you. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's a scenario that could only work if    if the    I mean, you might not own that building next year, you could sell that building. So that's    that's not something, an arrangement that could always be guaranteed. I mean, anything is    that's subject to change. 
So I'm just saying that    that it would be very nice for you to make those arrangements and, certainly, it would work for your parking scenario, but it's not something that could ever possibly be guaranteed. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, could we make that a condition of the occupancy of the    of the building, or the   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  That their hours overlap?  That it would be restrictive of somebody's hours overlapping or    or being opposite? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I don't know if that's doable or not, but, I mean, is that something that makes sense or    or not?
MR. MARTIN:  They would have to (inaudible.) Otherwise (inaudible). 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Because that would be then a deed restriction in perpetuity that the    that the doctors' buildings could only ever be rented part time in either office. 
If you were stipulating that as a condition of approval, that would    that would tie up your building forever.  I mean, it doesn't    it doesn't begin to make sense.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes, I think we're    I think we have a good understanding of how you run your practice. 
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I have maybe one more question for you, the retinal practice, how many staff members do they typically have there at one time? 
THE WITNESS:  Two.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Thank you. 
So I think what we're trying to wrestle with here is a use and a parking issue.
And to the Mayor's point, I mean, you could say I've had enough of this snow, I'm going to Florida, and sell it and a new practice comes in and now they're turning and burning patients.  That's just the way life works, right? So I think we have to look at a realistic scenario and not necessarily what your hours are right now. It's a good base point. And it's been functioning for you, but that can change any day. 
THE WITNESS:  But in terms of demographics in medicine, sub specialists and their hours are very different than what they were before.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Right.
THE WITNESS:  You know, people    things are outsourced. Billing's outsourced now. You don't have billers in the office anymore. Everything is electronic. You don't have medical assistants anymore. You have minimal medical assistants. You have    everything is electronic. You have    that    electronics have eliminated the use of a lot of the peripheral staff. 
So it's very, very different. And that's why, you know, I don't even foresee a problem with parking because of just the way medicine will be. Is. And it will truly be. So    and I say that with confidence. I wouldn't be doing this otherwise.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Understood. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the Doctor?  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Did I understand earlier somebody said there was a dental office?  Where is the dental office? 
THE WITNESS:  That    that is the    the building adjacent to us on the north side of Broad. 
So there's a dental office north of us.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right.  Oh, so that's not yours.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  It's not part    it's not part of this application.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  All right.  All right.  Fine.  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  We have (inaudible.)  And we have   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  The retinal.
THE WITNESS:  The retinal.
MR. MARTIN: (Inaudible.)  In 210 it's completely unoccupied. 
MR. COLLINS:  Unoccupied.
MR. MARTIN:  And on Lot 6 is (inaudible).
THE WITNESS:  Lot 5.
MR. COLLINS:  Lot 6 is 200. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Dental is not part of this application.
THE WITNESS:  Further north is    the one further north. 
MR. MARTIN: (Inaudible.)  Cross easement   
MR. COLLINS:  Lot 6 is 200. 
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  So the doctor's property currently is occupied by the doctor and another tenant. Then there's 210, which is unoccupied at this point. 
MR. COLLINS:  Correct.
MR. MARTIN:  And the proposed shared parking agreement would bring in Lot 5, which would be a dental practice's  
MR. COLLINS:  No.
MR. MARTIN:  No? 
MR. COLLINS:  No.  It's only between the two LLCs of which this doctor is the principal; that is, Lot 6 and   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  And Lot 7.
MR. COLLINS:     and Lot 7, respectively, 200 and 210 South Broad Street.
MR. MARTIN:  Understood.  All right.  Thanks. 
(Whereupon, off the record discussion   is held.) 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  That was a side bar.
MS. McWILLIAMS: (Inaudible) earlier. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay. Are there any other questions from the board or the public for the Doctor? These are questions for the Doctor.
MR. COLLINS:  These are neighbors and they want to ask you questions.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I promise you, you'll have a chance to give us your opinions and comments, but just    just questions on what the Doctor said now. 
MS. STROUD:  Can I ask? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Sure, come on up.
MS. STROUD:  I want to address    I have to state my name again?
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Please.
MS. STROUD:  Janet Stroud.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I'm not picking on you, everybody has to do it.
MS. STROUD:  Okay.  Thank you.
You brought up the fact about the chain where the fire    
MR. CAFARELLI:  Mic, please. 
MS. STROUD:  Fire    you brought up the fact about the chain and the parking there, and you saying that    well, your lawyer saying that you have 31 parking. 
If    including the parking that you park your car in this fire lane every day? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.
MS. STROUD:  The 31 parking spaces is including this space here, you   
THE WITNESS:  Not this space. Okay. Fine.
MS. STROUD: Where you park    and this is supposed to be a fire lane, and there's a car parked there every day. That's the 31 spaces that she's counting? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No.
MS. STROUD:  And it's supposed to be a fire lane, but it's a car parked there every day.
THE WITNESS:  I think that would be an (inaudible.)
MS. STROUD: Yeah. Okay. I heard you brought it up about the chain, and it was a fire lane.
THE WITNESS: That was done as a courtesy to the fire department. That was not required to be a fire lane.
MS. STROUD: It was a courtesy to the fire department if that was  
THE WITNESS: Because the trucks cannot access  
MS. STROUD: The trucks cannot go through our driveway and that's the way to get to the back of our buildings that we had... 
THE WITNESS:  That's not required, though. That was not required. That was not required. 
MS. STROUD: I don't understand why, but I'm not questioning the board, but I don't understand why because that could be emergency for older people live in the back, and if they can't get to them, what they supposed to burn up in a fire? I don't understand. 
But this is the question about the parking. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Thank you. Any other questions for the Doctor?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  There being none, MR. COLLINS, I think we're going to take a five minute break before we get into your next witness, the planner.
MR. COLLINS:  Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Five minutes, strictly.  So we'll start up in five.  Thanks.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay.  I'd like to call the meeting back to order, please?
MR. COLLINS, we're ready for your next witness, please? 
MR. COLLINS:  Thank you, Mr. Torielli.
MR. MARTIN:  Witness number 4, I believe, will be Mr. Szabo.  John Szabo?
MR. SZABO:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Of Burgis Associates.
Raise your right hand.  Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. SZABO:  I do.
J O H N    S Z A B O,  25 Westwood Avenue, Westwood, new Jersey, having  been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  And just for the record, name and business address.
MR. SZABO:  My name is John, middle initial P., Szabo, S Z A B O, Junior. 
I'm a senior associate with Burgis Associates.  Our address is 25 Westwood Avenue, Westwood, New Jersey.
MR. MARTIN: And you are a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey? 
MR. SZABO:  I am a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey.  That is correct.
MR. MARTIN:  And you've been qualified as a professional planner before many boards, including this board, correct? 
MR. SZABO:  That is correct.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  MR. COLLINS, we accept Mr. Szabo as a professional planner. 
Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. Mr. Szabo, you've been retained by the applicants in this matter; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you had an opportunity to review prior transcripts and/or records of testimony that took place on November 7th, 2017?
A. That is correct.
Q. As well as listening to the testimony that has taken place this evening.
A. That is correct.
Q. And may I ask if you've had an opportunity to look at the variances and/or other modifications that are required in the event this application is to be approved?
A. I have, yes.
Q. And have you reached an opinion regarding not only their applicability, but the correct way to proceed as far as the applicants are concerned?
A. I do, yes.
Q. Would you share that with us, please?
A. Sure. What I'd like to do is share an exhibit with the board. I have a copy of an 11 x 17 exposition of the property, photographs, analysis of the parking that I'd like to hand out.
MR. MARTIN:  A 5, MR. COLLINS? 
MR. COLLINS:  A 5.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
(Whereupon, 11 x 17 Exposition of the Property, Photographs, Analysis of the Parking is received and marked as Exhibit A 5 for identification.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Thank you, sir. 
MS. PATIRE:  Thank you.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Thank you.  
THE WITNESS:  Are you picking me up with this mic?
MR. CAFARELLI: Yes, I am. 
THE WITNESS: Okay. What I've submitted to you is an exhibit that will help us walk through the site and the area and the conditions of the property, building up to the purposes of this application. What the applicant is seeking to do is redevelop and repurpose an existing building that is basically, at its current state, probably not the most sightliest in the area. It is    I would characterize it as obsolete in its purpose, and it's presently not used, just sitting there vacant.
So in the process of that, what the applicant is seeking to do is basically maintain the footprint of the existing main building and reduce that footprint by eliminating    on the    the total footprint of the building on the property, by eliminating an existing accessory structure, a garage, which is occupying about 730 square feet or 14 percent of the site. So that will be eliminated as part of this redevelopment. Now, when we analyze this, the applicant's original intent was to maintain ten parking spaces on the property, the purpose of which was to try to keep that magic number based on the interpretation and decision of the board of adjustment as it was sent back to this board determining that that was a previous approval and, therefore, still valid, as long as it was not diminished in any way. The concern that arose out of that is the parking layout and the efficiency of the circulation and the way the parking was proposed, because what it basically did was it put a parking space within the front yard area, and it created tandem parking in the corner of the property. And although it was functional, I don't think it was very ideal, for how this property is to be redeveloped. So we took another look at it. And what we determined was that the Village of Ridgewood Ordinance actually encourages shared parking arrangements. There was already a proposal to tie the two sites together with an access. The opportunity presented itself, to consider whether or not it made sense to combine the two parcels into a binding parking arrangement to address parking and circulation concerns. And that's what's occurred. Now, if you look at the top sheet    and I'll identify this as the exhibit, the top sheet is the aerial photograph depicting the surrounding area and the subject properties that we're talking about, Lot 6 and 7. That's on the top sheet. If you look at    and that's to orient the board as to the location. If you look at the figure 1, photos of the subject site, you can see that this is a one story structure. It's basically cement, not very attractive. You can see the condition that it's in, where we provide a photograph, picture 1 is a photo of the southerly corner of the building. Picture 2 you can see the front of the building. Picture 3 you could see the easterly corner. We're capturing all sides of it. If you look at picture 4 you can capture the garage angle. The garage that's to be removed from the corner there. You could see the rear of the building in picture 5. Again, another shot of the garage.
And then you have a view of the driveway facing South Broad Street. And what you'll notice is that it's a dead end. There is no connection that presently exists between the two properties. 
So    and you'll also notice that none of the spaces that are presumably there are striped.  There's no control. There is really limited circulation based on the configuration of the building. 
And remember, we're not talking about a very large piece of property. We're talking about a parcel that is essentially 10,818 square feet. So it's very small with a building that sits in such a situation that it kind of presents challenges to redeveloping this in a productive way, both for the applicant, but also for the Village. Now, when we look at these kinds of applications, we try to take into consideration are we sure of the context of this property in relation to others. 
So if you look at picture 7 on the next sheet, which would be figure 2, you have a view of South Broad Street facing south. You'll notice that there's a fire hydrant, but that    this view is essentially clear. Picture 8, you'll see South Broad Street facing north. Again, the streetscape.
(Inaudible) Street is picture number 9, facing east. That's where the R3 zone begins. You see one  and two family homes. If you look at picture 10, that is the adjoining multifamily development. Picture 11 shows the adjoining medical office that is also owned by DR. KORKIS. 
And then you have picture 12 which shows the shared driveway. Shared driveway meaning that that would be the driveway that would be used to come out of the property under the original plan.
MR. MARTIN:  For the record (inaudible) correct? 
THE WITNESS:  That is correct. I'll hold off talking about the last sheet in a moment because that will address the parking situation. Now, what the applicant has agreed to do is, if you look at the site plan as it has been revised   
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Excuse me.  Can I just ask a question?  
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Excuse me, can I just ask one question while you're doing that? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Do you know what time these photos were taken, each of these? 
THE WITNESS:  The photos were taken by a colleague, David Novak, on November 7, 2017. 
I can be    I can verify that I've been to this site, conducted my own site inspection independently to verify, for the benefit of the record and board, that the conditions that are depicted in these pictures are actually true.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah. 
No, I wanted to know the time of day.
THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure of what time.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  Now, if you refer back to the photos of existing conditions and those that are indicated on the demo plan on sheet 2, you can see the layout of the existing property.  There's no striped parking.  You can see the dead end.  You can see that there's a curb that's separating the two parcels, Lot 6 and 7, 200 and 210. 
And you can notice that the way the existing building is situated, it is    it's a somewhat oddly configured parcel.  Certainly 200 is, as you can see. It wraps around the back of Lot 6.
But you can see how the building is juxtapositioned such that the property    basically, the building abuts almost the property line over in the northeast corner. You can see that the site is really constrained in terms of the way it's presently configured. Now, what the plan does, if I can turn the sheet to the proposed site plan, it does a number of things. It provides for safe and efficient circulation around the building. It provides for parked striping in a controlled manner that is consistent with the Village's standards for parking. It provides for handicapped parking.  It provides a refuse area. Each site has its own handicapped stall as required because 200 has to install    200 South Broad has to install their own as part of the prior approval that was granted by this board for that medical office. So now you have a circulation that goes around the building, which is efficient. It's a one way in. If a patient needs to, they can leave the site or    because of this permanent arrangement that's now being proposed by the applicant for a shared parking between the two properties, you've now expanded the ability to be able to make that left turn into the back portion of the lot, keeping these vehicles off the street, and providing opportunity to park on these properties. That opportunity presented itself primarily because there's a shared ownership here, or shared ownership interest between the two properties. And so there's an opportunity here to remedy what I think is a shortfall on parking now and to create a site design and a parking layout that is far more efficient and safe for the public to use to the benefit of not only this property, but to the patients that go there, the employees that have to go there, and thereby benefitting the community as a whole.
Now, in terms of the standards, I said earlier that the Village Ordinance, zoning ordinance, seeks to encourage shared parking arrangements for this obvious reason, because it understands that there's going to be turnover in parking between users. It's going to understand that it provides greater availability if there's spaces available adjoining, those can be utilized.  There's no imaginary wall here to would prevent someone from parking. 
And it really came out naturally because the original plan showed this egress out, it made sense to connect the two, just from a planning perspective and a site design perspective. 
But let's take a look at your ordinance. Section 190:121, off street parking, loading and circulation. Now, what's interesting about the village code is that it provides parking standards by zone, not by use. So irrespective of whether or not 210 South Broad Street is developed as a medical office, as an architectural office, a planning office, an insurance agency, no matter what will go into that building, that standard of one to 250 would apply to an individual site and user, no matter what the use is. And that is a matter of the zoning code, which is then, therefore, a matter of law. That is the standard that this board needs to apply.  In my view, that is what this has been designed to achieve. Now, what's interesting is when you look at the B 2    O B2 zone parking requirements, it specifically says: "One per each 200 square feet of gross  floor area; or one per each 250 square feet of gross floor area when parking is shared by two or more abutting users." And we have that condition now that's being proposed by the applicant, consistent with the village code. Now, it doesn't stop there. You need to read on in the ordinance and look at part (c) where it talks about shared parking in the B 1, B 2, O B1, O B2, C, HC, P and P 2 districts. And I think, for the record, there's some enunciation in reading here. 
"The required parking provisions of  this section may be met by participating in a joint parking program involving two or more non residential uses provided, however, the plans from such a joint program shall have been approved by the board," which is what this applicant is asking for, "or in the site plan exemption committee as applicable and subject to the following." 
There are conditions that are attached to shared parking, and we need to address those.  Number one subpart: "The area for the parking facility shall equal the collective parking requirement of the participating properties to be served." That's where the relief is going to be necessary, and I will address that in a moment. Part 2: "The provisions of 190 121(f)(1), shall be complied with." And we'll jump to that section. And three: "The parking area shall be devoted exclusively to parking and no other use, so long as the principal building or use which makes such parking area necessary shall continue in existence and that it be complied with."
Now, one of the conditions that I stated was compliance with Section 190 121(f)(1). Well, let's look at that. "Location of parking and loading area, (f)(1). For non residential uses"   
And I'll only read the pertinent part that's relevant to this application. "For non residential uses, all off street parking facilities shall be located on the same lot with the building they're serving or on another property owned, leased or shared by the applicant, provided that the following are complied with: A, at least 50 percent of the required parking spaces shall be on property located within 500 feet of any customary entranceway to the principal building or use." We comply with that. And, "B, no required parking spaces shall be located further than 1000 feet from any customary entranceway to the principal building or use," and we comply with that. 
So with the exception of the number of spaces that are being required by the ordinance at the shared parking rate of one per 250, we comply with all the provisions of the parking as stated in the code, with the exception of the number. Now, when we get into the calculation, it becomes important to understand that it's based on gross floor area. Now, again, referencing the Village's Ordinance, what is not considered gross floor area by definition of your ordinance are those areas that are used for storage and similar support functions and in    they're excluded.  Anything that does not contribute to parking demands by virtue of its inactivity is excluded. 
So that's why it was so important to establish for this application that the basement area that is being proposed for 210 South Broad Street, 49 percent of that will be utilized. The majority of that space is unutilized space. Now, when you go back to the original approval of 200 South Broad Street, the stipulation and the findings of fact were that the basement area for that site was not to be used at all, except for storage, which was then reaffirmed just now by the applicant. And so, again, the parking calculation took into account only those areas that contributed by definition to gross floor area. So that    those are the numbers we're working with. Now, when we consider that, we're looking at a total parking demand of 38 parking spaces. That would be between the two. The applicant is providing 31 by this site plan, so where do the other spaces come from? Well, that's the relief we're asking for. However, I believe that there's a rationale for that relief. We're talking seven spaces. The Village Ordinance permits on street parking in this area. Now, if we go to the last page of the exhibit, the areas that are shaded in blue are areas that are available for on street parking. There's a two hour time limit along South Broad Street, and there are meters available north of Leroy Street. And the parking is intended for short term users. But two hours, I would submit, is a sufficient amount of time to go to a doctor's office, as has been testified by the applicant that there is a turnover in patients in this case. But, again, any use that goes into this property would be applied to those parking standards, either shared or unshared. So, when you look at the available areas along South Broad, and I'm not suggesting that Leroy or Brainard should be readily accessible, only because those are the R 3 residential areas, but just by virtue of South Broad Street in those blue areas alone that are being delineated, certainly, you know, within the ordinance that permits parking on the street    so, in essence, it's available. Taking into consideration fire hydrants that you can't park near or within 50 feet or so of a corner, which is restricted, we ask    we anticipate that at least 20 spaces are available just on Broad Street alone, that are available readily to the public. Now, I suggest and    and respectfully opine on this to the board that we would never need to clutter South Broad Street with the operations of these sites. I believe that there's adequate parking on the property, with the shared parking arrangement I think it will work ideally because it just increases    there's a recognition that increases the availability. When you get agreements like this in place it's a positive thing.  Planners try to connect parking all the time for a number of reasons to limit, you know    to provide an increased supply of parking, to eliminate curb openings if we can share driveways. 
In this case we're getting a one way flow through the site which is better than having a dead end and having to come back, how    which it existed prior to the proposed development that is before you tonight.
So, again, I think that this is a situation that is    is an opportunity to address what is otherwise a very obsolete site arrangement that exists on the property right now. So added parking is provided. I think that by eliminating the tandem and the front yard parking we've sacrificed    well, it was recognized that it's not that functional or aesthetically pleasing to the borough I    to the Village. I would never, as a planner representing my municipal clients, suggest that we should be approaching within the front yards in the first place. And when you look at the streetscape along South Broad Street, you know, it would    it would stand out. 
So there was a decision made that if we can share the parking, reconfigure this in a way that works, is functionally better, improve the situation that exists currently, that this would then segue into what I would suggest are the criteria for granting the relief that is being requested. 
So, the board has heard on numerous occasions the statutory criteria.  You know, I won't bore you with the details with it. You know, we know that one criteria by which an applicant can seek relief is a (c)(1) or the hardship, where there is some physicality associated with the property unique to that property that prevents compliance with a strict application of the    of the law.  And the statute allows for you to recognize those situations with proper testimony. 
But there's also another criteria, and that would be what's known as the (c)(2) or the benefits exceed the detriment standard. The    what I like to say is the better alternative, planning alternative to the strict application of the code. And there usually there's a demonstration that you're advancing the intents and purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. I would go one step further and suggest that the    the improvements to this property are such that it extends into that realm of the benefits. And notice that the    the language of the statute, "substantial" detriment. If planners would recognize, there's always going to be an impact associated with a development, positive or negative. And what the statute is saying is that the term substantial" has to be weighed and balanced against what those benefits are. There's always going to be an impact. And in this particular case, I could not identify any detriments that would outweigh the benefits of reconfiguring, redeveloping and repurposing this property in the way that's being proposed now as opposed to having an empty building that exists as it does today and the way it operated in the past. I mean, these sites present challenges. If you    you know, we would love ideal situations where we can comply 100 percent with the code, but we recognize that we are faced with existing developments such as this where the configuration of the property or the way it's developed don't lend itself to easy solutions to complete compliance with your code. And that    that has to be established to the board's satisfaction, which leads me to the final prong of the statute which is the negative criteria, where relief cannot be granted unless it's demonstrated that such relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the zone plan, the master plan and the surrounding neighborhood. I would suggest to you that this shared parking arrangement was put into place in the code to recognize situations such as this where you have overdeveloped lots or lots that may redevelop and aren't going to be of sufficient size or configuration to completely comply with parking, but recognizing the benefits of a shared parking arrangement which increases the supply, as I had stated earlier.
So clearly we're consistent with the intent of the code, and the circulation is far improved and the availability of parking which is permitted by    by the Village by ordinance, which essentially says to the public you can use these spaces that are available to you along the street within certain hours and within certain time limits, which is enforced by the parking authority.
So looking at that, I believe that the property as it's configured and developed presents a physical hardship that really prevents the redevelopment or repurposing of this building in a way that would comply completely with the zoning ordinance for parking, to pick up those extra spaces, without tearing down the building to such an extent that it has no utility any longer. In terms of the benefits of this, clearly in terms of the statute and purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, I think that it advances goal (a), which is to encourage municipal action and guide the appropriate use for development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health, welfare, safety and morals of the community. 
Clearly, the redesign and repurposing of this building is such that the clear enhancement of its use it to the public benefit consistent with that goal in the land use plan for the reasons I stated, in terms of parking, circulation and design. And, you know, then you also have goal (i), which is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Good civic design and arrangement. I think that what you have now, which is this uncontrolled, dead end situation, over paved, overdeveloped, the applicant is now removing the garage, reconfiguring, essentially making a positive connection to the next door property where they have control. And the assurance of this board is being granted    given is an easement. An actual filed deed easement that says parking shall be shared, along with access. That, I think, is good civic design and good planning. Being able to lay out the parking in a way that is conforming to your stall    designated stall sizes, your circulation aisles, everything flows here in a way that is appropriate in terms of engineering and site design. The    aesthetically, when you look at the photographs that I present in the exhibit, you can see that you've got this dark, cement block building, not very attractive to the neighborhood, and clearly what will happen is that the applicant will be repurposing the building and making it an attractive building once again, and a functional building, rather than what it is now which is empty and just sitting there. 
So, for those reasons, I think the statutory criteria is satisfied. I don't believe that there's any negative impact, only positive ones with this application because, again, it's adequate parking, there's substantial improvements in the investment being made in this property to upgrade it in a manner that I think is appropriate consistent with your standards and consistent with the statute. Again    and I think, again, I just wanted to emphasize, the building, itself, other than the removal of the garage, is not expanded. We're working within the existing footprint of the    the building that is there now and refurbishing it and repurposing it. So, what the    the applicant has shown a willingness to remove building space that is either dysfunctional or causing dysfunction on the property, we've agreed to do that. And they're now going to take the existing building and configure it and redo it so that it will be a much better functioning property, and also to limit the use of the property. Don't forget, the basement area is going to be restricted to, you know, inner spaces, I would call it, or storage. There is some activity going there, support services, which is permitted. But, carefully delineated so as not to trigger or upset the floor ratio, which was determined that would be compliant if that condition were met and it is being met. And I read to you the definition of gross floor area and that is also not calculated into the floor ratio calculation, so that's why we're before this board. There are a number of ancillary variances that are also required. We need a variance from section 190 111(e)(3), which is a side yard requirement, zero to 12 feet required. Our proposal varies between zero feet and 12 plus or minus feet. We don't comply with the strict application of the side yard requirement, but again, that is a hardship based upon the existing configuration of the property and the building which forces that condition. We are increasing the coverage of    improvement coverage from 90 to    where 90 is permitted, 94 percent is proposed. 
But again, much of this site is already paved. And in order to get parking, which is of paramount concern to this board as has been expressed through this hearing and prior hearings, would necessitate that the benefits of granting relief from the    per this coverage would affect the ability to provide a better circulation and parking plan on this property consistent with the (c)(2) requirement. Number of parking spaces, I testified to in terms of the shared parking arrangements. We are seven short, but again, I've demonstrated that there's adequate public availability of parking along South Broad Street, adequate to absorb any excess that may be required. The setback, under 190 121 (f)(2)(e), the setback for parking areas from side and rear lot lines where we require 5 feet and zero to 4 and a half feet is proposed, and it varies by location. Again, when you look at the exhibit, you look at the site plan and the existing developed character of the property, you can see that in order to get the parking that is required in the manner that complies with the Village's parking stall size, circulation aisles and everything else, it kind of pushes the parking there. And, again, it's a trade off and balancing between do we get the parking as much as we can on the property, or do we start shifting things. And I would suggest to you, respectfully, that the site just    the way it's configured and the developed character of both properties really precludes much latitude in terms of that standard. The setback for driveways from residential zone, again, 10 feet is required. Zero feet is proposed. Again, it is an existing condition. We are utilizing the existing driveway to come into 210 South Broad. We are exiting out of the driveway for 200; again, a shared arrangement that is a benefit. 
You're only going to have entry, no exiting, whereas prior to that you'd have to do all kinds of contortions to leave the property to get out. It is an existing condition. It's one that has historically existed here and I don't believe that that would result in any substantial detriment to the neighboring property because it's part of that street, and there's really no other way to design this such that you can move that driveway in compliance, we'd be smack in the middle of the building instead of being refurbished and exists now. So that presents its own hardship.
And so, for those reasons I think that the board has the ability to look at this as an improvement to the neighborhood and to the community and grant the relief that's been requested consistent with the statutory criteria. 
MR. COLLINS:  Thank you.  Questions from the board? 
MR. CAFARELLI:  Chuck, please use the microphone.
MR. COLLINS:  Questions from the board?
MR. MARTIN:  Can I just clarify?
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Sure. Go ahead, Chris. 
MR. MARTIN:  Not    not    quickly, John, just a couple clarifications. 
On the shared conditions under 191 21, you put in the area must be used exclusively for parking. You put in 190 121 (f)(1), the interesting part about, in this situation, there's a shared ownership between the two lots. What was your first part of the shared condition under the    under the ordinance? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, they're overlapping provisions. 191 21 (c) allows for shared parking, but there are three conditions, okay, 190 121 (c) has three parts.  One    subpart one:
"The area for the parking facility shall equal the collective parking area requirement for the participating properties to be served." Clearly, we're short parking on that because it's suggesting that you have to    provision of 190 121 (f)(1) shall be complied with, that's part two. 
It jumps down to the section that I just read to you earlier. And then three: "The parking shall be devoted exclusively"    "parking area shall be devoted exclusively to parking and no other use, so long as the principal building or use which makes such parking shall continue in existence." (F), which is the condition two under (c), says that for non residential uses, this is part one: "All off street parking facilities shall be located on the same lot with the building they are serving or on other property owned, leased or shared by the applicant, provided that the following are complied with." And these are the ones that you can say are relevant to this application: A, distance requirements, I testified to earlier.
MR. CAFARELLI: Use the mic, please.
THE WITNESS: "50 percent for the required parking spaces shall be on the property located within 500 feet of any customary entranceway to the principal building or use." And B: "No required parking space shall be located further than 1000 feet." And we meet those conditions.
MR. MARTIN: And in terms of your first page of Exhibit A 5, the access or I'll    can I    may I call it ingress, that comes in for both lots in between both lots; there's, like, a driveway there, correct? 
THE WITNESS: That is correct. That would be the egress to lot    for Lot 7, you would circulate around the building in a clockwise fashion. You could either make a left to the parking area to the rear on Lot 6, or leave the site by making a right. 
MR. MARTIN:  Would both lots exit next to the residential development, or would   
THE WITNESS: No. The    that would be only    that is designated, if you look on the site plan, as an entry. You enter the property parking area for 210, you exit via the easement off of the property that's 200. And that's on the plan. If you see the arrows, that designate that. You wouldn't turn around.
MR. MARTIN:  And then for Lot 6, if the    if you're just going to the doctor's current offices, you would enter  
THE WITNESS:  And exit.
MR. MARTIN:  At the same location? 
THE WITNESS:  That is correct.
MR. MARTIN:  So the only access to Lot 7 would be through that one entranceway? 
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
MR. MARTIN:  Then it's not a shared  
THE WITNESS:  That is not shared. What's shared is the    you have the option. There would be no reason for you to use the access drive for 210 if you're going to 200 because you have that direct entry there. But you could if you wanted to. But it's not really set up that way.
MR. MARTIN:  And the distance, the 500 and 1000 feet that you said is satisfied even if you're parking behind Lot 6 up in the corner, that's still satisfied to get to Lot 7 to go to the doctor's.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Because the entire lot depth of Lot 6 is 234 feet.  So    and the parking is within that.
MR. MARTIN:  The last thing from me, all the other variances except for the parking, they're preexisting or the 94  
THE WITNESS:  That is    that is correct.
MR. MARTIN:  Even the 94 percent is preexisting; it's not added impervious surface? 
THE WITNESS:  It    it is slightly increased, because by virtue of the creation of that driveway out from behind Lot 6, there was a line of shrubs there.  It's a very minimal increase. 
But that was necessary to be able to create the circulation necessary to make this whole parking arrangement work.  And that was the rationale for that variance.
MR. MARTIN:  And with the garage razed, would that be blacktop then? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes. That becomes part of the surface area for circulation around the building. 
And that's necessary because otherwise you would not be able to get the parking spaces that are situated to the westerly property line on Lot 6. You couldn't back up. You would have to create that as pavement area.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  So you lose some footprint and you just get a little bit more impervious surface with the lot.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  All right. 
Thank you, Chairman.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Start on this end this time. Frances?
MS. BARTO: I have nothing.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay.
Melanie?
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So I    if I recall before the doctor testified that there were never, ever cars parked in front of their office building ever. And then, you know, you came up with    and I had asked    at one point, I remember asking if there was on street parking and I think the other gentleman wasn't sure. But this clearly states that there is on street parking in front of there, and according to Google Images and Google Earth, there is always somebody parked in front of that office building and pretty much anywhere there's parking available currently on Broad Street in that area. New York Sports Club, the gym, just north of there, overflow parking takes up any available on street parking on Leroy and Brainard for most of the day at any given point.  And I imagine that what we can glean from this    these images is that the stacked parking for the dental office at lot, what I guess would be Lot 5, the employees are    I would have to guess it's employees are stacked two, four, six, eight cars deep in the back corner of that lot and every single spot in their lot is filled. And I'm guessing that if it's not New York Sports Club it's probably that office taking up any and all available on street parking in that vicinity at any point. So while, yes, maybe there is ample on street parking, it's already used with the nearby businesses that don't have enough parking for their current needs. Not only that, it would appear that    it would appear that in Lot 6, every spot is filled with the exception of maybe two, and at any given point that one corner   
THE WITNESS:  Are you referring to the aerial in the exhibit?  
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm referring to Google Images, sorry that I don't have them to present.
THE WITNESS:  Are you looking at the top sheet of   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm not looking at anything that was given us.
THE WITNESS:  Oh, okay.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm looking at images available   
THE WITNESS:  I'm showing an empty    I'm showing an empty parking lot.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  No, you know, so I mean I    I can only speak to my    some of my personal experience living here, as well. 
THE WITNESS:  That's fine.
MS. McWILLIAMS: And I know that to be a congested area. So Debbie and I actually did some research over here while we're listening. And what we've come up with is basically a complete    every lot, every parking lot filled in that area, and every available on street parking space filled in that area. And that's    that's how I understand it to be. So I agree    I'm understanding you that there is available on street parking. And I'm glad that you had it listed here because the doctor had said there were never, ever, ever cars parked ever in front of that building and now we see that there is, in fact, parking and often cars parked there.
DR. KORKIS:  (Inaudible.)
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm glad to see that, you know, that we do now know how much available on street parking is.  I'm just trying to suggest that it is all    it's filled.  It's used.  It's    And I suspect that's probably why with so much regularity we see the parking enforcement over in that neighborhood. I'm wondering    you know, I don't know any more    if there's any    I understand you feel that there's, like    there's a problem with the configuration of that lot, but at what point does it become    I guess I'm asking you at what point does it become    does it make more sense to do significantly different construction versus try to cram it in the way it is.
THE WITNESS:  First off, I don't believe we're ramming in anything. We're utilizing an existing building as it exists and has historically existed. The applicant is already removing a structure from the property and is restricting the use of the basement area, and that's a matter of record.
The parking that's on the street is public parking. It is sanctioned by this Village, by ordinance, and it's permitted to be used. And it's not enforced by user, it's enforced by availability and time. So there's no restriction there. I don't believe the applicant should be penalized for either enforcement issues that may exist or because other users are using the on site parking.  It's first come, first serve, and they have  
FEMALE SPEAKER: No, I totally agree with you.
THE WITNESS: Let me finish, I'm trying to address some of your concern. But I don't think the applicant should be penalized for that by virtue of what they're trying to do on this parcel. And I don't believe this is an overdevelopment by any stretch of the means of that definition. And again, this is parking that is available to the public during certain hours at certain intervals.  And, quite frankly, we know that there's an ebb and flow to the parking. We know, for example, that this office that is currently operated by the applicant is closed on the weekends. We also heard testimony how this applicant operates her operations on limited hours, which actually increases availability of parking on this site. Now, it's been suggested that we coordinate those hours between users. I would suggest that that would be an unreasonable condition based on the fact that the ordinance calculates the percentage of parking on the basis of square footage.  However, the practical reality is that between the two parking spaces you've got    two parking lots you've got 31 spaces available. The overflow can occur on this street, and we know that it can fluctuate on the street, enforcement can come along and shoo people along. That's their role in terms of monitoring the parking situation. I can't address what's happening with the sports facility, you know, no traffic analysis that I know of calculates or penalizes applicants on the basis of, you know, some use that's occurring 1000, 2000 feet away. It's a matter of is this property being reasonably developed, and I would suggest to you that it is.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Well, I think I'm speaking to your comment about there being ample on street parking. 
THE WITNESS:  Right.
MS. McWILLIAMS: And I'm suggesting that it just might not end up being as ample as you think.  So that's    I'm addressing that comment not so much the use at all.  I mean, I'm not arguing so much there.  I'm just suggesting that you have a deficiency in parking, and there's a deficiency in parking clearly within that area. So I'm just, I'm asking    I guess I had asked the question and you answered you're already using  
THE WITNESS: Let me suggest this. If the applicant were not    were to occupy this as is, make no changes at all, not improve it, they'd be entitled to do that. And the condition that it's in now, I don't think is in anyone's best interest, particularly the Village, in the way it exists. 
And I    and I don't think for the efforts that are being made here that the applicant should be penalized because of a perceived parking issue based upon users using public spaces that are    that are sanctioned by the Village by ordinance.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I think I was just addressing that there's a parking deficiency in asking for a variance because of that, and there's just no denying that that's the case. 
So I guess my question was answered and, you know, I appreciate your answer. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Debbie?
MS. PATIRE:  Yes. I have a question. Going from Lot 7 to Lot 6, I guess you would put a stop sign and then a car would have to go across to go with the flow of traffic, correct? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, I'll defer to the engineers on    on the signage and what's appropriate.  The applicant would adhere to any recommendations in signage as deemed appropriate by the Village engineer, and there would be signage included in here. I didn't design that. So that would be best deferred to the engineer. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay.  I'm asking from a    just from, I guess from a shared parking perspective on how that would    I did realize that the circulation was up and to the right and to the left until I Google Earthed it, so I'm just curious on how they would follow that circulation path.  But I'll ask.  Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Jeff?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  No questions.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Dave. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I was following up on    on what Debbie was just asking. Because it's shared parking that means that    that persons going to 200 would be able to park in the lot for 210 also, right? 
THE WITNESS:  That is correct. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: Now, when you    when you made the decision to    to explore the shared parking, did you    did you actually go back to the drawing board and see if parking that you've already designed for 210, if that could be reconfigured in a way that would actually yield more parking spaces? 
THE WITNESS:  I actually did look at that.  It was largely my suggestion that we go this direction because I thought that the    the prior plan was functional but not ideal.  And if you look at the way the parking lot if laid out for lot    for the 200 South Broad, I looked at maybe expanding it out. 
But there really is no way to do that and not compromise or lose spaces.  We looked at that and I think that what you have here is the optimal layout for the parking lot for 200.  We looked at that.  And I...
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Did you consider the fire access to the rear of the Broad Ridge in considering that reconfiguration? 
THE WITNESS:  No, because I looked at this as legal paved parking. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Because there is    does    seem to be some difference of opinion as to whether that is a parking space.
THE WITNESS:  Oh, it's a parking space. It's a parking space because this is consistent with the site plan that was approved by this board. It's a parking space because this site is Coed and it's been inspected. So my conclusion is it's parking and shall be and should be counted. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  No more questions. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Thanks, Dave.
CHIEF VAN GOOR?  
CHIEF VAN GOOR:  Well, the only question I have is about that parking space.  He just said it was a parking space.
THE WITNESS:  It's a parking space. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: It's not. Then why is there a chain around it? 
THE WITNESS: I can't speak to the arrangements that were made between the Village and the Applicant as part of the prior    I wasn't part of that discussion and I didn't participate in that application. But, again, it's striped. It's in compliance with the site plan approval that was granted by the Village. And my understanding is there's a CO here, so my obligation is to count it. It's parking. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Mayor? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  It could have been striped at a later time, right? 
THE WITNESS:  I can't speak to the timing, Mayor.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I mean it could have been.
THE WITNESS:  It could have been.  I don't know. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Before I ask any questions of you, I just  
THE WITNESS:  But I believe the resolution referred to 23 parking spaces.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can you tell me, on Lot 6, where there is a dumpster? I hate to hawk on the dumpster issue, but a  
THE WITNESS:  Yes.  On Lot 6, if you look at the parallel    as you enter the site, go right, actually you circulate counter clockwise, the dumpster is, I believe, the    that square    those are actual dumpster    there's a dumpster on that location. That square concrete. 
Yeah, you can show it. It's right    it's in that island. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I actually want to see it   
THE WITNESS:  It's on the island.
MR. SHORTINO:  That's part of the dumpster.
THE WITNESS:  Each site has its own dumpster, each site has its own handicapped parking.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Oh, I see it. Okay.
MR. SHORTINO:  On this one, I had to look for it too. It's right there (inaudible.)
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay. I thought that's where it is. 
MR. SHORTINO:  (Inaudible) that's where it is.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Hey, Brian, for the benefit of everybody here, can you point it out? Do you have an exhibit so you can show everybody, not just a couple people up here? 
MR. SHORTINO:  No, no, it doesn't    (inaudible) you see a portion of it right here, but it's on that center aisle that's where     
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  There's nothing on that    you don't have anything printed at scale we can show the whole thing?
MR. SHORTINO:  Excuse me? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Is that the only large scale drawing we have? 
MR. SHORTINO:  That's the only large scale drawing, yes.
THE WITNESS:  It's rendered.
If you look at the site plan, it's the corner of the island.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. So I just    you know what, I    I hear everybody talking about the parking deficit, and in my mind I'm hearing the residents also and their concerns, and their concerns appear to be the driveway the traffic coming in and out of the driveway, the cars parked there, and that dumpster. And I'm just wondering why wouldn't we say share the dumpster, share that dumpster on the other side, turn the other two spaces that are currently angling in toward the building, turn those around and let    close off that driveway and close off that south driveway and let everybody enter and exit on that center driveway and they just drive in and maybe do some nice plantings or something for the neighbors. And it's kind of, like, a little bit of a compromise, but it would seem to me that that's a doable plan. And even though we don't correct the dumpster and I don't know that that's still doable, I kind of keep looking at this thinking, there seems to be a lot of activity and    and activity going in circles, and I'm concerned for a number of reasons; there's the parking deficit, of course, but I'm also concerned that it's a really bad configuration. It just doesn't really work. I see these cars backing out. I see a building there. I see this dumpster that's troubling people that they hear this clanking and people going in and out of it. I think maybe you could reconfigure and come up with a better plan. I'm just saying, I hear the residents there. They live with it every day. I agree with my colleague that I don't think that inasmuch as, yes, they're public spaces on the street and they're accessible to any member of the public, and I agree with you to that end, I do agree, but I also agree that there's a reason that we have a shared parking program and even with the shared, you still can't get to that number and it's still a significant deficit of better than 20 percent. So why not go back to the drawing board and do a better job on the configuration and even though you have to compromise somewhere, and again, I can't say that this board will say yay or nay to the parking deficit, but maybe come up with a better plan that    that makes the neighbors feel better, they get a little something, and you have a better flow.
I'm just saying, that wasn't a question actually, but    actually, let me rephrase. It is a question.  Can you do that?
THE WITNESS:  Can you do that? I understand where you're going. I appreciate that. 
I would suggest to you, this is an appropriate well designed layout. It functions perfectly well.  It provides for a one way circulation. You have more than adequate aisle space to back up without any kind of    it creates no conflicts in parking or circulation. The reason it's one way flow is so that it works in the best and most efficient way possible. There are no conflicts in turning movement. Everything complies. Again, I don't want to harp on this, but we're dealing with an existing building configuration here that kind of    and    and if you consider the configuration of the lot, itself, which is only 10,000 square feet, even though we have a shared parking arrangement, you can't change where the building is or the property    the shared parking situation does not change the fact that you're still have two distinct parcels. We have an agreement between two parcels to share parking. I don't see how you can reconfigure this any better than it already is based on existing conditions. And I think that this is a vast improvement over what's there. And you can tinker with it all you want, but you're going to run into the same issues with respect to the building location, the lot lines. It works actually perfectly well the way it's configured now. And I'm not    and I'm saying that not because I'm married to the plan. I was the one that suggested the change in the first place for the spaces that I didn't think were functional or were optimal. I was the one that pushed for the shared parking arrangement for the benefits that it provides this particular development. And I believe this is the optimal and best condition you're going to get, and tinkering with it, coming up    I don't see how you can come up with a better design. I'll defer to the site engineer. I do a lot of site design and planning. I just don't see how that can be done.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And I don't. 
And I appreciate that that's your job   
THE WITNESS:  I'm just sharing my thoughts, Mayor.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:     because you're the professional in this and I appreciate that. I you know, it was just a thought that maybe there was something   
THE WITNESS:  Well, I    I understand.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:     a happy    there was some negotiating point that could reach a happy medium.
THE WITNESS: There's a dialogue that has to happen. That's why we have public hearings and flush out ideas. That's why we're here a second time. And I appreciate that. That is a very important interaction. I respectfully submit to you, this is the ideal. The dumpster, I know that there's been much made of it. In reality, we're not talking massive amounts of refuse. The medical waste is a non issue because that's regulated by the State of New Jersey.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, I don't think the medical waste is an issue any longer either.
THE WITNESS:  And that's not even an issue here. The dumpster, if it can be relocated, I think that we can look at that. It's been suggested that it can be. That's fine. But I don't think it's going to cause the angst that's been suggested in its present location. And I'm not saying that to minimize the concern, I'm saying that because the reality is there's garbage collection going on all the time. And this one location is not going to overflow with refuse. It's just not. That's    we're talking    we're talking a 4,000 square foot office building. It's not going to generate that kind of waste. And, again, I think it functions far better having a refuse area there serving one building and having another one serving this building as a matter of efficiency and convenience for the uses of those sites. So I think that this    this site is appropriately designed. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I appreciate it. Thank you.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  One quick question.
Does anyone know how high that retaining wall is in the corner where the dumpster is? 
MR. SHORTINO:  (Inaudible). 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Because if it's high enough it might actually be less noisy in that location than if it were opposite on the south side of the building somewhere.   
MR. SHORTINO:  It's only about    it's only about 7 and a half feet to the dumpster…
MR. COLLINS:  This is where the dumpster is. (Whereupon, off the record discussion is held.)  
MR. MARTIN:  In order (inaudible) talking (inaudible). 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Oh, okay.
MR. SHORTINO:  In this corner it's approximately 2 an a half feet high.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Okay.  So the dumpster would actually be higher than the wall?
MR. SHORTINO:  Yes.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  MR. COLLINS, the applicant's been very beneficial in terms of her testimony as regards to just clearing up issue (inaudible) medical waste has obviously been addressed by her. 
But if there's a shared dumpster in light of two small properties sharing a dumpster area, that might be something to consider. That's all.
MR. COLLINS:  You know, I have to admit, I didn't get the beginning of that. 
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.
Your applicant has    in the audience, she's been helpful in terms of testifying as to what happens at her site and the two properties. And in light of the fact that it appears to be, as Mr. Szabo said, not a significant amount of refuse, maybe a shared dumpster situation could benefit the    what is it, positive criteria in the Municipal Land Use Law.
THE WITNESS:  It's something to think about. 
I mean you don't have to answer that.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm not sure which engineer would want to answer, but is there any site distance issue or like    for    where you have the three handicapped spots in the one corner up behind 200, and then you have the one sort of in this upper corner behind    I'm sorry, behind    yeah, 200 and then the one that's over here in the corner behind 210, so you have people potentially, you know, without any version of a handicap perhaps having to cross over where this driveway is going to be    where people will be pulling through, up and out from all of the lot, the three spots over there you're going to have people potentially having to cross over traffic coming from any number of directions. Is there    and I'm not sure what the site distance issues are around the buildings. 200 appears to have some sharp, you know, sort of, you know, sharp angles.  This one kind of juts in, but the ramp is going to kind of go to the side. Is there any sort of crosswalk or stop signs or light, how    in what way are you going to keep anybody parked in these handicapped spots, any of the four of them that I'm looking at, safe from crossing over all of this traffic? Or is    I don't know who    or is there anything    
MS. BOGART:  What if you have more than one handicap person.
THE WITNESS:  The three handicapped spots that are shown on 200    
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Yeah.  Well, or  
THE WITNESS:     are part of a    part of a prior site plan approval and approved for accessibility   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  But you're now sharing them with this building, so you might have a handicapped patient parking over there because it's the only handicap available spot, and needing to come over to    to 210 South Broad, so they're going to have to cross over this double driveway    this is    and the driveway with in and out traffic. 
And on top of that, if they're parked over there with this shared agreement, they're going to have to cross over the drive   
THE WITNESS:  Oh, I see   
MS. McWILLIAMS:    coming through  
THE WITNESS:  So your concern is that they're parking over there because they have to get to 200? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Yes, it's a shared lot, so they may well.
THE WITNESS:  That's possible.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  It's probable. 
MS. PATIRE:  Instead of the    because we don't use that use in that building so there's more than one handicapped person going into 200 at one time? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  It's shared. You have to assume those parking spots are going to be used to both buildings. 
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Right    
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  It's shared, by definition. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  But if they're waiting and they're crossing over    anybody parked behind the 200 lot in the shared handicapped spots that needs to get to 210 is going to have to cross over traffic coming in    
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Through the easement.
MS. McWILLIAMS:    coming out and through the easement. All of it.
THE WITNESS:  I'll    I'll defer to the site engineer, but I    what I would comment on is the number of handicapped spaces is determined by code, and that one is required for 210 and that's all, and if we presume that that satisfies that requirement then the assumption that we might get someone parking over under the lot, I can't deny that may occur, but I have to believe that the way the site functions, that that shouldn't be an issue, but    and the building    the parking for the handicapped is proximate to the building in a way that there are ramping accessibilities provided in compliance with ADA. I don't see that as an issue but   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I just you think to try really, really hard here, to not see what I'm asking. 
THE WITNESS:  I'm just    
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm sorry, hang on.
I'm asking a pretty direct question.  And I'm not asking an unreasonable question. It's late, it's been a long day, and I'm not asking an unreasonable question. Okay? You potentially could have somebody in a wheelchair parked over here.  How are you going to keep them safe getting to 210? That's what I'm asking. It's not unreasonable. It's not farfetched. I don't care about a code. How do you keep that person safe? Tell me the code for that.
MS. PATIRE:  Obviously it could be an orthopedist's office, so it doesn't even have to be someone who's confined to a wheelchair. It could be somebody that has a temporary handicapped sticker because they had knee surgery or hip surgery. So they're crossing traffic.  It's not unreasonable if that's an egress.  
MS. McWILLIAMS:  If you don't have the answer you could say I don't have the answer, but   
THE WITNESS:  I    I    I
MS. McWILLIAMS:     I don't want to hear about the code. I want to hear about   
THE WITNESS:  I understand your concern.
MS. McWILLIAMS:    how you're going to keep that person safe.
THE WITNESS: I don't have an answer off the top of my head how that would work. It's plausible. I'm not going to deny the plausibility of that. You're absolutely right. It's plausible.  How likely it is, I can't    I don't know. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So the answer is you don't know how you're going to keep that person safe crossing    a handicapped person   
THE WITNESS:  That's not what I said.  I said I don't   
MS. McWILLIAMS:    crossing all the different traffic patterns.
THE WITNESS:     that's not what I said.  I said I don't    
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I think we're kind of stuck in a   
MR. CAFARELLI:  Microphones.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Hang on. I think we're kind of stuck in a loop here, so possibly the question for Brian is: Brian, would you consider it to be good engineering practice to have some sort of crossing mechanism across the easement when you have two way traffic, parking on one side and a building on the other?
MR. SHORTINO:  I agree with the    the member said about the potential happening that somebody parked in that handicapped spot and they want to get to across to the other building. And what would need to be done would be to provide a safe access way for that to be provided. What    whether it's a crosswalk or some other type of means. So I'm not disagreeing.  It was a legitimate question. We don't have the answer to that right now, but we have to look at how many accesses to the building, where there are mixed buildings, you know, the normal access throughout    from those handicap spots, obviously was intended for this building. So we have to check actually where the building entrances are located. And possibly provide another ramp, another landing, some type of safe crosswalk or something to that effect to get here, if that would happen, and then possibly tie in, you know, for pedestrians, that    that type of thing. Those are legitimate questions. But just keep in mind that could happen. The intent is, with any handicapped spot, is you have to have the shortest accessible route to the entrance, so that's why this spot is located where it is because of the short    because of the potential route to the entrance to this building. So we'd have to provide that same type of same type of accessible route from those spaces to get to here. So it's a legitimate question. We have to provide that. 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  As long as you    as long as you look at it because now it's a shared condition, it could work both ways.
MR. SHORTINO:  Correct.
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  The handicap    the one accessible spot on Lot 7    
MR. SHORTINO:  (Inaudible.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:     that person could be going over to lot   
MR. SHORTINO:  You see if from here, maybe going there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Right. 
So the idea that it was approved previously is    is nonsense because it's shared now.  It has to be looked at again.
THE WITNESS:  Well, there    there could be a sidewalk   
MR. SHORTINO:  (Inaudible.)
THE WITNESS:  There could be a sidewalk network that's designed to provide access to the shortest accessible route connecting to where the ramp is now on the proposed building, crossing across the driveway connecting these things. And that would be something that the code official would look at   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes.
THE WITNESS:     in terms of ADA compliance. 
But, you know, it has to be designed and you have to take   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I think that's something you guys could look at, but I don't think that's going to affect the number of parking spaces. 
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I think you can look at effective ways and safe ways to have people cross the easement, pedestrians. But that's not going to affect the number of parking spaces. 
MR. SHORTINO:  No. It's not    no, I agree.
MR. COLLINS:  I    may I? I believe that this is an appropriate time to ask the board to carry this application to the next available date. I ask that because it's obvious from this conversation that we just had that there are some safety issues that you've asked us to address, and certainly we want to make sure that we cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s before we present the matter for your vote. So under those circumstances, I certainly thank you for your attention this evening, and ask if you'll carry it to the next available date. But keep in mind the fact that we have homework to do before we can come back, which means that we're not available next week. 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. COLLINS, that's a good point and I    I happen to agree with you. 
I just want to say, Brian, Chris Rutishauser asked earlier in terms of, I guess, marking each surface with a different type of  
MR. SHORTINO:  Yes, a handicap ramp, you've probably all seen them, they have a colored truncated   
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Truncated   
MR. SHORTINO:    to give the handicap person (inaudible) for just access to that.  It could be that they're coming to a point where the customers going in, when they needed that, they're coming in (inaudible) light so that gives them a warning to be careful of vehicles. (Inaudible.)
MR. MARTIN:  And you would agree with him about that.
MR. SHORTINO:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  And, Mr. Szabo, MS. McWILLIAMS, this might make a little sense, too, both separate buildings in the shared parking arrangement, proposed shared parking arrangement, both have to have their own handicapped parking areas uniquely set forth for their    those buildings. However, as a practical matter, if it's crowded are you going to be able to stop people from parking in (inaudible.)
THE WITNESS:  It would be counterintuitive for me to suggest a shared parking arrangement and then deny that that's not going to happen (inaudible.) And I'm not suggesting that. It's something that deserves a    a look.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And maybe when you go back and look at that you might seriously consider the shared dumpster and turning that around and having only one access driveway, because I think it actually could work better, especially for the neighbors. 
THE WITNESS:  Understood. Thank you, yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yeah, MR. COLLINS, appreciate your offer to carry this because we still have comments from the public. We still have testimony from our professionals. And I recognize the hour is getting late. So, April 17th. Is that enough time for your professionals to  
MR. COLLINS: It should be. I mean, I don't speak with them, but it sounds like enough time    
MR. SHORTINO: It won't take that long.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Last    I mean. Okay. So   
MR. MARTIN:  You'd agree there's no prejudice to the board and no further notice required.
MR. COLLINS:  Excellent.
MR. MARTIN:  Members of the audience    
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yeah, I got it. 
Brigette? 
MS. BOGART:  I just    while they're doing a little bit of homework, I'm wondering if they can look into the 2011 approval which created the emergency access easement.
THE WITNESS: What was that, Brigette? 
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  A little bit louder.
MS. BOGART:  The 2011 approval for the site plan created the emergency access easement, and I'm wondering if you can look into that, as well.
THE WITNESS: Sure.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you, MR. COLLINS.
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So just so everyone's clear, this application is going to be carried to April 17, 2018. So April 17th. Same room, same time, same bat channel. There'll be no   
MR. MARTIN:  No further notice.  (Inaudible.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Right. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the matter is continuing to a future date.)
Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from April 18, 2017 were adopted with one correction.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m.      
Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary
Date approved:  February 5, 2019
                                     
  • Hits: 1119

COPYRIGHT © 2021 VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD

If you have any trouble with accessing information contained within this website, please contact Dylan Hansen - 201-670-5500 x276 or by email dhansen@ridgewoodnj.net.

Feedback