Planning Board Public Meeting 20162009

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of September 20 2016. 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. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Following members were present: Mr. Joel, MAYOR KNUDSEN, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Mr. Torielli, Ms. McWilliams, Mr. Scheibner, and Ms. Patire. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Blais Brancheau; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli., Ms. Altano was not present.

Ridgewood/Dayton, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100 & 152 South Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905, Lots 5.01/1.01 – Public Hearing continued from September 6, 2016 - Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:


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

Correspondence received by the Board – MR. CAFARELLI reported none was received.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I would like to call this Planning Board public meeting of September 20, 2016 to order. We're in the Village Courtroom at approximately 7:45. In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4‑8(d) of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village Municipal Offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

Please stand for the flag salute. (Whereupon, everyone stands for a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, roll call?  





  1. CAFARELLI: Ms. Altano?

(No response.)

  1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?


  1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Reilly?

(No response.)

  2. PATIRE: Here.
  4. SCHEIBNER: Here.
  5. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

(No response.)


(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Michael.

We have five members present so that is a quorum so we'll proceed. Do we have any public comments on topics not pending before the board tonight? Please state your name.

  1. MATTESSICH: Kevin Mattessich, 836 Morningside Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey. I just want to briefly refer to the fact that I understand a citizens' motion was made earlier today concerning further proceedings regarding the housing developments. And I would like to know if and when that's going to be scheduled. I think it's important that it be dealt with quickly. I think they're very serious issues. I think those issues will, in fact, preclude further action on these applications until they're resolved. And in that sense we may be wasting a lot of our time going through these items. I do think it needs to be looked at carefully. I would like to know, you know, what the schedule would be for having that motion formally presented and acted upon.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. Thank you.

State your name and address?

  1. FELDSOTT: I'm Ed Feldsott.
  2. CAFARELLI: Would you spell your last name, please.
  3. FELDSOTT: Sure, I can do that.

F‑e‑l‑d‑s‑o‑t‑t, 67 Heights Road, H‑E‑I‑G‑H‑T‑S.

  1. CAFARELLI: Thank you.
  2. FELDSOTT: Sure. May I start then?


  1. FELDSOTT: Okay. So the last week I spoke briefly and I suggested that the Planning Board get a list of other developments the developer has developed, a list of other developments that the architect had designed, and match them up to the schematics, the drawings, because when I drive around and see some of these affordable housing structures in different towns, they do not look very nice. They look ‑‑ not great ‑‑ they that look very affordable. They look very low end. And Ridgewood really is not a low‑end town. I want to stress to the Planning Board that you represent, you know ‑‑ you know you represent the residents of Ridgewood. And I hope that you are not threatened by the dozens of attorneys that the developer sent in here. And I hope you really make the right decision by us residents because to us this town is very important. It's very beautiful. And we do not want it destroyed by overdevelopment. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. Seeing that there's no one else, I will proceed to the next item. Are there any committee, commission or professional updates? To the right?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: To the left?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing there's nothing. Michael, has there been any correspondence received by the board?

  1. CAFARELLI: Yes, I received an e‑mail with multiple attachments from several residents regarding the complaint against the Planning Board. We also received a traffic report from Petri (phonetic) Traffic.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Michael. Next item will be Number Four on the agenda, Two Forty Associates. This matter is going to be carried to October 18th, 2016, for a meeting without further notice.

  1. WELLS, we have your consent to carry the Two Forty Associates matter, right, to October 18th?
  2. WELLS: You do.


And do you know what witnesses you're going to have on that date just...  

  1. WELLS: I will have all THE Witnesses prepared to testify. Do you want them by name?

Peter Wells is the architect.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You may want to come up.

  1. WELLS: Peter Wells is the architect. Alexander Lapatka is the site engineer. The traffic expert is John Ray, but I believe, in view of the change in the night, the testimony will be by Jay McDonough his partner, and possibly ‑‑ oh, I'm sorry ‑‑ Joe Burgis the planner and possibly Mr. Voltaire (phonetic) if there are any operational questions at the end.


So that matter is carried until October 18th. The next matter will be the Ridgewood Dayton, preliminary and final major site plan, 100/152 South Broad Street, Blocks 3707 and 3905. Lots 5.01/1.01. This is a public hearing continued from September 6th, 2016. Just to give a recap, at that last meeting I gave an explanation on Planning Board meetings and hearing process. If anyone is interested in that they can listen to the tapes or there is also a handout that we have or you can check the website and there will be a brochure that you can review that will explain the process to you. And at the last meeting MR. WELLS provided an intro for the project. He indicated that there are going to be four witnesses and at the last meeting he had the architect testify Lawrence Appel. We had direct examination, cross examination and also, I guess there was a request from Lorraine Reynolds that she would ‑‑ may have questions for the architect at some further point. And you agreed you would provide him for questioning, if necessary.

  1. WELLS: That's correct.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So, you have the floor.

  1. WELLS: For the record my name is Thomas Wells, law firm of Wells, Jaworski & Liebman in Paramus. We are here on the continued application as Mr. Joel indicated, this started on September 6th. I have one question for the board. I did receive correspondence of the courtesy sent to me by the Village Engineer and MR. CAFARELLI that is addressed to Mr. Joel, the Chairman. And it deals with the traffic review that was completed by MR. JAHR. I got that about 6:00 this evening. Is there any other correspondence or any other reports that I need to be made aware of?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Not that I'm aware of, no.

  2. WELLS: For the record, this is a response as with the responses last time delivered to us at the night of the hearing this would ‑‑ this, unlike the other matters that had been with the board ever since the completeness several months ago, a response to a traffic report that we submitted under the rules ten days prior to the first hearing, so about 25 days ago. So, we will do our best to respond to this, this evening. But I want the record to reflect that it came at the last minute. What I want to do this evening is I do have MR. APPEL coming back later this evening. He will be here about 9:30. So, if there are some other questions of him ‑‑ we really finished the board questions and some of the public, he'll be available so we can meet that requirement. I don't plan any additional direct testimony of MR. APPEL. I'm going to start with MR. LAPATKA, the site engineer. After that Mr. Disario, the traffic engineer.

I mentioned to you at the last hearing that we were actually surprised to find out that MR. BRANCHEAU had interpreted one aspect of our disturbance of the steep slope to be a variance, because of that there will be testimony this evening by MR. LAPATKA, with respect to that variance. In addition, we've retained an additional expert, Art Bernard, who is a professional planner, who will address that variance after Mr. Disario speaks. In addition, Mr. Bernard is a very qualified planner, he happens to have served as Director of COAH for, I think, eight years, some years ago. \So, he's one of the state's experts in inclusionary zoning. Although, I don't really think there's anything terribly controversial about that aspect of our application, I am going to ask him to spend a few minutes talking the board through the inclusionary zoning aspect of this particular application, really to improve the record, but also to inform the board and any members of the public who might be interested in that. So I'll do that with Mr. Bernard again. And as indicated last time, I will conclude with Mr. Loventhal, you know that a couple of times during the architect's testimony, he deferred to Mr. Loventhal. He is the developer and is very conversant in every aspect of the development project, and then in particular the operations. So he's well positioned to answer those questions. I do want to make a couple of stipulations for the record, one of the things that makes me enjoy working for this particular developer is that they always want to build a high‑quality project. And they always are paying attention; including to comments from the board, if they believe it requires a change. So I am going to stipulate that this applicant will add a third elevator to the project. I should tell you that's not code required on the project. The two elevators already met the code requirements. But the point was made that the building might operate better with a third elevator. And Mr. Loventhal said, yes, you know what, it might. So, I am going to stipulate to a third elevator. It'll be somewhere in that core area where the other elevators are located. In addition, we had some discussion about access for emergency vehicles. MR. LAPATKA will talk about that more at the next ‑‑ during his testimony, but we're going to stipulate that if the Ridgewood Fire Department should ask us to put any additional standpipes near the building ‑‑ they haven't to date, but that process doesn't necessarily happen during zoning review. It frequently happens when the construction actually begins and we get further along. But I want to stipulate in our record that if there's any request for additional standpipes, that we will be ‑‑ we will absolutely meet those requests and do whatever the fire department requires. So with those stipulations done. I'm done in the way of introduction. If there are no questions of me, I'll call MR. LAPATKA.


COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I do have a question, MR. WELLS.

  1. WELLS: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You said standpipe for ‑‑ that is right, "standpipe".

  1. WELLS: Standpipe, yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: What is a standpipe, I'm sorry.

  1. WELLS: It's a term of art and what it really is, is ‑‑ perhaps, I'll let MR. RUTISHAUSER explain it.
  2. RUTISHAUSER: It's usually a pipe that can be either dry or charged depending on its location, if it's exposed to the elements, that'll feed water, that a hose can be connected to.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you.

  1. RUTISHAUSER: Sometimes inside of the buildings will comply with a ‑‑ a length of pre‑connected hose.


  1. RUTISHAUSER: And if it's under the garage, exposed to the elements, they'll usually be dry or a pressurized system. And if there's a fire alarm the water's released into it. And it will provide water as needed.
  2. WELLS: And, I have learned over the years of doing what I do, that fire departments actually don't like pre‑connected hose on exterior ones because as they have explained to me, they don't actually trust them. So they always use their own hose. But they do like, sometimes, to have a standpipe, for additional fire protection.
  3. LAPATKA, get your board's too.
  4. MARTIN: MR. LAPATKA, raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

  1. LAPATKA: I do.

A L E X A N D E R   J. L A P A T K A,    

12 Route 17 North, Paramus, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

  1. MARTIN: And Alexander J. Lapatka, can you state your full name and business address for the record.
  2. LAPATKA: It's Alexander J. Lapatka, L‑A‑P‑A‑T‑K‑A, 12 Route 17 North, Paramus, New Jersey.
  3. MARTIN: While MR. WELLS is busy, I'll take over.
  4. LAPATKA, you're a civil engineer?
  5. LAPATKA: Yes, I am.
  6. MARTIN: And you graduated from where?
  7. LAPATKA: Excuse me?
  8. MARTIN: Where did you graduate from?
  9. LAPATKA: I graduated from NJIT in 1977.

I've obtained my professional engineering license in 1982. And I've been principal of Lapatka Associates since 1983. I've been accepted by many municipalities, planning boards and zoning boards as an expert witness, including Ridgewood before. I have done quite a lot of work in northern Bergen County.

  1. MARTIN: You probably testified over 500 times in front of different boards.
  2. LAPATKA: Probably a few thousand times.
  3. MARTIN: Yes. And you have done Superior Court work as well, and have been qualified?
  4. LAPATKA: Yes.
  5. MARTIN: You're the professional engineer on behalf of this applicant?
  6. LAPATKA: Absolutely.
  7. MARTIN: So, satisfied.

Go ahead.

  1. WELLS: Thank you.

Thank you for taking care of the qualification for us.



  1. MR. LAPATKA, what I'm going to do is show you a couple of things. I think we're going to introduce four exhibits during your testimony. So, first, just identify that the board ‑‑ why don't you tell us what that is?
  2. This is the site plan that has been submitted to the board as part of this application. It consists of eight sheets. The first sheet is entitled "Preliminary and Final Site Plan". It's dated 6/09/2016 and revised 6/22/2016.
  3. And is this the set that was previously submitted that, hopefully, board members have with them in their package?
  4. Yes.
  5. WELLS: And if it's okay with the board I would like to mark that A‑9. We went through A‑8 with the architect.
  6. MARTIN: Exactly right.
  7. WELLS: Okay.

(Whereupon, "Preliminary and Final Site Plan" Consisting of 8 sheets, dated 6/09/2016, Last Revised 6/22/2016 is received and marked as Exhibit A‑9 for identification.) BY MR. WELLS:

  1. MR. LAPATKA, why don't you identify those to boards?
  2. On the board here or on the easel here, I have a copy of the Existing Conditions Survey/Demolition Plan. It's dated 6/09/2016, revised through 6/22/2016. And it's Sheet ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I just want the record to reflect that Melanie Mc Williams has just come in.

(Whereupon, MS. McWILLIAMS is now present at 8 p.m.)

THE WITNESS: Thank you.  

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, sorry.

  1. WELLS: She's still huffing and puffing.

THE WITNESS: And Sheet ‑‑ Sheet 2 of 8 of the site plan set that has been submitted to the board. I've colored it for presentation purposes.

  1. WELLS: Okay. So, that's one of the sheets of A‑9 that we previously submitted. And we would like to have that marked A‑10. This is the colorized version of the sheet you previously had. (Whereupon, Colorized Sheet 2 of 8 of Final Site Plan, dated 6/09/2016, Last Revised 6/22/2016 is received and marked as Exhibit A‑10 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Now on the easel is a copy of Sheet 1 of 8 of the Site Plan Set that the board has and as you recited it before. And it is also colored for presentation purposes.

  1. WELLS: Okay. And we would like to have that marked A‑11.

(Whereupon, Colorized Sheet 1 of 8 of Final Site Plan, dated 6/09/2016, Last Revised 6/22/2016 is received and marked as Exhibit A‑10 for identification.)

  1. WELLS: I have one more for MR. LAPATKA.

Would you identify that?

THE WITNESS: I've prepared a five‑page exhibit.

  1. WELLS: Can I ask you real quickly. He speaks quite loudly, but you have a handheld remote mic.

Do you want him to use it?


  1. WELLS: Okay. Good.

THE WITNESS: I've prepared a five‑sheet exhibit, Sheet 1 of 5, is labeled "Photo Location Plan, Ridgewood Dayton L.L.C. " And it's says photos taken on 9/08/16. Sheets 2 of 5 through 5 of 5 are four photos.

  1. WELLS: And I would like to have that marked A‑12 and I'm actually going to hand a copy out to the board and MR. CAFARELLI.

(Whereupon, Photo Location Plan, Ridgewood Dayton, 5 sheets, photos taken on 9/08/16 is received and marked as Exhibit A‑12 for identification.)


  1. MR. LAPATKA, as Counsel helped illustrate, you've had a lot of opportunity to do this. I think we've now established that you have done this a thousand times. That's a lot. So, what I'm going to do is simply ask you to review the site as it exists right now, talk about what we propose for the site. Certainly, as you're doing that, discuss the steep slope issue that has been discussed. And we also want you to discuss access for emergency vehicles and anything else that you think is important for the board to understand.
  2. Okay.
  3. So, you're on your own.
  4. Okay. This site is comprised of two lots, Block 3707, Lot 5.01. That's the former Brogan Cadillac site. And Block 3905, Lot 1.01. And that's the existing car wash site. It totals about 2.67 acres and is in the AH‑2 zone. It's located on the south side of ‑‑ the southbound side South Broad Street. To the rear of the site is the railroad. To the left or to the south of the site are office buildings. And to the right or to the north of the site is a bank. The subject site is currently developed with commercial buildings and parking lots, parking areas. The site is generally, in my opinion, dated entirely. South Broad Street, in terms of elevation, slopes downward from the south to the north. South Broad Street, in terms of elevation, slopes down from the south to the north about 5 feet across the frontage of this lot from elevation 144 to 139. What we propose to do here is to remove all of the existing improvements and construct a multifamily residential building. It will be 93 units total. At the street level we have the lobby and in the back of the lobby is parking underneath the building. Above that street level and the lobby are the residences. There are two proposed or there are three proposed amenity decks, referring to A‑11, that are in between the four fingers or four wings of the building. And on this rendering they're colored in an olive‑type coloring. So, the common area, the exterior common areas are amenity decks that are at the second level of the building, and actually over the parking. There's parking underneath the amenity decks. At the last hearing there was a question about the length of the proposed building wings and the question was: How come the northerly one was shorter than the rest of them? And if you look at this rendering A‑11, it's obvious that the property at the south end, okay, which is to the left on the page, is deeper than the property at the north end. Okay. So the wing, the residential wing on the north end is shallower than the south end, really to match the shape of the lot. Also, at the last hearing there was a question and possibly some confusion as to the level of the parking underneath the residential floors. The parking that we're proposing to build the building over is not at a basement level. It's almost at the street level. But because the street slopes downward from the south to the north slightly, and the parking level is level, the parking at the ‑‑ the parking pavement surface at south end of the site is a little bit lower than the street, maybe about 2‑feet lower than the street. Then as we come to the north end of the property, that parking level is about 3‑feet higher than the street, actually. So, somewhere in the middle, we're about level with the street. I just wanted to clean up that confusion if there was any. Okay. Also at the last hearing there was a question as to what was the height of your ambulance. We found out that the height of the ambulance is 9 foot 8 inches. The under clearance for the building, as testified to by the architect at the previous hearing, is 8 foot 4 inches. And I believe the minimum per code, if you have handicap parking van‑accessible spaces under the building is 8 foot 2 inches. If they were not, there are to be 7 inches. So, we meet the code, in term of the under clearance of the building. And there was also, I believe, a question or an inference at least for a question as to how an ambulance would service this site if it was needed. And the prime point for an ambulance to access the building would be in South Broad Street, right in front of the building, by the main entrance. I think that would be the primary point that an ambulance would use to access the site. And, generally, when calls are made into an ambulance or emergency service an address is given. And that's the address is the lobby at the ‑‑ at the front of the building. However, we have several secondary choices for access to the building. There is a driveway that goes around our site and on the north side of the building, okay, there's access to the parking area underneath. Okay. So you can access the parking spaces or that parking area or even the building lobby. And on the west side or facing the railroad, there's actually five more driveways that go underneath the building. So in addition to the main entrance in front of the building, which would be, say, the primary spot for the ambulance, for access, there are five other driveways on the north side and the west side of the building where an ambulance can't access the area. So, there's many choices to bring an ambulance in. Regarding the fire trucks, fire trucks generally ‑‑ or I would say almost all the time would not go underneath a building to fight a fire. Okay? That might be a little bit different if it were a parking deck without habitable space above it. But they would not do that. They would fight the fire from the outside. And I think there was a question as to the fire trucks. And I understand for fire department that's pretty much standard operating procedure. And there is nothing unusual about having a building over parking with, you know, 8‑foot or thereabouts, clearances. It's very common. It's all over the place. The site is proposed to be accessed by two driveways. They're both one‑way driveways. The entrance driveway is to the north and the exit driveway is to the south. Each driveway is 24‑feet wide. That's wider than it has to be for one‑way traffic. It's actually wide enough for two‑way traffic. And that's a benefit for this site, because in case there would be some blockage of a driveway, there's room for another vehicle to get around the other cars. We are proposing a total of 187 parking spaces, 183 are required. There are 160 under the building and 27 parking spaces outside or not under the building. Included in the 160 under the building, there are 19 pairs of stacked parking spaces. So, 19 times 2, is 38, 38 of the parking spaces are stacked. Each pair of parking, of stacked parking spaces, will be assigned to a single unit. So, there will be no overlap of parties, let's say, that use stacked parking spaces. And in my opinion this is, you know, very similar to a situation that a single‑family house might have anywhere in Ridgewood or other communities around here, that has a one‑lane driveway. Okay. Cars parked behind each other. And if the cars have to be shuffled, you know, one or two people go out and shuffle their cars around. In this setting, I think it's actually a little bit better than a single‑family house, because the car that has to be moved, say the car behind, does not have to back out into a street. They can, you know, sit in a relatively not busy driveway. There were questions, I think in the engineer's report, about snow removal. We will not be using any parking spaces for stockpiling snow. Smaller snowstorms where the quantities are such that they could be pushed against the curb or up over the curb will be handled just in that fashion. And if there are larger snowstorms with large amounts of snow, we will truck the snow from the site. And that's pretty much a common operating procedure for buildings such as this. We are proposing a ‑‑ I'll call it a loading or temporary loading area along the southerly driveway. And that's not required by code. And I think it was suggested at an early meeting with your professionals. And the purpose of that is if there was a van or a pick‑up truck or a car, small vehicle, that had to, you know, park and offload something and bring it around to the front entrance, they could park temporarily there. And, again, that's not something that's required by code. It's actually something extra that's thrown in. We are proposing a dumpster area in the left rear or southwest corner of the site. There's two pairs of gates that would swing out and then to the left of the left set of gates, there's an additional area, I will say, for recycling or large items that might be placed there. And that's where the refuse will be stored and picked up by the trash hauler. There are compactor rooms in the building core. And that's where the household garbage will initially go. It will be compacted and temporarily stored there. And it will be transferred by maintenance workers from those rooms to the dumpsters in the rear of the building where it will be picked up by the trash hauler. I think your engineer in his report asked if we would have any additional trash receptacles throughout the site. And we didn't show it on the plans, because we didn't really think we were going to get into that detail, but, by say the entrances and may be a couple of spots in the parking lot under the building, we'll put a small, you know, trash receptacle, you know, a pedestrian scale something you might see next to a door going into a store or an office building in town. And that's just to hopefully have people, you know, put there gum wrappers or whatever small pieces of garbage in.

Regarding drainage, first of all this proposal is actually reducing the amount of impervious surface over what exists today by about a quarter acre. The plan that you have in front of you shows that we're simply connecting to the existing storm drain, storm drain in South Broad for both the parking lot drains and the roof drains. Your engineer has asked that we ‑‑ even though we have a reduction, that we provide some groundwater recharge, which is essentially stormwater retention. And I discussed that with him and we agree to do that. And, so, we will actually reduce the effective runoff rate further. There's a question about who would maintain the storm drains and the ‑‑ on the site, okay, all the drainage facilities and that would be the owner. Regarding lighting, the code allows us to install light fixtures, exterior light fixtures on poles, up to 20‑feet high. We're proposing a series of 15‑foot high and 17‑foot high pole‑mounted fixtures in the parking area and the driveways. And, in addition, we have some building‑mounted fixtures that are 11‑feet high. So, we're under the code for the height of the fixtures. The parking area and driveways outside the building footprint will have an average footcandle illumination level of about 1.6 footcandles. And the walkways of about 2.5 footcandles. So, we light up the proposed walkways just a little bit more. In addition to the onsite lighting, we're proposing a series of decorative light poles along South Broad. And that's part of your streetscape standards. We're using the fixture that you've designated for your streetscape standard. Your engineer, in his report, as asked that because the throw of the light goes pretty far across the street, that if need be we would provide some shielding for those lights. And we would agree to do that. I don't know exactly what that shielding would be, maybe we'll have some frosted or opaque sections of glass on the light, but if that light does become a nuisance, we will shield it. But, again, it is your ‑‑ it is the Ridgewood standard that light that we're proposing to put there. And there'll be additional lighting under the building for that parking area and that's part of the architectural plans. Regarding soil movement, we're moving a total of 5,983 cubic yards. And we are ‑‑ we're moving 5,983 cubic yards and we're removing from this site 5,293 cubic yards. And the purpose of that soil movement and removal is to end up with a site that's graded to good engineering standards. And if you visit the site, you'll see there's some higher areas in the middle of the site. There's some lumps in there. We want to take those out. And we're trying to bring the building ‑‑ first floor of the building down to the street level. I think that's what everyone wants. You know we wouldn't want to have a building that's elevated up, just for the sake of not removing soil from the site.

So, in order to come up with a new grading plan, we are removing the soil. And we agree that prior to the soil movement, we will work with the Village, tell them our proposed trucking routes and have those proposals reviewed and approved by Ridgewood before we actually undertake that work. You would have concerns, for instance, that you don't want dump trucks going down East Ridgewood Avenue, things like that. So that's the purpose of that. Regarding the sanitary sewer, we are proposing to connect to the existing sanitary sewer with and 8‑inch ductile‑iron pipe or other material or other type of pipe as your engineer may request. He has also ‑‑ I also discussed with him his request for a further sewer study which would include an analysis of the sewage generation coming from our proposed project as well as the sewer system that brings that sewage down to the trunk line. So we would agree to undertake that study to his specifications. And all the sewer facilities will be built in accordance with the Village construction standards. I mention that because that's a comment in his report also.

Regarding landscaping, along South Broad Street, and it's not exactly landscaping, but we're proposing to construct the 7‑foot‑wide poured concrete walk in accordance with your streetscape standards. That walk will be set back 2 feet behind the curb in that 2‑foot area will be a brick paver band. And, again, this is all in accordance with your standards. We'll have ‑‑ we are proposing tree planters across the front of the property. And in those planters, we plan to install 3‑ to 3‑1/2‑inch caliper gingko trees. That's a pretty hardy tree and 3‑ to 3‑1/2‑inch caliper tree at planting is a fairly large tree for a new tree. These trees, this variety, will not be fruit bearing or ‑‑ and they'll also be non‑flowering. And that's a request by your professionals so that a mess is not created on these streets. We are proposing additional landscaping between the sidewalk and the building. The minimum width of that landscaping is 16‑feet wide. And that's where the building comes closest to the street. And it's a little wider where the building jogs back. And quite a bit wider around the entrance of the building because you see the entrance is set back from the main line of the building. In that area we have several foundation plantings and those foundation plantings also wrap around the sides of the building. And behind the sidewalk, we also have a second row of flowering trees and that would be a Kousa dogwood tree. So, that's an ‑‑ it's an attractive tree. It doesn't grow too big. But it has flowers on it, a white ‑‑ generally a whitish, for, I'll say, several weeks. There's a driveway that we're proposing along the rear of the building in between the building and the parking lot. On the far side of that driveway next to the railroad, we are proposing a short retaining wall.

And regarding the retaining wall, under the comments your professionals had, is that the face of it should not just be plain concrete, but it has to have some sort of texture to it. And we agree to add some texture to the concrete. BY MR. WELLS:

  1. MR. LAPATKA, let me clarify, I think the comment was we had always planned to have texture on the front, but it was on the back, facing the railroad tracks that we're adding; is that correct?
  2. Well, yeah, that's ‑‑ I would call that the front of the wall, because on the other side of the wall, the building side, there's only 6 inches of wall showing ‑‑
  3. Okay.
  4. ‑‑ so it looks like a curb, actually ‑‑
  5. I just wanted to clarify that the front is actually facing the railroad ‑‑
  6. Facing the railroad.

Q.‑‑ correct?

  1. We were asked to ‑‑ to do that. And we proposed to do that. Now, in addition to that, on ‑‑ so that our development is on the high side of the wall, the railroad's on the low side. And in addition to the concrete, we propose to install a row of upright yews. At planting they're about 4‑ to 4‑1/2‑feet high. And they might grow to 10‑ to 12‑foot high. They're proposed to be planted be 3‑foot centers. So, the ‑‑ the whole thing about the wall is kind of a moot issue because ‑‑ well, first of all, you probably won't be able to see it from the landscaping. And then so ‑‑ again, it's so far from anyone on the other side of the railroad, that they probably couldn't see the face of the wall anyway. Let's see, the ‑‑ the wall that we're proposing to build it is only about 2‑feet high. So it's not a high wall. And on top of that wall we would have a guide rail. Okay. Now, we do require a variance for steep slope disturbance. I believe your code defines a steep slope as anything over 20 percent, which means if you have some ground that rises 2 feet in 10 feet, okay, that would be a steep slope. And I think probably a good many or a great many of the properties in Ridgewood have steep slopes according to that definition. So I'm just saying there's nothing really uncommon. Along our rear property line is the steep slope that we're proposing to disturb. Now, I want to call you to ‑‑ Tom, what exhibit was this (indicating)?
  2. WELLS: It's A‑12.

THE WITNESS: I want to call your attention to Exhibit 12.

And the first sheet, Sheet 1 or 5, is a reduced copy of a survey of the site and superimposed on that are four photo locations. And if you flip through those photos, Photos 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Pages 2 to 5, you'll see that dirt, rock and debris within the slope along the railroad, and that's the slope that, in this instance, would be protected by your ordinance. So, I just want to put out there what, you know, the slope that we're really talking about.

The existing slope is about 3‑foot high at present on the north end of the property. And at the southerly end of the property it might go up to 9 feet or so in height. And after we build a wall and form our slope disturbance, you know, should this happen at the north end of the property, there will only be about a foot‑and‑a‑half of slope left, a foot‑and‑a‑half or ‑‑ that's hardly anything. And at the south, there would be about 7 feet. Now, what's important when you look at the exhibit, is to see that there is no meaningful vegetation on the slope. It is not a natural slope. It's man‑made. It's previously been disturbed and worked. It's not a viable habitat for, I would say, plants and/or animals. And it's aesthetically poor in value.

If I were to quote from a part of your Steep Slope Ordinance, it says the purpose of this subsection is to regulate the intensity of use in areas of steeply sloping terrain in order to limit soil loss, erosion, excessive stormwater runoff, degradation of stormwater and to maintain the natural topography and drainage patterns of land. Our plan happens to introduce vegetation in a spot where there is none. Okay. So, we're actually moving towards the purpose of your ordinance. The plan, our plan, because of the introduction of a wall and the vegetation that we plan to propose there, which is now barren; a barren surface, will help limit soil loss and erosion. It will actually be decreasing the runoff from this area. And it's just a very de minimis increase, because it is such a small area to begin with, but it will actually be moving the runoff patterns or characteristics in a positive direction. And we'll be improving the quality of the surface runoff by introduction of the vegetation. On the site today there is no remaining natural topo as far as this ‑‑ topography as far as this slope goes and no natural drainage patterns. This whole area has been developed and graded and shaped previously. Your ordinance further says: "Disturbance of steep slopes results in accelerated erosion processes." And I'll skip a little bit, just to be sure: "Sedimentation, degradation of water quality, lose of aquatic life support, soil            loss, related effects include soil loss, changes in natural topography and drainage patterns, increased light potential, further fragmentation of forest and habitat areas, compromised aesthetic values." There is no ‑‑ in my opinion there is no evident aquatic life support on that slope today. We will lessen the runoff and, therefore, any impact on flooding. And we are not fragmenting the forest and habitat by disturbing that slope because there is none right there. There is none there right now. And, in my opinion, we'll improve the aesthetics. Now, our planner will testify further as to why these things that I have said support the granting of the Steep Slope Ordinance.

  1. WELLS, our attorney, has indicated that for other reasons, which the planner will go into, a steep slope variance is actually not required here. But in the event that the board determines it is, I offered that evidence that could be used in support of the variance. And the reason we say that is not required is because there are two exceptions in the ordinance to disturbance of the steep slopes. And we think we fall under those two exceptions.
  2. WELLS: I think MR. LAPATKA has explained that, but I had indicated earlier that we actually do not believe we have a variance under the Steep Slope Ordinance. But I wanted him to do as he did, show the board, and put into the record that there is very ample justification for a variance of that section of the code, should it be determined that one does exist. BY MR. WELLS:
  3. MR. LAPATKA, I know this is a very straight forward site plan application, but it does have some controversy around it. So, I want to go through the requirements of the AH‑2 zone, just for a moment, with you. If nothing else just to emphasize the fact that we are fully conforming. So, let me ask you first, I'm going to refer you to your own zoning table, the board may want to do that as well. Are you familiar with the requirements of the AH‑2 zone, the new zone that was created for this property?
  4. Yes.
  5. And then you have a zoning table on your property [sic], but I would like to review very quickly, you already told us that the lot is 2.67 acres with one acre required. So, that's covered. In terms of minimum lot width, there is 474 feet and there is no requirement, but starting with the front yard, why don't you review for the board what the requirement is and what we are proposing in this site plan.
  6. The minimum required front yard is 15 feet, we're proposing 16 feet. The minimum side yard is the greater of 12 or 1/2 the building height. We're proposing 31 feet, which exceeds those both. The minimum rear yard is 12 feet or 1/2 the building height. We're proposing, again, 31 feet which exceeds both of those. The minimum setback to a railroad is 25 feet, we're proposing 31 feet. The minimum or maximum building height is 50 feet. And there's exceptions, I'll just refer to the testimony of the architect and that will be complied to, the height ordinance. The maximum density with rental units in dwelling acres per ‑‑ dwelling units per acre is 35. We're at 34.83, so we're under the maximum. The maximum floor area ratio for rental units is 1.35. We're proposing 1.298. The maximum floor area, the ‑‑ let's see, there's many requirements that don't apply.
  7. Right, don't apply.
  8. The maximum impervious coverage for this project is 85 percent. We're proposing 83.9.

The required interior amenities area per dwelling unit is 40 square feet. And we meet that. I believe the architect testified as to that. And the required exterior amenity areas square feet per dwelling ‑‑ the minimum exterior amenity areas in square feet per dwelling unit is 40. We're proposing 133. So, we have over three times that requirement. The minimum number of parking spaces required is 183. We're proposing 187. The parking space setback to the side yard and to the rear yard is 5 feet and we are proposing 5 for both of those.

So, we meet all the ‑‑ meet or exceed all the criteria of the zoning code, with the exception, possibly, of the steep slopes.

  1. Well, thank you for that.

So, I want to just ask you one final question, and that is in your opinion as a professional engineer, is this site plan appropriate for approval by this board?

  1. In my opinion it is.
  2. WELLS: I have no further questions of MR. LAPATKA.


Next will be the cross examination by the board members.

Dave, do you have any questions?

  1. SCHEIBNER: Not at this time.


  1. SCHEIBNER: No questions at this time.



COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You mentioned the parking area's needed to be at least 5 feet from any side lot line or rear lot line, correct?


COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But you didn't mention driveways.

Could you tell me whether the driveways are also 5 feet from those?

THE WITNESS: Yes, the driveways are 5 feet.




I'm also still stuck on this ambulance thing. And I know you guys think that you need ‑‑ it's okay to put an ambulance in the front and, you know, they can go through the front. I'm going to ask a very flippant question, are you an ambulance expert? Do you know ambulance logistics, either of you?



THE WITNESS: I'm not ‑‑ I'm not an ambulance expert. But I've worked on numerous site plans and have worked along with the emergency response officials in those towns.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Again, I'm just ‑‑ I'm just thinking it might be where I'm going to have somebody from our EMT to come here and see whether or not what you guys are proposing is reasonable. I'd be really ‑‑ it would be really, you know, a catastrophe if somebody ended up getting hurt in this building and they had to, you know, go through the front and if you got to them faster it could have saved their lives or, you know, reduced any problems they had. My suggestion is why couldn't we do that?

  1. WELLS: Yes. Let me make a comment on that. We can certainly do that. And nobody wants to create an unsafe condition, certainly not the applicant. To date there is nothing from a Village of Ridgewood official that indicates that there's a concern here. I realize you've raised a concern. If someone was to do that, quite frankly, it is possible, it prolongs the process, to bring in an expert who will tell you exactly that, because I am very familiar with the situation that it's standard operating procedure for ambulances to simply park outside the area and to roll the gurney over that thing. But we can go through that exercise. But you would want to start with trying to ‑‑ if there's somebody in the Village who has a concern about that, who has a professional expertise, by all means, bring them.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I have ‑‑ I have a concern.

  1. WELLS: Well, yes, but you don't actually have professional expertise. But you're on the board. And that's understood, what ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And ‑‑ yeah, but neither do you.

So, I don't think ‑‑ I just want to ‑‑ I want get an answer from somebody who knows.

  1. WELLS: Fine.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's why I am asking the question.

  1. WELLS: And I want to point out to you that in the standard procedures we have filed this and we had reports from your people. They have not indicated that. But by all means you can ask your engineer to, again, ask them specifically that question. And they could provide testimony if ‑‑ if they ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. That's fine, that will work out. I mean if Chris can do that, that would be great.

The other concern I have is that I don't know if you guys ‑‑ you may have answered this last time, but I'm going to ask it again. The elevators, down to the elevators, you know, what if an ambulance needs to go into that building, and they need to put a bed in the elevator, are the elevators deep enough? What are the depths of the elevators? Can you tell me? Can find out what the bed ‑‑ the size of the bed is?

  1. WELLS: Mr. Loventhal, who is the operator, is very well qualified to answer that. MR. LAPATKA is not.


  1. WELLS: So, if you could wait for him. He can do that for you.


And if you have exact measurements of what those beds are? I mean, again, that's an ‑‑ and I don't know if you have it or not, but it would be really helpful to understand what that is.

  1. WELLS: To be honest with you, you're kind in a code area as opposed to a zoning area. But, again, we'll try to provide some testimony on that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you. Yes, the snow removal. So, if we have a ‑‑ you know a large snowstorm and is logistics going to work as far as the timing of this? In other words, it's not going to ‑‑ not going to have piles of snow sitting there for months. Is there any kind of ‑‑ will that be worked out as far a schedule, as to how much snow will be removed and when it will be removed.

  1. WELLS: Mr. Loventhal will, again, testify further. But MR. LAPATKA testified that if there's any large amounts of snow, they're going to have it removed. And that's ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, I'm just curious about the time factor. I can understand that you and I can ‑‑ I know it will probably be removed, the question in "when" it will be removed.

  1. WELLS: I suppose if that's a concern after that testimony is given, we could stipulate to some timing on it. But, again, they very much want to operate in a safe manner. It's a little tricky when there's cars there, you know to get snow removed and off the site. I'm sure it will be done. He'll talk to it. He'll speak to it.


THE WITNESS: And the good thing about this is most of these spaces are underneath the building. So, there's type of impact for a great percentage of this site.

  1. WELLS: Right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Those are my questions.

Thank you.


MAYOR KNUDSEN: I do have a couple of questions. First, I wanted to discuss the tandem parking, the stacked parking. Your assertion that it's actually better than ‑‑ a better scenario than a driveway, a residential driveway. I'm just curious about that because those stacked spaces are immediately adjacent to one another. They're just lined up. When I look at my neighbor, my neighbor's about 100 feet away from me. So people backing in and out, necessarily could be two or three vehicles trying to jockey for a position moving in and out.

How is that possibly, conceivably, a better scenario than someone backing out into ‑‑


MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ an open street with the next driveway 100 feet away.

THE WITNESS: Well, like I ‑‑ as I said before, in the context of not having to back out onto a street. I think it is a better scenario. They would be backing out onto a driveway, which would have a pretty lower level of traffic in it. And it is just not an unusual thing to do. It's something that people do, you know, all the time.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And just, you can take a look and tell me, what is the space that's ‑‑ that someone would have to maneuver in there? So two cars, one car is backing out and has to wait for the other ‑‑ the first car in, somebody has to pull out back, and then the second car in has to pull out, what is the amount of space that someone has to maneuver in?

THE WITNESS: Well, the aisles ‑‑ the parking aisles are 24‑feet wide. So, the first part of the rear car would simply back out, pull up a little bit and pull over. And then the second car could back out and drive away. If there's only one person there, they'd have to hop back and forth a couple of times.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But, optimally I would say that would mean that nobody else is there trying to maneuver ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, if someone else happened ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ simultaneously ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑if someone else happened to be there for that ‑‑ that event, you know, they would have to wait a minute and, you know, presumably, if someone was getting into their car, that person shuffling their cars around, okay, we're the parking in front, you know, move out a little further out of courtesy and, you know, and park further down the aisle.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Would you be good enough to go over the stormwater drain capacity again, all that ‑‑ the stormwater drainage system?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We are ‑‑ we're decreasing the amount of impervious surface on the site over what exists today by about a quarter of an acre. And we've agreed to provide some underground retention, I'll call it, groundwater recharge. And one of the things that you're engineer has asked is that in addition to the groundwater recharge, we have porous bottoms on the catch basins that we can put the porous bottoms on. So they would act, kind of like a little mini seepage pit, in order to get a little ‑‑ a little extra recharge. And that's not ‑‑ that's not an old thing. Years ago that was a very common thing to do. And I guess we've gotten away from that, basically, because of maintenance requirements for it, not necessarily on private sites, but on municipal sites. So, anyway, we're proposing to add some stormwater retention, we'll call is retention/detention too because it functions in both ways, to reduce the amount of runoff from the site for ‑‑ that'll be underground and, most likely, the bulk of it is going to be in the ‑‑ underneath the northerly driveway.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I can't hear because you moved ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I said most likely if ‑‑ all of these things will be underground, okay, nothing ‑‑ you won't see anything. And the bulk of that will likely occur underneath the northerly driveway.


  1. WELLS: It's much more sophisticated than what we think in a residential sense as a dry well, you store the water underground.

THE WITNESS: It's something that we do very common ‑‑

  1. WELLS: All the time.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ it's not ‑‑ it's not anything unusual at all.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then could you just go over the ‑‑ you said the sanitary sewer pipe was 8 inches.



THE WITNESS: Right, our proposed connection, okay, will be an 8‑inch pipe. And we're proposing a material ductile‑iron pipe. It's a very durable pipe. If your engineer wants a different type of pipe, okay, you know, we would be amenable to that. That's really just a ‑‑ it's a large building connection. That's all.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. And that would be appropriate in the 93 units, that capacity?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just want to go through the landscaping issues. The trees, I couldn't actually ‑‑ the entire time you were testifying, I really had a difficult time hearing you because your microphone wasn't up close enough, so apologies. I just wanted to ask, though, could you go over those trees again, one more time?

THE WITNESS: Along the ‑‑ in between the curb and the sidewalk, we're proposing several planters, in accordance with the Ridgewood Streetscape Standards. And those trees will have or those planters will have 3‑ to 3‑1/2‑inch caliper gingko trees put in them. And that's in the right‑of‑way of Ridgewood. Okay? So that's the tree ‑‑ the shade tree, let's call it, behind the curb. That tree was chosen because it's very hardy and has a lot better survivability, you know, in a, say, downtown setting, as many other trees ‑‑ than many other trees.

Now, behind the trees we're proposing that scored concrete walkway.


THE WITNESS: In the back of the walkway is more or less the property line. Okay, the right‑of‑way line.

In between that right‑of‑way line and the building, we're proposing a number of Kousa Dogwood trees. It's a flowering dogwood, might grow on the order of 20‑feet high, you know, something like that. And it's a very pretty tree. And that's really to give some, you know, liveliness and aesthetics to the front of the building. Those gingko trees are, you know, they're just green.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And the gingko trees, how tall do they get?

THE WITNESS: Forty or fifty feet.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And they don't disrupt the pavement? They're not ‑‑ did you call them a root ‑‑

THE WITNESS: They ‑‑ they could. They could. Okay. Any tree could, but this is a very good choice for that. And your ‑‑ basically, your streetscape standards require that we do this.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. And I'm not asking you ‑‑

THE WITNESS: If there's a ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ because we have roadways there and I'm just interested in the root system on that, what happens to that? That's a pretty tall tree.

THE WITNESS: I would ‑‑ I would imagine here it would probably grow more downward because it's fairly sandy soil, you know.

  1. WELLS: But if, perchance, it would be many years from now, the roots were ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I can't hear you, MR. WELLS.

  1. WELLS: I'm sorry.

If perchance many years from now the roots were to cause the sidewalk to heave, it would be a maintenance responsibility to fix it and that does happen sometimes ‑‑


  1. WELLS: ‑‑ with substantial trees.

But it's a tradeoff for putting a tree of that, caliper there.

THE WITNESS: I think a tree like this, you're in much better shape then if you plant, you know in those respects, an oak or a maple or something like that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'll let someone else ask questions. Then I might come back.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie, do you have any questions?

  1. McWILLIAMS: Well, the first questions I had were regarding the lighting, were there discrepancies in the number of lights resolved at any point? How many specific, was 18‑foot ‑‑


  1. McWILLIAMS: ‑‑ 17‑foot, 11‑foot lights ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Our plan actually had one more light near the corner of the building, it wasn't in the schedule, but it was shown on the plan. So, we have to increase the number in the table by one light. But the light is shown on the plan.

  1. McWILLIAMS: And just this, are there ‑‑ how many specific 15 feet or 17 feet or 11 feet were there?

THE WITNESS: For the 17‑foot‑high lights there are nine. For the 15‑foot‑high lights there are seven. And for the 11‑foot‑high lights there are four, the table says three. So it was a building‑mounted light that was not counted.

  1. McWILLIAMS: Regarding the ‑‑ thank you for that. Regarding the number of trucks and the routes that the trucks will take, is there any way to know ahead of time what we'll be dealing with that specifically? And how many truck trips per day, removing the soil, we're looking at? Because that is a real tight area in there. And there's ‑‑ the church has, you know, lots of activities going on with children and stuff.

THE WITNESS: I can't comment on any specifics, but, you know, 5,000‑yards of soil is really not all that much when it's spread it out over several months. But we will work, you know, with Ridgewood, and agree upon the routes and the number of trucks per day, the time they can start and time they have to finish by. We will make sure that that's acceptable.

  1. McWILLIAMS: Okay. And then my last question was regarding parking, you're at maximum for pretty much everything from floor area ratio to humans per acre and amenities and, you know, footage for those.

The only thing you're at minimum for is parking. You're at the lower end of that, I think.

So, I'm curious, again, I think I asked this last time, where do you expect overflow parking to go, if there really aren't a significant number of additional spots for guests or, you know, say somebody uses one of these outdoor amenity areas for a large gathering, where can they park?

THE WITNESS: Well, the requirement ‑‑ the requirement for parking is 183, I believe. And we're proposing 187.

  1. McWILLIAMS: Right.

THE WITNESS: The requirement of 183 includes visitor parking. Okay? So that ‑‑ when you do the calculation, the calculation yields what's required for the residents, plus the ‑‑ plus the guests. So, there actually is enough parking for the guests. Our traffic engineer is going to get into more detail about the parking and what numbers might be dedicated to units and what others would be free for anyone to use.

  1. McWILLIAMS: I just have one more question, again, about the elevator.

Is there ‑‑ was there any resolution as to whether or not there would be a service elevator or an elevator designated for moving or large scale items rather than somebody moving in on one side of the building taking it up throughout the day.

  1. WELLS: I know this is a little frustrating, but can we save that for Mr. Loventhal, because he'll speak to the elevators.
  2. McWILLIAMS: Sure. I'm sorry. I wasn't hear at the beginning.
  3. WELLS: Oh, I'm sorry.
  4. McWILLIAMS: No, that's all right. I'm just saying I came ‑‑ I missed that part.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

  1. McWILLIAMS: No further questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Go ahead, Debbie.

  1. PATIRE: Question for you in regards to removing the soil. In your opinion, are you confident that none of the underground utilities in the parking areas or the drains, et cetera, will not be impacted? So even the manmade, I think you called, that the retaining wall for the trains, et cetera, are you confident it will remain ‑‑ it seems like a lot of soil ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm confident that ‑‑

  1. PATIRE: ‑‑ in moving things around with the utility companies and whatnot.

THE WITNESS: I am very confident that could be done without causing any problems.

  1. WELLS: He better be or he'll lose his license as a site engineer, if it doesn't.
  2. PATIRE: The second thing is, and it came out in something Melanie said, as far as the roadways in that area. So ‑‑ and I don't know, this is probably a question for Mr. Loventhal. With the construction and everything going on, and the usage of our roadways, is anything prepared in your documents that those roads will be repaved or if anything will happen, especially for the folks that live around there, by the high usage of construction vehicles.
  3. WELLS: We'll let the traffic expert speak to that, but I'm fairly confident he's going to tell you that overall this is not some significant use or whatever of the roads, but we'll let him testify to opposed to ‑‑
  4. PATIRE: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: The Village Engineer is ready to respond ‑‑

  1. PATIRE: Oh.
  2. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, when we go through the soil permits, such as are being proposed here, there are a whole series of criteria in the resolution that the Village Council has to approve, including that the applicant has to post bonds for restoration of any of the road surfaces if they seem to be damaged by the hauling.
  3. PATIRE: All right.
  4. RUTISHAUSER: We have done that, in my tenure with the Village now over 14 years, we've done dozens of major soil permits.
  5. PATIRE: Okay. So, we can ask the traffic engineer about the roadways ‑‑
  6. WELLS: Yes, that's ‑‑ that's ‑‑
  7. PATIRE: ‑‑ about the roadways ‑‑
  8. WELLS: Yes, that's helpful, yes.
  9. PATIRE: ‑‑ the wear and tear of the roadways.
  10. WELLS: Yes.
  11. PATIRE: Okay.
  12. WELLS: But in all ‑‑ your engineer's really going ‑‑ is brought in, what you need to know, is that the actual soil movement permit is not just for this board, but it actually goes to the Mayor and Council as well.

So if there are other requirements that ‑‑ addressing the exact concerns you're raising, to make sure that it doesn't have a substantial negative impact.

  1. PATIRE: I think for people in the area that's important. Okay.

The last thing for the engineer, I'm sure you went around and looked at the other resident roadways of Leroy Street, Pomander Walk, et cetera, with the lights that you're proposing in both the front and the back of the building, have you looked or taken a picture from standing at the end of the street and you see them on Pomander and on Leroy; how does that affect those folks living closest within 200 feet.

  1. WELLS: And he'll gladly answer it, but I'll make a point. You could always see lights. In other words, if the light is quite a distance you'll see it. The difference is it's shielded so that it doesn't shine light.
  2. PATIRE: Right. I'm just worried, again ‑‑
  3. WELLS: But you can explain the difference ‑‑
  4. PATIRE: ‑‑ how the light is affecting the people that live in those houses.

THE WITNESS: I don't think ‑‑ in my opinion the lights on the site, okay, the site lighting, will not affect though properties at all.

If there was going to be some effect it would be from the streetscape lights, they're 17‑foot high.

  1. PATIRE: That's in the back of the building?
  2. WELLS: No, the front.
  3. PATIRE: That's in the front?

THE WITNESS: They're along the street.

  1. WELLS: Those have certain ‑‑ those are the building ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's something that we're required to put in to Ridgewood's standards.

  1. PATIRE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Because you want to eventually have that whole roadway look uniform like that.

  1. PATIRE: Got it, thanks.

THE WITNESS: So we have agreed ‑‑

  1. PATIRE: I understand that.

THE WITNESS: So we've agreed ‑‑

  1. PATIRE: I'm looking at the site as it is today, however it was used before and what's being proposed.

So, I'm taking into account the residents that live in that area and there has to lights for safety and ‑‑ I understand all that. I just don't want it to become where it's, you know, a landing strip ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I understand.

  1. PATIRE: ‑‑ for airplanes with lights.

THE WITNESS: We've agreed ‑‑ we've agreed to mitigate. And I'll use that word rather than "shield" any glare of that light, you know, come out of that light. And there's actually only one resident that would be the ‑‑

  1. PATIRE: Leroy Street.

THE WITNESS: Yes, on the corner of Le ‑‑ the south side of Leroy that would be near the property. There are no other residents, really, near the property.

  1. PATIRE: Okay. And then you're proposing to enter the property on the north side of the street, correct?


  1. PATIRE: On the north side of the property, correct?


  1. PATIRE: For the driveway. So ‑‑ and, again, I'm sure these are for the engineer that Passaic Street is a one way. You could only make a right on it. So, you're proposing, again, I mean looking at the ‑‑ where a possible exit could be and that's not ideal either. But you're having people coming down South Broad, going to make a right on Passaic Street because that's the only way you can loop around to visit any of the stores that are on South Broad, where they park in the municipal lot currently. And then you're also asking people to make a left, which I imagine being a relatively busy complex during rush hours, when you're getting kids to school, going to work, et cetera. So, just kind of raising a little concern like that ‑‑ that cause for congestion especially around the church.

THE WITNESS: We have a lot of overlap in testimony, I'm going defer that to ‑‑

  1. WELLS: The traffic engineer.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ our traffic engineer.

  1. PATIRE: Okay.

THE WITNESS: But I think it was the general feeling amongst all of the experts that this is the way to go.

  1. PATIRE: Okay. And then also for the properties across the street, so I believe New York City Sport Club is towards the south end of the property. And there is the part of the church that has a gym in it, et cetera. Did you look at the setbacks on those building? So, New York City, the Sports Club is so far back from the street, just to compare, because you're talking 16 feet back and ‑‑


  1. PATIRE: ‑‑ so where the gentleman is, looking up at possibly a ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I ‑‑ I did look at those properties. I visited both of them, but I just don't recall the setbacks. You know, I didn't look at them in that context.

  1. PATIRE: Just, again, I'm trying to compare what's there today, what was there and what's going to be there.
  2. WELLS: Yes. Where that starts to become relevant would be if we were asking for a setback variance. And then we would be talking about how it compares to others in the neighborhood. But we're conforming to the code. So, there is really no issue to ‑‑ from ‑‑
  3. PATIRE: Yes, I was just, again ‑‑
  4. WELLS: Yes, understood.
  5. PATIRE: ‑‑ asking the question.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have no questions. Everyone covered what I was going to ask. So we're at board professionals, Blais, do you have any questions of the engineer?

  1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I do.
  2. LAPATKA, I'm going to be referring to my report, I believe you've seen that.

So, if I refer to it, will you know what I'm talking about?

THE WITNESS: I have it here.

  1. BRANCHEAU: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I reviewed it a while ago.

  1. BRANCHEAU: All right. I had raised a question about one of the parking spaces in the parking area beneath the building particularly its width. I don't remember if MR. APPEL can address that in his testimony, but could you ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I ‑‑ I think it was parking spaces number 117 ‑‑

  1. BRANCHEAU: Correct.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ that's shown on my site plan.

And I believe MR. APPEL ‑‑

  1. WELLS: He did.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ in his testimony, said that they would modify the location of that parking space and the bike ‑‑ the bike rack. They would swap them so that that issue would no longer exist.

  1. WELLS: I believe it's been included in the modified set that was subsequently submitted.


  1. WELLS: Yes.
  2. BRANCHEAU: Okay.
  3. WELLS: At the last hearing.
  4. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, I don't think we marked any board documents yet, can you just, for the record, mark it as Board‑1 his report.
  5. WELLS: Which report?
  6. BRANCHEAU: My report?
  7. WELLS: Oh, sure. Yes.

So I'll leave that to you, but do you want to mark his report Board‑1.

  1. MARTIN: Yes, please. (Whereupon, Report of Blais Brancheau is received and marked as Exhibit Board‑1 for identification.)
  2. WELLS: And perhaps the engineer's report Board‑2.
  3. MARTIN: Yes.

(Whereupon, Report of Christopher Rutishauser is received and marked as Exhibit Board‑2 for identification.)

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Blais, when did you give your report out?

  1. WELLS: We got it the night of the hearing on the 6th.


CHAIRMAN JOEL: On September 6th.


  1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, a couple of weeks ago.


  1. BRANCHEAU: Item 8 in Section B talks about the recyclable ordinance which is statutory.

I heard your testimony regarding household waste, but would you address the recycling plan for this proposal?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Loventhal will address that ‑‑

  1. BRANCHEAU: He will address that.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ among other issues.

  1. BRANCHEAU: All right. That's fine. The dead‑end access aisles in Item C‑5 of my report, I raised a potential concern about maneuvering area for the spaces at the end of the row. For example, on your site plan, your surface parking outside the building, you have ‑‑ you provide a turnout at the end spaces near the dumpster areas. But underneath the building, the plan doesn't really have those turnouts. Could you address the maneuverability of vehicles the end ‑‑ particularly the end spaces, without those turnouts?

THE WITNESS: Well, I would like to defer that to the traffic engineer. However, I ‑‑ you know I'll say I don't see any problem with the plan as presented. I think the cars can easily get in and out.

  1. BRANCHEAU: And would you address or is someone else going to address the location of spaces 72 and 73 which are the barrier‑free parking spaces that are not located near an accessible entrance? Is there a particular reason that those couldn't be located closer?
  2. WELLS: MR. APPEL talked about it, but the traffic engineer will talk about it again.
  3. BRANCHEAU: Okay.
  4. WELLS: The plan, I think, was to have some inside and some outside. And I'll let him explain it.
  5. BRANCHEAU: Can you address my comment concerning the temporary unloading space and its location, particularly not being near any building entrances.
  6. WELLS: Yes. It's not near the entrance. It's also intentionally set back from South Broad Street so as not to provide any interference to any vehicle that might be stacked to exit the site. It is ‑‑ you know, it's not a short distance to the front door, however it's something that is not required by the code or not needed. And we just feel it's just a little extra, you know, say, for instance, if someone in a van has to deliver something. Okay, they have ‑‑ they have a spot that they can park in temporarily and, you know, bring a package into the front door.
  7. BRANCHEAU: Do you think that the location ‑‑ let's say I'm moving in or out of my apartment.

THE WITNESS: Say that again?

  1. BRANCHEAU: Let's say I'm moving in or out of my apartment. And I'm doing things like carrying couches and furniture and beds and things like that, and the loading spaces, they're a distance from the door.

Do you think this would encourage people to park trucks in undesignated areas, because of that distance?


THE WITNESS: That's for Mr. Loventhal.

  1. BRANCHEAU: Mr. Loventhal will address that?


  1. BRANCHEAU: Okay. Thank you.


  1. BRANCHEAU: Okay.

I guess there's an issue about the Kousa Dogwood, the southerly most Kousa Dogwood, possibly interfering with sight distance at the exit driveway intersection with Broad Street.

THE WITNESS: We would agree simply to keep that limbed up so people see underneath it. You can do that with Kousa Dogwoods. I personally have done it. If you feel that strongly about it, we could move it a little bit away from the ‑‑ from the corner.

  1. BRANCHEAU: Right, I know that the board's traffic consultant raised questions about delineating the sight triangles on the plan. And I'll let him address that sight triangle issue as far as the dimension.

I raised a number of comments about some of the landscaping plants, the choice of plant material in Item 13 on Page 6. Do you have any comments about that?

THE WITNESS: These ‑‑ these materials, you know, if left unkempt will grow large and wide and high, but it's our intent to trim them, you know, to keep them in a neat condition. And probably trimming them ‑‑ trim them once or twice a year or as we find as needed.

  1. BRANCHEAU: Right.

I raised a question about the dedicated right‑of‑way easement into the former Leroy Place right‑of‑way on the property, and how that vacation ordinance that was adopted retained the right for access to maintain, repair or replace any utilities, drainage structure or cable television lines that are located on, above or below the surface. Do you know whether there are any such structures that would need to be maintained?

THE WITNESS: We physically, visibly looked there. And we reviewed whatever documents we could, you know, in terms of deeds or whatever. And there's no evidence that there are any public lines in there. I think that that was a very old ordinance when that street could have potentially serviced some other properties to the ‑‑ you know to the rear. So, I don't really think it's applicable today. And I'll point out that the car wash building which is pretty old, I think that years ago that was a garage door company or something. And that building, itself, actually goes across almost the whole of that right‑of‑way. So, it was also determined years ago that there ‑‑ you know, there were no utilities, at least in the area where the building ‑‑ that building could be built. And I believe that that building is, you know, several decades old.

  1. BRANCHEAU: Has there been any subsurface investigation to determine the presence of any?
  2. WELLS: MR. BRANCHEAU, what is the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No radar or sonar or anything like that, no.

  1. WELLS: ‑‑ what is the concern?
  2. BRANCHEAU: Well, there's rights that the Village retained to any utilities, I just wanted to make sure that ‑‑
  3. WELLS: In a street that's vacated, it doesn't go anywhere.
  4. BRANCHEAU: Well, the street was vacated for purposes of public access. However, the Village retained rights in the ordinance which dates to the early '90s by the way, to any utilities or structures in that former right‑of‑way.
  5. WELLS: Running them to the railroad tracks?
  6. BRANCHEAU: It's within the former right‑of‑way of Leroy Place.
  7. WELLS: In all due respect this is really, you know, it's been ‑‑ the testimony is that we really don't believe they're there. We've checked. I think this is a concern that is really very questionable.
  8. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, just follow up?
  9. WELLS: Okay. Would it ‑‑ does this one date, it is underneath an existing building, if it was improperly vacated, it was improperly vacated by the Village.
  10. MARTIN: That may not be anywhere where he's going right now.
  11. WELLS: Okay.

(Whereupon, Vice Chairman Torielli is now present at 9:16 p.m.)

  1. BRANCHEAU: The question is relating to, I understand from what you said you did a surface inspection as part of the survey, I assume, and you reviewed some unspecified documents as to the presence or absence of any such utilities. And my question was did you do any test, subsurface investigations, dig any holes and anything like that, to determine the presence?


  1. BRANCHEAU: No? Okay. Last time ‑‑

THE WITNESS: We did ‑‑ we did ‑‑ we did call for mark‑outs a while ago and there were no utilities that were marked out.

  1. BRANCHEAU: The utility companies came and ‑‑ and ‑‑

THE WITNESS: For the whole site. We called out for mark‑outs for the whole site. Okay? And they did not ‑‑

  1. BRANCHEAU: They did mark‑outs?

THE WITNESS: They did not locate anything there. And they would really be the ones, with the underground detection systems and things, that's ‑‑ that's their job.

  1. BRANCHEAU: Okay. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.


  1. BRANCHEAU: And then the last question in my report related to potential contamination of the soil and groundwater from the prior automotive uses on the property. Are you aware of any and if you are what the clean‑up status is on those?

THE WITNESS: There are some things that have been done and Mr. Loventhal will expand on that.

  1. BRANCHEAU: He will? Okay.

Thank you. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Blais.


  1. RUTISHAUSER: Just a couple of comments and questions.

The former Leroy Place, with the remediation and historic fill as part of the site cleanup, I believe you anticipated cutting?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

  1. RUTISHAUSER: Where Leroy Place is ‑‑


  1. RUTISHAUSER: ‑‑ when the historic fill gets removed, how deep are you going to cut?

THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave that to Mr. Loventhal. I have not done any of the environmental clean‑up work.

  1. RUTISHAUSER: All right. No further questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Chris.

Just before I open to the public ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Mr. Chairman?


MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could I just ask one more quick question, probably for Chris, that steep slope variance is New Jersey Transit approval required for that?

  1. RUTISHAUSER: I don't know. I will certainly have a courtesy notification to them. If they ‑‑ I don't believe they're ‑‑ ‑ correct me if I am wrong, Al, you're not encroaching on the Transit right‑of‑way, correct?

THE WITNESS: No, we're not.

  1. RUTISHAUSER: Because I know Transit is quite fussy with anyone near its right‑of‑way.

THE WITNESS: You're correct on that.


  1. MARTIN: Or may effect right‑of‑ways.


  1. MARTIN: They may be concerned because it may effect the right‑of‑way, even if it is not in the right‑of‑way as you said first.
  2. RUTISHAUSER: Yeah, I'll send an e‑mail tomorrow with my contact to Transit, she's been very forthcoming with information.  
  3. WELLS: So, that you know we gave legal notice to them as well.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any more questions from the board?

(No response.)


  1. JAHR: Could I ask any questions?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: What's that? Okay. Sure. Sorry. You're tucked over there, I didn't see you.

  1. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, I'm going to mark as Board‑3, the report that you referred to earlier that just was served tonight.
  2. WELLS: Thank you.

(Whereupon, Report of MR. JAHR is received and marked as Exhibit B‑3 for identification.)

  1. MARTIN: MR. JAHR's report.
  2. WELLS: Yes, thank you.
  3. JAHR: Good evening.

My report, although it came very late so ‑‑ but I think most of my questions could be simply answered.

So, it probably makes sense just to go through them and if ‑‑ have you had a chance to look at them.

  1. WELLS: And I think they're almost all for Mr. Disario, but...
  2. JAHR: Well, Page 5 and 6 are primarily about site plan. So, instead of having to call MR. LAPATKA back up, I think that they can be very, very simply answered by him, comparatively.

If that's okay?

  1. WELLS: Sure.
  2. JAHR: So ‑‑ well, I also ‑‑ there were questions raised on Item Number 5, Grand Street, I meant South Broad Street for Item Number 5; that correction. However, have you run autoTURN templates around the site for the appropriate fire truck that the town has? I'm a little concerned about the columns in the two back corners. I see you did some sketching on the plan, but are there any AUTOturn to see if it works and if not, can you run that and provide those for the Village's records so that we know that everything will fit?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe we did that. And we can provide that.

  1. JAHR: That would be fine. And I listed a number of vehicles on there, obviously if the fire truck works, ordinarily everything else will. But from time to time the garbage truck and fire truck actually have a different wheel base. So we would like to see that, if you're running it and you know it's okay then we'd just like to have something in the Village records for our files. So that if there is any issue in the future we have that.

THE WITNESS: All right.

  1. JAHR: Can you just, I was going through the plans and I know you covered a bunch of this in your testimony, but if I lived in this location and I want to go primarily to the train station, can you just kind of tell me how I'm going to exit the building and get out of the site and get to the train station? What is your plan for pedestrian access route, primarily?

THE WITNESS: I would defer that to the traffic engineer.

  1. JAHR: Oh, okay. I assume that you adhered to all the appropriate design standards mentioned in my memorandum.

THE WITNESS: I ‑‑ I just got handed this actually on the way here. So ‑‑

  1. WELLS: We ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ I didn't get a chance to thoroughly review it.

  1. WELLS: Yes, why don't we ‑‑

THE WITNESS: It's a little long.

  1. JAHR: I'm sorry.
  2. WELLS: He's listed all the code requirements, if you see them (indicating).

THE WITNESS: Yes, we would, you know, A through B, we would certainly comply with. And Title 39 is code enforcement. Is that right?

  1. WELLS: Right.

THE WITNESS: So, I would have to defer to Mr. Loventhal on that.

  1. WELLS: It's the traffic laws.
  2. JAHR: We're assuming that if the plan were approved you would want to adopt Title 39 on the site for enforcement by the police.

If the police so desired to have it.

  1. RUTISHAUSER: Currently the policy is not to have that.
  2. WELLS: For ‑‑ for no parking zones.
  3. JAHR: Yes.
  4. WELLS: It's an operational question, but, yes.
  5. JAHR: All right. Well, Chris advises me that it's not the Village policy to do it, so...
  6. RUTISHAUSER: We have not in the last few years.
  7. JAHR: It wouldn't be required then.
  8. WELLS: Okay.
  9. JAHR: No problems.

Can he discuss the sight triangles at the exit driveway? They're not shown on the plan. Can they be shown on the plan in the future?

THE WITNESS: We ‑‑ we can show them on the plan.

  1. JAHR: Okay. I assume that sight triangles is clear and compatible with this use.


  1. JAHR: Speaking of South Broad Street.

Will the parking area under the building be access controlled? And, if so, can you give us an explanation as to how that's going the work?

THE WITNESS: I would defer to the traffic engineer on this and/or Mr. Loventhal.

  1. JAHR: Is there any ‑‑ this may be a little farfetched, but I felt the need to ask, is there any provisions for access for New Jersey Transit, should there ever be any kind of issue up on the property behind you?

Now I understand there's some grading ‑‑ there's elevation differences that exist. I would like to be real clear on what's happening back behind between your access drive and the rail bed which is ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Like a train accident?
  2. JAHR: Yes. Potentially, yeah. I mean it's not ‑‑
  3. WELLS: We have ‑‑
  4. JAHR: ‑‑ it's not a likely occurrence, it's not ‑‑ what I'm just wondering is, is there any easement or is there any access that's provided in the case of an emergency, because it really is a ‑‑ have to provide a route access for them if something were to happen?

THE WITNESS: We have not provided any access to the railway in the rear on this plan.

  1. JAHR: Is there anything that prohibits them from being able to access through your ‑‑ through your ‑‑
  2. WELLS: I don't think anybody really provides access to that, but it always could be accomplished in an emergency basis, you know ‑‑
  3. JAHR: Right.
  4. WELLS: ‑‑ you jump over the wall. It's only a couple of feet.
  5. JAHR: I'm just curious if you ever thought about that.
  6. WELLS: Yes, but there's no specific driveway to the railroad.
  7. JAHR: There are two loading zones noted on the plans. Again I'm having a hard time making sure, so could you just give a little more detail on how the loading zone is going to operate? You have a small loading zone along the exit drive. And based on the aisle widths and the width of what kind of vehicle may go there, I'm curious to take a look at that. Will there be adequate space for a car to pass or, quite honestly, will there be adequate space for, say, a truck to pass or something a little bit larger.

THE WITNESS: The driveway is 24‑feet wide. And you would have enough room for two trucks to pass or one truck to park and one truck to pass. So, cars would, certainly, pass easily.

  1. JAHR: All right.

And once again, I wasn't real, real clear on how the refuse area is going to work? It looks to me like it might be a little bit of a challenge to have the garbage truck come and go to collect the garbage and leave without impacting some of the parking spaces.

THE WITNESS: I don't think that will be difficult at all. The garbage truck might block the parking space, you know, for a couple of minutes, Mr. Loventhal, from an operational standpoint, will speak more about that.

  1. JAHR: Okay. But, your AUTOturn will show that it will work, I suppose?


  1. JAHR: Without impacting curbs or parking spaces?


  1. JAHR: Excellent.  

One of ‑‑ one of my requests on your loop road that you provide some additional one‑way signs, "Do Not Enter" signs, do you have any problem with that?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't. I still have to review your memo, because I didn't get it.

  1. JAHR: Well, essentially, what I'm asking for is, is ‑‑

THE WITNESS: If it's reasonable, we'll certainly comply with it.

  1. JAHR: Yes. Within reason, to create ‑‑ so that if someone were to come, you know, out of a deck or out of a parking lot, particularly, they have a clear direction on which way they're supposed to go. So, we're asking for a few more signs along that line. I had a couple of questions in here about the parking and supply and why that was chosen, but I think that we'll defer that to the traffic engineer. And I think that covers most of my ‑‑ my comments.
  2. PATIRE: Richard, I have some questions.


  1. PATIRE: I'm sorry. I just want to ask you, are you planning on running electric underground for this property or are you putting it on poles?

THE WITNESS: It would be underground.

  1. PATIRE: It will be underground? Okay. And then also just one quick question, the loading dock on the exit, is that where you would anticipate moving vans to park to move people into that loading area?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. First of all it's not a loading dock. It's just a ‑‑

  1. PATIRE: Area.

THE WITNESS: It's a loading area. It's something that's striped off. And a moving van could park there, but it was really ‑‑ it was really intended more for pickup trucks or vans or cars. And Mr. Loventhal will speak more in detail about the operation of, you know, people moving in and out.

  1. PATIRE: That's it. Okay.

Thank you.

  1. JAHR: Just for clarification, you're not going to answer any questions regarding the emergency vehicles then, that's for ‑‑ for someone else?
  2. WELLS: He testified all about it.
  3. JAHR: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're going to take a short break to 9:30, so it's about seven minutes.

  1. WELLS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And then we'll pick up. And we'll have cross by the public at that point of MR. LAPATKA. Okay?

  1. WELLS: Yes.


Short break.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Let's get rolling.

  1. CAFARELLI: We're going to start.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Just call the roll, Michael.





  1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?


  2. PATIRE: Here.
  4. SCHEIBNER: Here.
  5. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?


  2. McWILLIAMS: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Next, is the cross by the public. And what we're going to have is the members will line up at the lectern, single file, you'll be able to ask three questions. And then the engineer will answer them. And then if you have any more questions you have to go back to the end of the line. So just to give everyone a fair shot at asking questions. So, you can form a line. There is a line of one right now.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Chair, can I ask a question.


MAYOR KNUDSEN: Do we necessarily have to have somebody put their three questions out or can we allow them to do one question, have it answered, because sometimes questions beget questions. And I've always found the other way to be difficult to process.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I know, but what happens sometimes it gets to be like extended cross‑examination and you know a person can run into 20 questions and then it might shortchange someone else that was here.

So, they get an opportunity to come back around. So, it's something we've done in the past.

Okay. State your name, address and spell your name.

  1. KAUFMANN: Chris Kaufman, C‑H‑R‑I‑S K‑A‑U‑F‑M‑A‑N, 642 Ridgewood Road in Ridgewood.

Is there someone here that can talk about the impact on the schools?

  1. WELLS: Can I speak to that, just to let them know?


  1. WELLS: This is no longer the zoning application. This is a subdivision application. And we intend to present no testimony at all with respect to school and the children. And, therefore, really it would be no appropriate cross examination. People could make statement, I guess, at the end. But there's no cross ‑‑ cross‑examination has to be about what THE WITNESS testified to. And, actually, I don't anticipate bringing any testimony about schools at all.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. That is correct. You have to ask the engineer questions regarding his testimony.

  1. KAUFMANN: Got it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. State your name.

  1. ROMERO: Hi, Good evening, Marisol Romero, M‑A‑R‑I‑S‑O‑L R‑O‑M‑E‑R‑O, 258 Stielen Avenue.

And I apologize I was coming back from After School Night. Specific to ‑‑ I guess I have two questions. One is, when I was looking at the design, I was under the impression that it was ‑‑ and, again, I don't know ‑‑ I don't know how to read architecture plans so, forgive me. But I thought ‑‑ I am assuming that all the apartment units are in the yellowish beige and the green areas? But looking at the numbering, I thought we were ‑‑ the breakdown of the total was 92 units, and I see 168.

  1. WELLS: No, you're looking at parking spaces. That's parking spaces. The units are on the architectural plans. This is a site plan.
  2. ROMERO: Okay.

So, can you explain that to me? So then all the yellow is all parking spaces? Am I allowed to go over there or no? So, I can understand it more closely.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, if the exhibit will make it easier for you.

  1. ROMERO: I'm sorry.
  2. WELLS: There is no building on that. What you're looking at, that's underneath the building. And there's the parking lot underneath it.
  3. ROMERO: So this whole (indicating) is just underneath the building?
  4. WELLS: Yes.
  5. ROMERO: Everything. Whether it's the green, the yellowish or the gray?
  6. WELLS: Well...

THE WITNESS: The yellowish and this darker yellow or orange represents the building. I'll call it this olive color, off‑green (indicating), represents the amenity deck or activity areas, you know, common areas.

And we show parking spaces there on the same plan. They're under those levels. So, you would drive under the building where the amenity deck is, to the parking spaces.

  1. ROMERO: So, when I look at these unit numbers ‑‑
  2. WELLS: They're not unit numbers.

THE WITNESS: Those are parking spaces.

  1. ROMERO: Parking spaces, okay.

So, these are all parking spaces (indicating) because I saw something that says five spaces, seven spaces.

THE WITNESS: Parking spaces.

  1. ROMERO: Additional parking spaces, but on the outside of the building?  


  1. ROMERO: Okay. And then the other thing is, because I see ‑‑ and, again, I'm sorry, do I need to use the microphone or am I loud enough?
  2. WELLS: Share his.
  3. ROMERO: Okay. And the thinking is that it's one parking space per unit; is that correct?
  4. WELLS: Well, there's been testimony by various people, you know, there's a requirement under something called RSIS which is a state law ‑‑
  5. ROMERO: Okay.
  6. WELLS: ‑‑ that ultimately requires, it works out to about 1.8 parking spaces per unit. It's a complicated formula. And, yes, they exceed 1.8 per unit, which is the state requirement because we have 187, where only 183 are required. So, ultimately ‑‑
  7. ROMERO: So does that 128 become 2.0?
  8. WELLS: It works out to about two per unit is what is on that site.
  9. ROMERO: Okay.

And then, just thinking because, again, I am ‑‑ I'm sure this is to scale or whatever, is this the existing sidewalk (indicating) or are we leading into the existing sidewalk?

  1. WELLS: It's a new sidewalk.

THE WITNESS: That would be a proposed new sidewalk. We're basically ripping up everything from the curb back and throughout the entire site.

  1. ROMERO: So, is this sidewalk greater than or less than the current sidewalk? In other words, how ‑‑ how ‑‑
  2. WELLS: That's the good question, MR. LAPATKA.
  3. ROMERO: ‑‑ how wide is the sidewalk? And my concern being just, you know, as we all know, a lot of ‑‑ I know this isn't discussion about kids, but they walk ‑‑
  4. WELLS: He ‑‑ he'll answer ‑‑
  5. ROMERO: ‑‑ and then we also have ‑‑
  6. WELLS: He will answer it specifically. But it's generally a wider sidewalk and built to the ‑‑ you know the downtown specs, where you see that sort of brick, and then the other, and the scored concrete? That's what it looks like here. And he'll tell you the width.

THE WITNESS: I said how wide the sidewalk was before. I just want to recall that.



  1. WELLS: Seven‑feet wide.
  2. ROMERO: Seven‑feet wide? Okay. Is that ‑‑ does anybody know if that's wider than what is there now?
  3. WELLS: It's four now.

THE WITNESS: It's four now.

  1. ROMERO: Okay.

And then I think the other gentleman had brought it up, I wasn't sure if this was ‑‑ so, is it going to be clear that this is a one way coming out.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Correct.

  1. ROMERO: And then there's a stop sign and ‑‑


  1. ROMERO: ‑‑ I guess, my last question today is, is there going to be like a, you know, how certain streets, you have to ‑‑ you can't go higher than 25 miles per hour ‑‑


  1. ROMERO: ‑‑ et cetera? Is that going to be taken into consideration considering that there's children and there's a church. My own church is right here.
  2. WELLS: Well, the parking ‑‑
  3. ROMERO: Because a lot people walk.
  4. WELLS: Speed on the street is valid.

THE WITNESS: Yes, the speed limit on South Broad is up to the Village.

  1. WELLS: The Village. We're don't ‑‑

THE WITNESS: We're not changing that.

  1. ROMERO: The speed limit is?
  2. WELLS: Check with the Council. They set that. We don't do that.
  3. ROMERO: Okay. So, I guess that would be my last comment, that we would take that into consideration, trying to make it as ‑‑ again, I'm thinking about the most vulnerable citizens of our community, the children. I am trying to make it as kid friendly as possible. So that the children ‑‑ I mean our first priority should be the children's safety. So, thank you.
  4. MARTIN: You could also speak after the traffic consultants.
  5. ROMERO: Okay. Thank you. That's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name, spell your last name and provide your address.

  1. DANI: Saurabh, Dani, "D" as David a‑n‑i. Saurabh Dani, 390 Bedford Road in Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, spell your first name?

  1. DANI: Saurabh, S‑A‑U‑R‑A‑ "B" as in boy "H", Saurabh.


  1. DANI: So, my question is related to parking. I know you just said that it's 1.8 is the state mandated formula, and it's closer to, but I lived in the apartments, these townhouses in Hoboken and Secaucus, and we never had enough parking. I am sure they also built it by the state formula.

So, I just want to understand ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Let me just ‑‑
  2. DANI: ‑‑ how does that formula of two work? I ‑‑ my question is how does that formula of two work? How many of those apartment ‑‑ parking spots are going to the residents? How many of those parking spots are reserved for the guests? And how many are for the delivery and other ‑‑ other ‑‑
  3. WELLS: The problem, MR. DANI, is he didn't testify to that. The traffic engineer will testify extensively, will explain RSIS and explain how the formula applies exactly ‑‑
  4. DANI: But it's a site plan. There is nothing in here ‑‑
  5. WELLS: No, it has ‑‑ it has to do with traffic. And the RSIS formula, which is a state requirement, he'll try to explain. He could answer that question better.

So, if you just wait till he comes.

  1. DANI: Well, if there's an apartment, if there's an owner how many parking spots somebody gets ‑‑
  2. WELLS: I'll object to the question.
  3. DANI: ‑‑ it's a floor plan. It's a floor area of parking. How does that relate to traffic?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Yes, he just mentioned, there's going to be other testimony from a traffic engineer who specializes in that type of matter. And you can ask the question then, it would be more appropriate for that person.

  1. DANI: So they answer questions for the parked cars, not the ‑‑ not the ‑‑ I'm not talking about the cars and the traffic. I am asking the parking spots for the residents.
  2. WELLS: He will testify as to parking and traffic.
  3. DANI: Okay. Thank you.


  1. MATTESSICH: Good evening, Kevin Mattessich, M‑a‑t‑t‑e‑s‑s‑i‑c‑h, 836 Hillcrest Road [sic] ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ 836 Morningside Avenue. I have a question. The Village, as you probably know, has specific ordinances for measuring height that relate to the slope of the land and the use of retaining walls to adjust that slope.

And my specific question is, how did you take into account those ordinances in calculating the proposed height, you know, the starting point from the bottom of the building to the top of the building, so as to ensure that the building is within the required height?

  1. WELLS: Do you want to ask, does he have any other questions? Do your three?
  2. MATTESSICH: No, I like to ask them one at a time.
  3. WELLS: It doesn't work that way.
  4. MATTESSICH: It does work that way, sir.
  5. WELLS: The Chair ruled.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.  

  1. MATTESSICH: You said we could ask three questions. You didn't say we'd ask them all at once.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Well, we'll do it ‑‑

  1. MATTESSICH: And besides, you know what, sir, if you want me to get back in line, I'll just get right back in line.


  1. MATTESSICH: Or you could move ahead ‑‑


  1. MATTESSICH: ‑‑ with patience ‑‑
  2. WELLS: I have been here before ‑‑
  3. MATTESSICH: ‑‑ and respect ‑‑
  4. WELLS: I've been here before and obviously ‑‑
  5. MATTESSICH: ‑‑ and respect for others.
  6. WELLS: ‑‑ that's the procedure the board's followed.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. He asked a question, let's just get an answer. And then we'll move to the second and the third.

  1. MATTESSICH: And I'll ‑‑ and I'll get back in line ‑‑


  1. MATTESSICH: ‑‑ if you helps, MR. WELLS.
  2. MARTIN: Alex, answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I'll answer part of it. First of all there's an average grade calculation that's done for the land within 15 feet of the perimeter of the building. Basically a weighted average is calculated. So that's your starting point. And then that grade is compared to the top of the roof. And in the last hearing the architect talked about the building height elevation. So, your beginning point is that average‑grade calculation.

  1. MATTESSICH: Okay. Has that average‑grade calculation been provided to ‑‑ to the Planning Board thus far?

THE WITNESS: I believe it has been provided to your engineer and/or planner.

  1. WELLS: And it's on the plans.
  2. MARTIN: It's on the plans, did you say?


  1. MATTESSICH: Can we have the engineer's comments as to whether or not, I don't know if that's tonight or in a future meeting, to have the engineer's comments as to whether or not that the grade calculation was done appropriately and that retaining walls were not listed purposefully to build up the land in order to increase the grade?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, the engineer will testify.

Chris, you'll take note of that question?

  1. RUTISHAUSER: Yes. It's kind of confusing because I think the applicant's engineer has testified that they're excavating over 5,000 yards of material. So, that doesn't sound like they're building up to site; at least in my mind.


THE WITNESS: Well, what I will say is that retaining walls do not fall anywhere near 15 feet from the building. So, that has ‑‑ that has no bearing upon the height calculation or the average grade calculation.

  1. MATTESSICH: I am sorry, sir. Could you repeat that?

THE WITNESS: The retaining wall is not anywhere near 15 feet ‑‑ that 15‑foot influence line from the building. And, therefore, it has no bearing, no effect, on the average grade or the building height calculation.

  1. MATTESSICH: So it's not ‑‑ in other words, it wouldn't increase the grade?



  1. BRANCHEAU: Before I ‑‑ before I make a statement, should I be sworn?
  2. MARTIN: Yes.


  1. MARTIN: Raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

  1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I do.

B L A I S   B R A N C H E A U, Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

  1. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, can you stipulate to the Village Planner's qualification in the field of municipal planning?
  2. WELLS: He's absolutely wonderful.
  3. MARTIN: Thank you.
  4. BRANCHEAU: As part of my review, I did check the average‑grade calculations. And I differed with their calculations slightly. Actually, I think their calculation's conservative. My calculation came to the average grade to be slightly different, but actually lowered the buildings height. The average grade is based upon finished grade, not based upon existing grade. And the retaining wall is the reason we measure it out 15 feet from the foundation ‑‑ two reasons: One is that's how the building code regulates it. And we got tired of divvying with architects over different ways of calculating. So we tried, as closely as possible, to mirror the building code. Secondly, because of the retaining wall being close to the building and people trying to cheat by mounding up or raising the grade right around the building to elevate it, we went and figured by going out 15 feet that that would minimize that. So ‑‑ but to answer the question, I've checked the calculation. I found the calculation to be conservative. My calculation actually would have resulted in a building height slightly lower than what they show. So, I do believe that it is conforming.
  5. MARTIN: Any other questions about that?
  6. MATTESSICH: I'll continue with questions, if that's okay?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Again you have two more.

  1. MATTESSICH: I have two more? The second question, you referred in your testimony to an easement that once existed. In preparing the engineering plans, what did you do, if anything, to account for whatever rights Ridgewood might retain to access that easement, dig out the property to install lines, whether PSE&G or other entity might have access to the dwelling.
  2. WELLS: Objection, asked and answered.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can answer.

  1. MARTIN: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Well, as I said before we originally called for underground mark outs as a standard procedure. And the utility companies were notified that if there are any utilities in the area they should mark them out. There were no mark outs there. Secondly, we did a physical inspection of the site and found no evidence of utilities in that easement or old vacated right‑of‑way. And my office has also had prior experience, we worked on the Quick Lube when the garage ‑‑ I believe, it was a garage door building that was converted to a Quick Lube. And at that time we investigated it also and found nothing. So, we have no evidence to show that there is anything in there.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Do you know if the utilities actually even went there?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't know if there actually ever even were in. Typically when a municipality vacates a street, they throw a catch‑all phrase in the Vacation Ordinance and says subject to any ‑‑ you know, rights of any utilities that might be there. They're just kind of protecting themselves in case there is something. Okay? That's just ‑‑ that's pretty much the standard procedure. And in this case we found no evidence of anything. And I'll point out, again, as I said before the car wash building that it now is actually covers most of that easement. So, that ‑‑ that building was built there years ago, originally. And at that time it was determined that, you know, it didn't interfere with anything. And it was actually physically built, so they didn't ‑‑ when they didn't hit anything when it was built there.

  1. MATTESSICH: No further questions.

Thank you.


  1. MARTIN: MR. RUTISHAUSER, could you raise your right hand to be sworn in.
  3. MARTIN: MR. RUTISHAUSER, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
  4. 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:

  1. MARTIN: And, MR. WELLS, you stipulate to MR. RUTISHAUSER as a Professional Engineer?
  2. WELLS: Absolutely.
  3. MARTIN: And all your testimony during the course of this application is consistent with your opinions as a professional engineer?
  4. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, they will be.
  5. MARTIN: And in terms of ‑‑ Blais, has all your testimony been consistent throughout the course of this application as a professional planner?
  6. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
  7. MARTIN: MR. JAHR, raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

  1. JAHR: I do.

J O H N   J A H R, Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

  1. MARTIN: You are traffic consultant, correct?
  2. JAHR: Yes.
  3. MARTIN: You're not a traffic engineer, correct?
  4. JAHR: No, I'm a professional transportation planner.
  5. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, in that area were you satisfied in that criteria as to what MR. JAHR‑‑
  6. WELLS: Yes.
  7. MARTIN: Thank you.

And all of your comments related to this application are based upon your opinions, training and experience, correct?

  1. JAHR: Yes.
  2. MARTIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from the public?

State your name, spell your last name and provide your address, please.

  1. PERFECT: Jastrzebeska Perfect, J‑A‑S‑T‑R‑Z‑E‑B‑E‑S‑K‑A, 215 Walton Street.

I have a question about the water consumption, is every apartment going to have a separate meter?

  1. MARTIN: Just direct it to him. Thank you.
  2. PERFECT: Every apartment's going to have a separate water meter?

THE WITNESS: I'm going to leave that answer up to the applicant who will actually manage the property, that really goes towards how he's going to charge the tenants for water.

  1. PERFECT: Because I strongly recommend to have it. I mean ‑‑ and now, when it comes totally would be in this complex, like, 300 people living there? So, the water will be, you know, big usage of water. And how does this affect the Ridgewood. You know we have always water restriction, very severe, and like this year the whole summer we had. So, this ‑‑ this will affect. Plus Ridgewood share the water with another town, Wyckoff, right? And then Wyckoff is aware of this? Okay with this, these apartments, you know, will be conflict, you know, with the water. They should be aware of that, because this effects them as well, restrictions.

THE WITNESS: I think early on in the project we get...

  1. WELLS: This is your actual report, do you want to put it in or do you have it already? The board has it.
  2. MARTIN: Which is it?
  3. WELLS: It's a water ‑‑ report from your water department.
  4. MARTIN: Make it B‑4, water department ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, I think it would be helpful for her.

  1. WELLS: Okay.  

(Whereupon, Ridgewood Water Department Report is received and marked as Exhibit B‑4 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Okay. We did pose that question early on and we were told that there were no issues as far as the supply of water, we have a report dated here July 29th, 2016. It asks that we replace the water main along our frontage. And we would agree to do that. And it says that we should perform hydrant testing and calculations to determine if any additional infrastructure improvements are required. And that's really related towards firefighting more than anything else, because the domestic water flow is at pretty low numbers. The firefighting flow, that's higher. It says all new service piping shall be copper that meets Ridgewood Water standards. We agree to that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could you use the microphone please?

  1. WELLS: Al, use the microphone please. Sorry.

THE WITNESS: It's says that all new service piping shall be copper and meet Ridgewood Water standards. We agree to do that, as well as have a meeting with them to discuss specific valves, hydrants and, you know, different apparatus. And that's usually something that's done, you know, after, say, the Planning Board hearings and prior to construction. It says here that all 93 units shall be individually metered. And if we have irrigation, we should have a smart control. So, I guess that takes into effect recent rainfalls, you know, existing moisture in the soil and things like that, so as to conserve water. And we would agree with everything in the report.

  1. WELLS: Could you just, just for record, say the specific date on that and under whose signature that report came out of.

THE WITNESS: It's July 29, 2016 and it was from Richard Calbi, Jr., P.E., P.P., Director of Operations, RDC.

  1. WELLS: And that's B‑4.


  1. PERFECT: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any further questions from the public?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing that there are none ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Mr. Joel, I was thinking the architect is back now, we've actually completed him and the public had started their questions, but you asked for the right to bring him back. And if you want to make ‑‑ I'll make him available now, if anybody else in the public wanted to ask questions of him. He's been previously sworn.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure. The architect previously testified at the last meeting. And MR. WELLS offered to bring him back and he's here now. If anyone has questions for the architect.

  1. WELLS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you have a question for the architect?

  1. DANI: Yes.
  2. WELLS: Again, based on his testimony.
  3. DANI: Sure.
  4. MARTIN: MR. APPEL, state your name.
  5. APPEL: Yes.
  6. MARTIN: You remain sworn.
  7. APPEL: Yes.
  8. MARTIN: Thank you very much.

L A U R A N C E A P P E L, Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:

  1. DANI: Saurabh Dani, S‑A‑U‑R‑A‑B‑H, Dani, D‑A‑N‑I, 390 Bedford Road in Ridgewood. Good evening again. And my question is based on the last time that I was hearing the testimony about the number of units and the floor area. You had mentioned the two ‑‑ around two acres and 90‑something units. So, when I calculated that it was coming out to 34, 35 units. So, can you tell us how many total units per acre is that? I mean if we do it by acre, what is the total units per acre in this plan?
  2. APPEL: This is really a site related question, but the ‑‑ your question is how many units per?
  3. DANI: Per acre? It was part of your testimony last time. You ‑‑ you had testified the number of the acreage and the number of units.
  4. APPEL: Sure. The maximum density 12‑units per acre is 35. And what is proposed is 34.83.
  5. DANI: It's 34.83. So, I don't know if this is a question for the Planning Board or it's the question for the architect, I mean if you want me to come back later, because all the meetings that we attended, the Council meeting, the Planning Board meetings, we were told that 35 is ‑‑ is a number, but none of these four plans would go to 35 because of the setbacks, because of the floor area it shows, because of the number of units.

So, every time ‑‑ and we had a lot of those recordings if you want me to bring videos of even Deputy Mayor Albert, and everybody told us that there will never be more than 28, 30 units that would fit in this plan.

So what happened? Is the Planning Board reviewing ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You have to phrase ‑‑ this is cross‑examination.

  1. DANI: Right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You have to ask a question of MR. APPEL regarding his prior testimony.

So, ask the question towards him.

  1. DANI: So, if I have this question do I come back, if I ‑‑ if it's a question for the Planning Board? And is the Planning Board doing their due diligence of checking against the parameters that were quoted to the public during the initial meetings? So, if I am not allowed to ask this question now, do I come back for this question? When can I ask that question?
  2. WELLS: I'll address the question.
  3. DANI: Right.


  1. WELLS: Because, I have been here for the whole five years.
  2. DANI: Okay.
  3. WELLS: And you've totally misrepresented the testimony that you said that you heard many, many times.
  4. DANI: No. I will bring the videos. I can bring the videos.
  5. WELLS: I'll listen again.
  6. DANI: It's from the Council.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's irrelevant.

  1. WELLS: The bottom line is there's an ordinance. The ordinance requires 35‑units per acre. And we're less than 35‑units per acre. And that's the only thing that's really relevant before this board, period.
  2. DANI: So the Ridgewood residents were always misled on that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Well ‑‑

  1. DANI: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, if you have any questions for the architect you can ask them.

  1. DANI: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Lorraine, he came back for you. You asked to have him come back.


CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can consider it a date.

  1. REYNOLDS: I might do that. I had another school thing tonight. I don't know, you know, I don't even remember what he said last time, personally. I have to look at his testimony before I could ask a question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Going once. Going twice.

  1. ROMERO: I have ‑‑ I'm sorry.


  1. ROMERO: Do I have to state my name again?


  1. ROMERO: Okay. Sorry.

Marisol Romero, M‑A‑R‑I‑S‑O‑L R‑O‑M‑E‑R‑O, 258 Stielen Avenue.

So I feel like this is like Jeopardy, I have to phrase it in a question, and for an architect, too.

I'm sorry because I guess I'm still stuck on really understanding, don't have a ‑‑ I'm just asking a question.

  1. WELLS: No, no, no.
  2. ROMERO: No, because you have this face. I'm reading your face. I know you look like you're going to blow a gasket.
  3. WELLS: No, I'm not.
  4. ROMERO: I'm just trying to understand the parking space situation and how ‑‑ I get the question that Saurabh was asking more about the density. And I guess ‑‑ and I know you said it's very complicated and complex, probably over my little head, but with the RCICS [sic] whatever it is.
  6. ROMERO: RSIS. Thank you.

I guess I'm just trying to understand like, how did ‑‑ so, 1.8 is the New Jersey State number.

  1. WELLS: Traffic expert.
  2. MARTIN: Do you want our the Village Planner, if he could just run through that?
  3. WELLS: Explain the RSIS.
  4. ROMERO: No, I just ‑‑ okay. So 1.8, I'm trying to understand. I'm sorry.
  5. MARTIN: He might be better able to explain it.
  6. BRANCHEAU: I could give you a little background ‑‑
  7. ROMERO: Yes.
  8. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ and you can ask the question more clearly. The RSIS is the state ‑‑ it's called the Residential Site Improvement Standards. It's a code that the state adopted. And, basically, it supersedes our requirements. So, in our code, we merely reference it. We do include some of the basic standards. Those standard for parking vary by both the type of housing unit, meaning single‑family dwelling versus an apartment building versus townhouse and mid‑rise apartments. It also varies by number of bedrooms in each unit. So, for example, for this type of housing unit, the standard for parking in the state standard is for a one‑bedroom unit is 1.8 parking spaces per unit. For a two‑bedroom unit, it's two spaces per unit. And for a three‑bedroom unit, it's 2.1 spaces per unit. Now, obviously, if I had all one‑bedroom units, my standard would be 1.8. But if I had a mix of bedrooms, as you do in this project here. It's not a simple one number calculation is what MR. WELLS was saying. It is a complex calculation. So, in this case they have 17, one‑bedroom units. They have 73, two‑bedroom units and 3 three‑bedroom units. So, you multiply 17 times 1.8; 73 times 2; and 3 times 2.1. It gets you a total parking requirement which comes to 183, in the case of this development.
  9. ROMERO: Okay. I guess my question is now that you're saying that, I know this is not including the housing units, this is talking about the parking spaces and this doesn't include the ‑‑ but can the parking ‑‑ is there ‑‑ I guess my concern is, okay, this is the parking unit spaces, right? And then we see the architectural plans for the housing units. Is there a possibility that using that configuration or is it set in stone already or is there is a possibility that the parking spaces that are already being designed and planned for will not accommodate the number of housing units? In other words, like, the number ‑‑ I guess, I'm just trying to think, like, is there a possibility for a designers to come back and say, I know, 40 percent ‑‑ like, this is based on, let's say, just 20 percent of the units being a three‑bedroom. And then the ‑‑
  10. BRANCHEAU: You can direct that to THE WITNESS.
  11. ROMERO: And then the architectural plans for the housing units come back and says, oh, it's not 30 percent three‑bedrooms ‑‑ please let me finish my question ‑‑ it is ‑‑ it's 45 percent.
  12. WELLS: Okay.
  13. ROMERO: So is there a possibility that, you know, I'm just trying to make sure that we're not being presented, like, okay, this is the number of parking spaces based on past discussions about the number of housing units. And then the next meeting I come to the housing units are presented and all of the sudden we're like, wait a minute. There's not enough parking units to accommodate or support the number of housing units. Can you answer that?
  14. MARTIN: Is there a question?
  15. WELLS: I just want say one thing an I'll try to let Larry answer it. RSIS, you suggest is an arbitrary law, the state has studied this and came to a determination, putting a lot of different factors into it, how many parking spaces will be required. In fact, it includes visitors and all the rest of that. So that's ‑‑ that's where that comes from. It isn't just a made‑up number. And if you meet the law, then the presumption is that you're going to have enough parking because that's ‑‑ so, we're not trying to ask to do less than the law requires. We're complying, in fact, exceeding what the law requires. But, Larry, can you add anything to the question?
  16. APPEL: That's exactly what it is, is that there's 93 units. The calculation for parking requires 183 spaces; we're required ‑‑ we are providing 187 spaces. So, more than what is required, period.
  17. ROMERO: So, that's also accommodating for, like ‑‑ for holiday weekends, someone is having a barbecue as we're ‑‑
  18. WELLS: Yes, it's all factored ‑‑
  19. ROMERO: ‑‑ where you're having extra guests come over?
  20. WELLS: It's all included.
  21. ROMERO: That's it. Thank you.


Do have you a question?

  1. PERFECT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure. Come forward. Just state your name again.

  1. PERFECT: I'm Jastrzebeska Perfect, J‑A‑S‑T‑R‑Z‑E‑B‑E‑S‑K‑A, 215 Walton Street. The question regarding this New Jersey standard that apartment rationale, how this was calculated to the area of the city or to this, like, village area? Because if you have a ‑‑ I live in the city and so, if you live in an apartment building, you know, nobody has their car because everybody goes to the shopping and because the supermarket is around the corner, but ‑‑
  2. WELLS: Why don't we let the traffic expert try, because ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: There's going to be a traffic expert. You can direct any questions regarding the architect to the architect. And then they're going to have a traffic engineer, which will go more in depth for this.

I know a lot of people have it on their minds, these questions, but it's got to be for the appropriate witness.

  1. PERFECT: Okay. Thank you.


  1. REYNOLDS: I've got a question. Hi, Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue. I know that you did talk about it the last time, but I didn't get a chance to write it. Could you give me the square footage of the one‑bedroom and the two‑bedroom apartments?  
  2. APPEL: Sure.

The typical one‑bedroom unit ‑‑ the typical one‑bedroom unit with loft 1,257 square feet. Typical two‑bedroom unit, 1,335 square feet.

  1. REYNOLDS: So 1,305?
  2. APPEL: Correct.
  3. REYNOLDS: Okay. And then on the affordable housing units is the square footage on those different?
  4. APPEL: The affordable units, typical one‑bedroom unit is 722 square feet. A typical two‑bedroom affordable unit is 995 square feet. And a typical three‑bedroom affordable unit is 1,113 square feet.
  5. REYNOLDS: Okay. And you mentioned a one‑bedroom with a loft. Are all of the one‑bedrooms with a loft?
  6. APPEL: No, not all of the one‑bedrooms have lofts.
  7. REYNOLDS: Okay, but I mean, whatever, and do you know how many do?
  8. APPEL: The majority of them do. The ones that do not are the ones that are on the fourth floor.
  9. REYNOLDS: Okay. And when you say "one‑bedroom with loft" so, I guess on the first level there's a one bedroom and then the loft, can that sleep two more people?
  10. APPEL: No, it's not intended to sleep people. It ‑‑ the loft was taking advantage, the ordinance wrote in a ‑‑ where it was providing ‑‑ there was actually requirements to have architectural features such as sloping roofs.
  11. REYNOLDS: Uh‑huh.
  12. APPEL: We took advantage to, rather than make these just attic spaces, we programmed loft into these spaces to provide some additional living space. They're not intended to be bedrooms. They're not designed as bedrooms.
  13. REYNOLDS: Is there going to be anything that would prohibit somebody using it as a bedroom? Just because you tell them, you know ‑‑ I can have a one‑bedroom unit and somebody says, oh, you've got a big living room, I'm going to put a bed ‑‑ I'm going to but a bed in there and let my two kids sleep there.
  14. APPEL: Is that a question?
  15. REYNOLDS: It is.
  16. WELLS: Probably best for the applicant ‑‑
  17. REYNOLDS: Is there anything to prohibit somebody from using it.
  18. WELLS: ‑‑ Scott Loventhal the operational guy because the architect ‑‑
  19. APPEL: This ‑‑ this ‑‑ this space does not have doors enclosure that would be typical of what somebody would use for a bedroom.
  20. REYNOLDS: Okay. But there's nothing preventing somebody from using it ‑‑ putting a mattress on the floor and using the loft.
  21. WELLS: Operationally.
  22. REYNOLDS: Okay. Fine.

Okay. Thanks.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have a question for the engineer.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: For the engineer?


CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone else have a question for the architect?

(No response.)


  1. ROMERO: Can I ask one more.


  1. ROMERO: Does this ‑‑ do I have to state my name again?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: What's that?

  1. ROMERO: Do I have to state my name again?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, just state it, it's for the record.

  1. ROMERO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Just for the record.

  1. ROMERO: Marisol ‑‑ I'm sorry. Marisol Romero, M‑A‑R‑I‑S‑O‑L R‑O‑M‑E‑R‑O, 258 Stielen.

Does the parking also take into account overnight guests? Okay.

  1. WELLS: Yes.
  2. ROMERO: Okay. So, that's allowed in the architectural plans they're allowed to have that?
  3. WELLS: Again, the traffic engineer will explain it more. But, yes.
  4. ROMERO: So that would be more of a traffic engineer question? Okay, that's it.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So, this is the architect, so, it's ‑‑

  1. PERFECT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. State your name.

  1. PERFECT: Yes, Jastrzebeska Perfect, J‑A‑S‑T‑R‑Z‑E‑B‑E‑S‑K‑A, 215 Walton Street. Just the dimension of the building, length, width and the height.
  2. WELLS: That one he has.  
  3. APPEL: The building is 400‑feet long and on one side of the building it is 146 feet, 8 inches. And on other side of the building is 178 feet. There are some cantilevered an architectural features. So, that's the dimension where it hits the ground, but those are the overall dimensions.
  4. WELLS: And the height?
  5. APPEL: The height of the building is conforming, the height is ‑‑‑ the dimension of the building predominantly is 49 feet 10 inches. This is ‑‑ there is a metric that the portions of the building go above that, but this is conforming all within the ordinance.
  6. PERFECT: So, how many floors the building has?
  7. APPEL: The building is four stories. The units are spread out among four stories.
  8. PERFECT: So, it's four levels.
  9. APPEL: Four levels.
  10. PERFECT: Wow. You know, it's huge. I can't imagine.
  11. WELLS: Questions.
  12. PERFECT: I can't imagine ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's got to be a question. There will be public comment later on in the process, but it has to be a question.

  1. PERFECT: All right.

So, this ‑‑ can you compare that size of the building to the existing building in the town? How many times it will be bigger to any standing apartment building.

  1. APPEL: I couldn't answer that.
  2. PERFECT: Because in the plan it's difficult to see the size. So, I would like to know how many times bigger, you know.
  3. WELLS: Again, the relevant thing is it meets the code. It does what the code ‑‑ not asking for a variance for height.
  4. PERFECT: So the length can be one mile's length. It doesn't matter. It's still within the code.
  5. WELLS: Well, no, there's ‑‑ okay. There are very definite requirements as to the bulk, the FAR and all of these things and the testimony is that we meet the code.
  6. PERFECT: All right. Thank you.


  1. DANI: Good evening, again, Saurabh Dani S‑a‑u‑r‑a‑b‑h D‑a‑n‑i, 390 Bedford Road. I understand you mentioned that it's conforming, but can you tell us how many ‑‑ at how many places it goes above 49.10, and how much ‑‑ what are the highest peaks? What are the highest height and at how many places?
  2. APPEL: The ordinance provides a metric, and we followed the requirements from this metric.

The metric says that the building, the maximum building height is 50 feet. We are below that 50 feet.

In addition it provides 8 additional feet provided that we meet certain requirements, which we have met. And it only gives you a very small portion, so there's a special calculation for this metric that provides for a 20 percent calculation, that 20 percent calculation is applied to the mass of the third story at a certain height specific to the ordinance. This, in turn, is ‑‑ allows just a small portion above that 50 feet. And that maximum is 58 feet. Again, we are conforming with that ordinance in the way that metric was constructed.

  1. DANI: My question wasn't answered.
  2. APPEL: Okay.
  3. DANI: My question was ‑‑ I'm not asking about the ordinance, I think that's what you guys are doing here. I'm just asking how ‑‑ what is the maximum height that this building goes to and in how many places it goes above 49 feet? That is my question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: He did answer it, but I guess he can clarify. Just, if you can take it to the plan page where it shows the heights.

  1. APPEL: So ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: The elevation page, if you have it. I think it's easier.

  1. WELLS: I'm going to let him try to answer it, but it's not fair to say he didn't answer it. He answered it the way he thinks is appropriate.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, I know. That's why I said to further clarify, I think.

  1. WELLS: Yes, right.
  2. APPEL: There are two lines that are shown on the construction ‑‑ I apologize ‑‑ on the design drawing. These design drawings show a 50‑foot above average grade and 58‑feet above average grade (indicating). So, those are the two respective dotted lines in here (indicating). So, you can see that practically ‑‑
  3. WELLS: MR. APPEL, what page are you referring to please?
  4. APPEL: We're looking at drawing A‑2.1.
  5. WELLS: Okay.
  6. APPEL: I believe these were collectively grouped together as an exhibit.
  7. WELLS: Yes. I think it's A‑7.
  8. APPEL: The drawing ‑‑ as you can see this lower dotted line (indicating), the majority of the building is all below this. In many cases significantly below. And there's only these small areas that are shown that project above that. And that allows for architectural treatment. And it also allows for four units on the fourth floor.

So, it's a very limited area that is above that 50 foot, as enumerated in the metric of the ordinance.

  1. DANI: So, there are four units that are above 49 feet limit?
  2. WELLS: No.
  3. APPEL: There are four units that are above that 40 ‑‑ that are within that distance between 49 feet and 58 feet. However, there's architectural pieces of roof lines and stuff like that, that are within that area as well.

But this is enumerated very clearly in the ordnance and we are conforming with the height requirement.

  1. DANI: Right, I'm sure you're conforming otherwise they won't be approving that. So, our questions are more for clarification. And you had mentioned that at some places you can go 20 feet, 20 percent radius or 20 percent above. Is that 20 percent above 58 or 20 percent above 50?
  2. APPEL: No, I was paraphrasing some of the information that is part of the metric of the ordinance.

The ordinance is a rather long paragraph.

  1. DANI: Okay.
  2. APPEL: So, I don't want to take little pieces of it out of context.
  3. DANI: Okay.
  4. APPEL: But, there is a 20 percent ‑‑ the metric allows for a 20 percent increase to the height, which allows you to go up ‑‑ of area and that area is taken at a specific height, within the conforming area. And that allows a 20 percent increase within that space, between 50 feet and 58 feet ‑‑ 58 is the max.
  5. DANI: Right. And my last question is, you had mentioned that these heights 48, 49. Sorry. 49.10 and 58 are from the average grade level. So, what is the max height at any grade because the lowest grade, you do have lower grade level.
  6. WELLS: Answer that please.
  7. APPEL: We ‑‑ we measured the height from average grade.

So the average grade is what ‑‑

  1. DANI: But in your design you must measure the height. It's the ‑‑ for ‑‑ for ‑‑ for approval purposes, for Planning Board purposes, yes. For zoning purposes it's average. But it's a question you must have drawn somewhere that what is the maximum height?
  2. WELLS: Objection.
  3. DANI: Why would that be...
  4. WELLS: Because he's answered it ‑‑
  5. MARTIN: Why don't you just let me ‑‑ just let him finish. Okay. Go ahead.
  6. APPEL ‑‑
  7. APPEL: Am I ‑‑ no, am I waiting for a ‑‑
  8. MARTIN: No, there were two question. Your response is, what is the maximum height and that is ‑‑
  9. APPEL: I was mentioning that the maximum height is measured from average grade.
  10. MARTIN: That was the question.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's the answer.

  1. APPEL: That's ‑‑ that's the answer.
  2. WELLS: That's the answer.
  3. MARTIN: No, no, that was the question, he answered it ‑‑
  4. WELLS: Yes.
  5. MARTIN: That's fine.
  6. DANI: That's ‑‑ but that's ‑‑ that's not for the zoning purpose, but that's got the ‑‑ like I have in my house, I have the front grade and I have a different height on the ‑‑
  7. WELLS: I guess the answer is there's ‑‑
  8. DANI: ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you have a question? You can ask a question. There will be public comment, where you can comment on that.

  1. DANI: So, if I think my question is not answered, what is the resolution of that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, you can ask a question.

  1. DANI: I asked a question. My question is what is the maximum height at the lowest grade level?


You ask a question. He provides the answer.

  1. DANI: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: He doesn't necessarily have to provide the answer you want or anything. If he can clarify, make it more direct, he can. He's answering it as best as he can for you.

  1. DANI: No, he's saying he cannot.
  2. WELLS: Maybe I can help.

There's no reason to do it, because the ordinance makes them go through an elaborate calculation to figure out the average grade. Nobody sits down and measures every single place where it could go to what the finished grade would be. There's no reason to do that.

  1. DANI: It's part of the construction drawing.
  2. WELLS: No, it's not. It's not. It's not part of it.
  3. DANI: It's part of it ‑‑ how you can ‑‑ how the contractor build a building if they don't know how ‑‑ what is the maximum height?
  4. MARTIN: I thought it was a good question.
  5. DANI: Right.
  6. MARTIN: He answered the question. I deem it answered. Your question is over.
  7. DANI: Okay. That's why I wanted to know whether you deem it as answered, because we don't think it's answered.
  8. MARTIN: He said ‑‑ that was the question, where did he measure from, grade? And that's established.
  9. DANI: No, that was not my question. My question was ‑‑
  10. MARTIN: Yes, it was. Go ahead ask him again, ask the question.
  11. DANI: Sure. My question was what is the height from the lowest grade point? What is the maximum height of the building from the lowest grade point? That is my question.
  12. MARTIN: Okay. Now, I get it. Do you understand that?
  13. APPEL: Yes, I do.
  14. MARTIN: Can you answer that?
  15. APPEL: The measurement that I used is from the average grade. That's the measurement I know.
  16. MARTIN: And what was the highest point of that, that was his question.
  17. APPEL: The highest point from average grade.
  18. DANI: No, my question is not from is average grade. My question is not from average grade.
  19. MARTIN: He wants to know if there was ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: What he's trying to get out that you're now ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Is there some space where it's lower than average, because there's obviously higher and lower. And then you'd have to know what that is. And then you'd have to have measured right in there. The building is not there.
  2. DANI: You know the ‑‑ you know the concern is ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Did you calculate the lowest grade point?

  1. APPEL: I don't have it.


  1. WELLS: Don't have it.
  2. MARTIN: Okay. That's the answer.


  1. DANI: Thank you.
  2. MARTIN: Thank you for clarifying.
  3. WELLS: Okay.
  4. REYNOLDS: Hi, Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue. Going back to the one bedroom, the loft area, what is the square footage of the loft area?
  5. APPEL: The loft area is 378 square feet. This is for the one‑bedroom loft.
  6. REYNOLDS: Right.

Because, I mean the one bedroom and the two bedroom are only 50 square feet off from each other. So, it's basically the same size apartment.

  1. APPEL: The ‑‑ the ‑‑ the loft spaces added to ‑‑ to the ground floor of the one bedroom.
  2. REYNOLDS: So, you had told me the square footage of the one bedroom was 1,257.
  3. APPEL: The 1,257 is inclusive of the loft. It is the 879 square feet, just for the lower level.
  4. REYNOLDS: Okay. Right, but I'm saying when you add the ground level and the loft together, it's almost exactly the same square footage as the two bedroom. It's 50 square feet off. So, it's ‑‑ they're very similar in size. Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else?

State your name.

  1. HONE: Do I have to come up?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: What's that?

THE COURT REPORTER: State your name and spell your last name, please.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and spell your last name and provide your address.

  1. HONE: Jacqueline Hone, H‑o‑n‑e, 30 Carriage Lane. In regards to height, my question is regards to ‑‑ to height. During the break I was able to see one of the boards and the boards did a comparison of the other buildings in the area that are comparably tall to what's about to be constructed. So, could you please show the public that, because that would usually be sent to the Planning Board and we didn't see it. So, the questions would be ‑‑ the question would be...
  2. WELLS: We testified to it before. So, yes, just ‑‑ it's been asked and answered, but tell them.
  3. APPEL: The example boards that were provided for testimony at the last meeting were not giving any relative height. There was no testimony given that these were examples of height. These are specifically given as design examples and references for what we believe were good design examples from other properties that were in the Village.
  4. MARTIN: And you may or may not know, do you know the heights of any of those buildings?
  5. APPEL: I don't know the heights of these buildings specifically.
  6. HONE: So, to what regard was it a design example? Could you explain that, please?
  7. APPEL: The testimony that was given at the last meeting was that these provided architectural examples.
  8. WELLS: Hold it up, and tell us the number too please. The exhibit number that's on the back probably.
  9. APPEL: This is Exhibit Number A‑8. The testimony that was given was both for materials, architectural style, there were references to Tudor detailing, Tudor materials. And these provided positive references that we look to incorporate into the architecture of our building. These were specific requirements in the ordinance to make representations about, and comparisons to, other architecture that's in the Village.
  10. HONE: Okay. So, the architecture that I'm seeing in the comparables are ‑‑ they have these points like the clock tower that would be down the street from the development, along with the others, is that what you're design is showing as far as highest point?
  11. APPEL: I'm not sure I understand what the question is?
  12. HONE: So, there are areas that the structure is higher than in other parts of the building and you said some of it is going to go up to past 50 or something of that sort. Is that relative to what I'm seeing there with the clock tower, the building is one height and then there's, where the clock is, and it goes way above that. Is that what you were describing.
  13. APPEL: These are ‑‑
  14. HONE: As far as the different heights of the structure.
  15. APPEL: These are ‑‑ these are not specifically the building that we designed. These are specifically references to architecture, does one of them have a raised area that may have a spire or some other architect element? Yes. We didn't take every element from this architecture and replicate it in our building. We just took some general vernacular architectural details that we believed were appropriate to included in our project to use as a reference.
  16. HONE: I understand that.

On the design, itself.

  1. WELLS: She's asking if it conforms to the ordinance. And that's the only requirement that was used to comport with the ordinance. He said the 20 percent, not to match any other building.
  2. HONE: No, I understand that. That's not what I am saying. In your design what are the areas that are going to be highest? What is that, that makes them higher than the other parts of the building. Is it another apartment? Is it a ‑‑
  3. APPEL: Slope. There are sloping roofs and these were specifically enumerated in the ordinance so...
  4. WELLS: Use your exhibit, your elevations. Can you tell us what number it is, please.
  5. APPEL: This is Exhibit A‑1. And we incorporated, throughout the project, sloped roofs. These sloped roofs in some cases have lofts inside, behind them. Sometimes there's nothing behind them. And sometimes there would be apartments units behind them. Part of this was handling the architecture and creating opportunity to utilize the area under these sloped roof, because the sloped roof was a requirement in the ordinance. It was something that the ordinance was looking for. We embraced this and created the architecture around that.
  6. HONE: Okay. So, the highest point of all that structure would be ‑‑ you might have answered it I...
  7. APPEL: Say that again?
  8. HONE: The highest point of the entire structure is? What is the highest point?
  9. APPEL: Fifty‑eight feet.
  10. HONE: Fifty‑eight feet is the highest. So nothing will ever go above that.
  11. APPEL: Fifty‑eight feet, measured from average grade, that's correct?
  12. HONE: From average grade.
  13. APPEL: Correct.
  14. HONE: It might be a little more it it's measured from lower grade?
  15. APPEL: I don't know that, because the only way the ordinance addresses height is from average grade.
  16. HONE: Okay. Thank you.
  17. DANI: Good evening, again. It's Saurabh Dani, S‑a‑u‑r‑a‑b‑h. Last name Dani, D‑a‑m‑i. 390 Bedford Road in Ridgewood. And I just wanted to clarify the last answer that you gave under oath.

You're saying that you did not measure the distance, the height from the lowest point to the highest point of the building. The lowest point of the grade to the highest point of the building, you have not measured that.

  1. APPEL: I don't ‑‑
  2. DANI: Is that ‑‑
  3. APPEL: I don't have that calculation.
  4. DANI: But that was the answer ‑‑ the attorney asked you that did you measure it and you answered, no, you did not measure it. So, is the answer you did not measure it or are you saying, we don't ‑‑ you don't have it and you'll provide it later?
  5. APPEL: I ‑‑ the ordinance stipulates that the height measurements are taken at average grade. Those are ‑‑
  6. DANI: Okay.
  7. APPEL: Those are the ‑‑ that's how we calculate height and measure height.
  8. DANI: In the last ‑‑  

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I think his question is also do you know what the lowest point is?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Or can we get it? Can we have that piece of information, I guess, is the question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. He's asking ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Remember the grade doesn't exist yet. It hasn't been graded. So, nobody ‑‑ there's no reason to calculate it.
  2. DANI: Then, how do we know average grade?
  3. MARTIN: Just give us a second.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's a good point.

  1. MARTIN: The design ‑‑ part of the design phase is to find out what the lowest grade would be.
  2. WELLS: In all due respect, this person has been allowed to ask many, many questions. We're cross examining him on a point that is not relevant. And why ‑‑ why should we take the time to do this, there's no reason to. We meet the code. That's all we have to do.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, if he had the information, he can do it. Then he could provide it.

  1. WELLS: Well, he could ‑‑ I guess he could go back and calculate it, by why? I mean ‑‑
  2. DANI: Then that's ‑‑ we're not to ask any question if everything is by the code then why are we asking questions?
  3. MARTIN: Do you have those design ‑‑ do you have the ability to get that design answer? Do you know what it is?
  4. WELLS: I'm going to instruct him not to do it.
  5. MARTIN: Was that ‑‑ was that factored into your plan.
  6. WELLS: I'm going to instruct him not to do it. There's no reason to.
  7. MARTIN: I'm not asking him to do it. I'm just saying was that factored into his design of this particular area.
  8. WELLS: Of course it was. I mean he wants to meet the height ordinance.
  9. APPEL: We carefully read and understood the height ordinance. And that's why the engineer provides us with an average grade calculation. We use that average grade calculation to establish height for the building.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, can I just ask a question, because I think I understand what you're saying, Saurabh.

  1. DANI: Sure.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So let me just kind of rethink this a minute. You just said that we don't know the grade, right? Is that what I just heard somebody say or maybe I misunderstood. You said ‑‑ somebody just said, we actually don't know the grade because it hasn't been built.

  1. WELLS: I said it. And I think we ‑‑  

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, let me ‑‑ let me finish.

  1. WELLS: I do ‑‑ they do know it, because they have to calculate it. But they don't have every given point and ‑‑ that they calculate every average grade point to that building. Just there's no reason to do it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Let me just finish what he ‑‑ what you just said.

  1. WELLS: Yes. Fine.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: We don't know the grade just yet. That's what I understood you to say.

So, what MR. DANI then ‑‑ and that's what you said.

  1. APPEL: That's not what I said.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's what I understood you to say, you don't know the grade. Or somebody just told me ‑‑  

  1. APPEL: That's ‑‑ that's not what I said.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Can you ‑‑ MR. WELLS said ‑‑

  1. MARTIN: MR. APPEL ‑‑ MR. APPEL, can clarify that for you, Mayor.


So, in other words, it was just said that we don't know the grade yet.

  1. APPEL: Right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Is that what I understood?

  1. WELLS: Yes, that's what I ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, if you don't know what the grade is, then how can you calculate the average grade, that it will exist, I guess.

  1. APPEL: The ‑‑ the number that we work from is average grade.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That is existing ‑‑

  1. APPEL: As ‑‑ as ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ as existing ‑‑

  1. APPEL: Of proposed.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Of proposed?  

  1. APPEL: Of proposed grade.


  1. APPEL: So, the engineer provides and works out the grades around the building.


  1. APPEL: And provides us the datum point of which to measure the building height. That's the portion that I know. And that's the portion that's important. Why? Because that's what the ordinance requires.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Proposed. I think that ‑‑ that is the answer to the question then, because that was the missing word "proposed". That's it. It's proposed. Thank you.

  1. PERFECT: Jastrzebeska Perfect, J‑A‑S‑T‑R‑Z‑E‑B‑E‑S‑K‑A, 215 Walton Street.

Questions the height of the ‑‑ the limit is 49 feet or 50 feet, the height?

  1. APPEL: The ‑‑
  2. PERFECT: Yes.
  3. APPEL: You're asking what the ‑‑
  4. PERFECT: Yes.
  5. APPEL: ‑‑ the ordinance limit is?
  6. PERFECT: Yes, ordinance. Yes.
  7. APPEL: Is 50 feet with a metric for increasing ‑‑
  8. PERFECT: Okay.
  9. APPEL: ‑‑ to 58 feet ‑‑
  10. PERFECT: Yes.
  11. APPEL: ‑‑ if certain criteria ‑‑
  12. PERFECT: Oh, so ‑‑
  13. APPEL: ‑‑ are met.
  14. PERFECT: So ‑‑ so now, because it's very long building, how many times ‑‑ because it's ‑‑ it's not straight, right? The roof is not straight in the ‑‑ the height. How many times the buildings goes above 50 ‑‑ 50 feet, above the limit? And how ‑‑ what's the width of each unit? Because at one point you said there is four apartments which has 58 feet, the height is. So, how many more pieces like that, it's higher.
  15. APPEL: We ‑‑
  16. PERFECT: ‑‑ I know we ‑‑ how many times is highest, do you know what I mean? Because it's not the same.
  17. APPEL: The aggregate amount is within the ordinance.
  18. PERFECT: No, but how many units? I understand. How many units is more than ‑‑ higher than 50 feet? How many units, apartment?
  19. APPEL: We ‑‑ we ‑‑ I already ‑‑ I already testified that there were four units that were ‑‑
  20. PERFECT: Only four.
  21. APPEL: ‑‑ that were within that area that is above the 50‑foot limit.
  22. PERFECT: Okay. They are all together, right? It's one piece only the building, according to this. They all together those four units?
  23. APPEL: Those four units are all together, yes.
  24. PERFECT: Okay. And how many bathrooms in the apartment do have, one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedrooms.
  25. APPEL: How many bathrooms?
  26. PERFECT: Yes. Do you have an answer for that?
  27. APPEL: The typical ‑‑ the typical units are showing one bathroom in the one‑bedroom and two bathrooms in the two‑bedroom. And the affordables show one bathroom in the one‑bedroom; one bathroom in the two‑bedrooms; two bathrooms in the three‑bedroom, for the affordables respectively.
  28. PERFECT: Okay. Thank you.


  1. ROMERO: Marisol Romero, 258 Stielen Avenue. Specifically, could you just give me an exact breakdown of how many one‑bedroom with lofts there are; how many two‑bedrooms; and how many three‑bedrooms.
  2. WELLS: Objection to the form of the question. Asked and answered.

Do it again, please.

  1. APPEL: Unit breakdown: Market rate one‑bedroom there are 15. Market rate 2‑bedrooms, there are 64. For the affordables: One‑bedroom affordable, there are two units; two‑bedroom affordables there are nine units; 3‑bedroom affordables there are three‑units. For total of 93 units.
  2. ROMERO: I'm sorry because I just want to make sure I get this right.

So, there's 14 units total that are affordable housing, right?

  1. APPEL: That is correct.
  2. ROMERO: Okay.

And 64 two‑bedrooms?

  1. APPEL: That is correct.
  2. ROMERO: And 3‑bedrooms are ‑‑
  3. APPEL: Or market ‑‑ 64 ‑‑ 64 is 2‑bedroom market.
  4. ROMERO: What does that mean? What you mean "market."
  5. APPEL: Those would be any units that aren't "affordable", would be considered market.
  6. ROMERO: Okay. And 3‑bedroom at market is how many?
  7. APPEL: There are no three‑bedroom market units.
  8. ROMERO: Oh, so there's no three‑bedroom ‑‑ only affordable housing three bedrooms.
  9. APPEL: Only affordable.
  10. ROMERO: Okay. And then how many one‑bedrooms with lofts?
  11. APPEL: I believe I testified all but four. I'm sorry. All but two. I apologize.
  12. ROMERO: So, if you were to deduct 64 minus 93, the remaining number would be the one‑bedroom with the lofts?
  13. APPEL: So, you're taking, you said ‑‑ say that once more?
  14. ROMERO: Okay. I'm was looking ‑‑ we were talking about 93‑units total, correct?
  15. APPEL: That's correct.
  16. ROMERO: Okay. So, 64, 2‑bedroom at market units, right?
  17. APPEL: That's correct.
  18. ROMERO: And 14‑units of affordable housing. Correct?
  19. APPEL: Correct.
  20. ROMERO: So, then the rest would be one‑bedrooms with lofts. So 90 ‑‑ so am I doing that right, 93 minus 78?
  21. APPEL: So 93 minus 78 ‑‑
  22. ROMERO: So it would be ‑‑
  23. APPEL: ‑‑ it would give you 15 one‑bedrooms.
  24. ROMERO: ‑‑ 15? Okay.
  25. APPEL: So ‑‑ and those are 15 one‑bedrooms, all but two have lofts.
  26. ROMERO: All but two have lofts? So, 13 with lofts. And two would be without lofts. And are any of the ‑‑ I mean going to assume the answer is no. But I want to just hear it. I'm assuming none of the one‑bedrooms with lofts are affordable housing, correct?
  27. APPEL: That's correct.
  28. ROMERO: Okay. Thank you. That's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I don't see any further public questions. I guess this is a good point where, I guess, we're going to end this part of the hearing because of the hour. And I guess we're going to continue this hearing without further notice. Michael, was there any date discussed at all? Or, Tom, was there any date discussed for the next meeting?

  1. CAFARELLI: We have the 18th.
  2. WELLS: You have the ‑‑  
  3. BRANCHEAU: The 18th we have ‑‑
  4. WELLS: ‑‑ the Two‑Forty Associates.
  5. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ this, Two‑Forty Associates and we also have the sign application. The next opened night is November 1st.
  6. MARTIN: I'm assuming that you have more witnesses, MR. WELLS?
  7. WELLS: Beg your pardon.
  8. MARTIN: You have three more witnesses, MR. WELLS?
  9. WELLS: I do.
  10. MARTIN: That's what I figured. Do you consent to an extension to the 1st of November?  
  11. WELLS: Yes, we will.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, did you have another application on November 1st?



  1. CAFARELLI: The next three meetings will be ‑‑
  2. BRANCHEAU: I think we only have two in October. Right?

So, perhaps there has to be a third one, November 1st.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, I see 257.

  1. BRANCHEAU: We have 257. Okay. Then November 1st, I apologize.
  2. WELLS: I'm sorry, what happened to November 1st?  

CHAIRMAN JOEL: There was something else scheduled on that day.

  1. BRANCHEAU: The other three, we have ‑‑ the other three applications scheduled currently for October 4th, October 18th and November 1st. Then once everyone has had at least one night, then we can go all the way through the second time around.
  2. WELLS: I don't think we have ‑‑ November 15th.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Thank you.

  1. WELLS: Can I just ‑‑ I would like to be heard on one point. I would like the board to consider ‑‑ the Chair to consider reinstating the procedures that you used in the past in terms of questions. I realize that you were a little less formal this evening because we're ‑‑ but we had some people stand up and as many as five or six times. And I counted 37 questions by one of those people.


  1. WELLS: So, I just think we need to create some thought into that.

And a lot of redundancy.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, yes ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It depends on the amount of volume of people.

  1. WELLS: Yes. No, I get it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Duly noted on that ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ but you know it was ‑‑

  1. WELLS: Just so we can move through.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. So we're going to continue this to November 15th, without further notice. And we have the consent of the applicant to extent the period of time.

Thank you, MR. WELLS.

  1. WELLS: Thank you.
  2. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, with no further notice required.
  3. WELLS: I'm sorry.
  4. MARTIN: With no further notice required.
  5. WELLS: Yes, thank you.
  6. MARTIN: And there will be no re‑notice so anyone in the audience that wants to continue with the application it would be on November 15th.

Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 10:51 p.m.

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from October 20, 2015 were approved as written.

Resolution for Alternate Legal Counsel, Glenn C. Kienz, Esq., was adopted.


Executive Session – The Board went into Executive Session at 11:00 p.m., returned to open session at 12:30 a.m. and the meeting was adjourned.


Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date Approved: August 15, 2017

  • Hits: 1757


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