Planning board public meeting minutes 20170418

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of April 18, 2017. 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 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, Mr. Torielli, MS. ALTANO, Mr. Joel, MS. PATIRE, MR. SCHEIBNER, MS. McWILLIAMS, and MS. BARTO. Also present were: Elizabeth McManus, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Christopher Martin, Esq., and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Giordano was absent

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

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics; Correspondence Received by the Board There were none.

KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25-27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11,12,13,14,15 – Public Hearing continued from March 21, 2017 Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, do we have any correspondence that was received?

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: Yes, we do.

We received a letter and revised architectural plans from Prime Law. We received a report from the Village's planner Ms. Elizabeth McManus. And we received a ‑‑ regarding KS Broad Street, of course, and then correspondence from the board attorney.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you.

Our next item on the agenda will be KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 and 80 Chestnut Street and 25 through 27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

This is a public hearing continued from January 17th, 2017.

  1. MR. TUVEL?
  2. MR. TUVEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Jason Tuvel, appearing fro the Applicant.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record our last hearing was in March, I believe, that's ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's correct.

  1. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ that's where we're continuing from.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

  1. MR. TUVEL: March 21st.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Right.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So, we're here tonight, the board's already heard a lot of testimony in connection with this application; three full hearings. The first two were comprised of our architect. At the second meeting, we also had our site engineer. At the last meeting, we had a ‑‑ basically, the whole meeting was dedicated to our traffic engineer's testimony. So, tonight, hopefully, to wrap this up, I have two witnesses that I would call. I'm going to bring our architect back on the limited issue that the board had asked if we could take a look at the tower element of project and if we could provide any revisions or recommendations to that aspect of the building, so we did do that. And our architect will go over that as part of the presentation this evening. After that, our professional planner, John Szabo, Burgis Associates, will finalize the testimony in connection with the planning aspects of the application.

Just to go over some things before we get started. I did receive the reports from your village planner and traffic engineer in connection with this application.

I just wanted to reiterate a few things. One is: Just looking back to some of the prior hearings that we had, we did agree, and I believe we've addressed all the items in your village engineer's report, site engineer, putting traffic aside for a minute. So we did stipulate to those. And the traffic engineer report that was issued regarding the specific on‑site items that was issued before the last meeting. I believe we either said that we agree to all the items set forth that were recommendations or addressed comments that were provided ‑‑ that asked for testimony. So that's with respect to your traffic engineer's report. And we did get two prior planning reports as well that we did also, I believe, address all the comments in those. I know we do have a new planner's report this evening. But I just wanted to note that we did comply with those comments or address them through the course of the first three hearings.

To get into your planner's report that was submitted before this ‑‑ before tonight's meeting, what we'll address, in terms of that is, we'll reaffirm, I believe MR. NICHOLSON did state at either the first or second meeting that we do not encroach into the front yard setback, we are at zero and there's no encroachments. So we'll reaffirm that testimony there is no relief required for that. The sight triangle, the sight triangle here is located within the county's jurisdiction, so as indicated in your ‑‑ in the prior reports from your village planner, the application does comply. But as you'll see, we were ‑‑ we took the extra conservative step that as a result of the architectural element that we're proposing this evening it even gets reduced even further. So the sight triangle will comply. We just brought an exhibit, based on a comment that we got from MS. McMANUS that just demonstrates that for the board. 

The plantings that MS. McMANUS raised in her letter, those are perfectly acceptable. We can provide those plantings. She requested them in her report. She also requested that a crosswalk across the driveway on Franklin to the outdoor amenity area be the put in. That is also acceptable. I thought that was an appropriate ‑‑ that an appropriate comment. In terms of the traffic report that was issued, the traffic report that was issued before tonight's meeting was a little bit different than the traffic report that was issued before the prior hearing in that its primary focus dealt was off‑tract improvements. 

If you recall at the last meeting, there was a lot of discussion about some of the signals that are surrounding the area, some of the sidewalks, some of the crosswalks. We got into a lot of the, sort of, off‑tract, off‑site kind of issues. So we took a look at that letter, and what it deals with, you know, I'll just go through it real quickly, are some of the adjacent roadways, the handicap ramps, the signals at North Broad and Franklin, the signal at Franklin and Oak, restriping the center line at Chestnut. And we agree to all those off‑tract comments. So we can stipulate right now that those are all acceptable to us. And we will obviously be responsible under the law for our pro rata share with respect to those improvements. So rather than going through each one ‑‑ and obviously if the board still wants to do so, that's fine.

But I just wanted to indicate at the beginning of the hearing that we found those acceptable. And we appreciate both the planner and the traffic engineer getting those reports to us in a timely fashion so we have the ability to evaluate those comments. Lastly, before we can into the testimony I just want to indicate to the board that this plan has gone through numerous iterations, so we really tried to work hard with both the board and the board's professionals in ensuring that this was the best possible plan possible. And I know that you've heard me say it dozens of times that the plan fully conforms, but I think based on some of those comments, we have enhanced the plan.

For example, we designated certain spaces, approximately 22 on the site for retail, that was something that came out of the first meeting that a lot of board members thought it was appropriate. We revised the ‑‑ we put bollards on all the light poles to make sure they were protected. We added trash receptacles in the parking area; that was also a comment that the board made. Not to go over all the Village engineer's requests, but we're compliant with his report. We also have agreed to meter the sanitary flows that would come from the property. The parking area from Chestnut Street is now screened with landscaping from the right‑of‑way so the public cannot see into the parking area. As I had indicated earlier, both sight triangles have been met with all proper plantings and soil around them. 

All the utility lines will be underground. That was also something that was mentioned. Whether it be electric or gas, there won't be any poles. They'll all be underground. And we've also made a considerable amount of architectural adjustments that were made based on some of the letters that we got initially in connection with the application. So I just wanted to kind of go over that and indicate that we worked very diligently with the board and the board professionals to get to where we are today.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, if we get started, the first witness I'd like to start is Dave Nicholson.  He's already been sworn and accepted by the board as an expert in architecture. So I don't think there's a need to go over that again. His testimony's going to be limited to the items that I just mentioned. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

D A V I D N I C H O L S O N,

Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: Good evening, everyone. I'm going to take the mic a second. I'm ready.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TUVEL

  1. Q. So, MR. NICHOLSON, the first thing I'll just ask you is confirm or, I guess, reiterate what you said at other meetings, the front yard setback, there were no encroachments into the front yard, correct?
  2. A. That's correct. The building ‑‑ the building proper is set back 3 or 4 inches from the street line of Franklin Avenue. It's not quite a right angle, these two streets (indicating), so that distance varies a little bit over the length. But we very deliberately pulled the building back enough so that the architectural embellishments that you see on my renderings do not encroach over the property.
  3. Q. And that was also mentioned in some of the prior reports, so we just wanted to make sure that that was reemphasized. All right. Can you just go through the tower element design that the board had requested we look into.
  4. A. I'd like to touch first, on ‑‑ on the issue that you raised. This is the site plan that I originally presented in October. I brought it along so you could compare. We prepared this exhibit for tonight to demonstrate ‑‑ this, just on the corner first of all we modified ‑‑
  5. MR. MARTIN: Mark it?
  6. MR. TUVEL: I'm sorry. The first exhibit is marked, yes. Yes.
  7. MR. MARTIN: Just give us the heading and the exhibit number.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. That was exhibit A‑3.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Dated October 4th.

  1. MR. MARTIN: And that was the first plan that was presented, correct?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?

  1. MR. MARTIN: That was the first plan that was entered?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: This has not been colorized, but it is the same site plan, and it shows ‑‑ in the dark line here on the corner the sight triangle that MS. McMANUS mentioned in the report.  And it also shows a concept of cutting, chambering the corner of the building to address that concern. 

  1. MR. MARTIN: So ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That is A‑10.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Laura, Laura, I don't know what exhibit number we're up to, I lost track. I think we were up to A‑21 was my feeling. Chris, I don't know if you have that.
  2. MR. MARTIN: Let me check. I just was going to ask you that. I found A‑3.
  3. MR. TUVEL: We can just mark it as A‑30 just to be on the safe side. And then it can be remarked that's no big deal.
  4. MR. MARTIN: A‑21 was the next exhibit.
  5. MR. TUVEL: Was I right? Okay. All right. A‑21.

(Whereupon, Revised Site Plan was received and marked as Exhibit A‑21 for identification.)

  1. MR. TUVEL: Thank you. It's a little sad that I remember these things.
  2. MR. MARTIN: Marked for today?
  3. MR. TUVEL: What's that?
  4. MR. MARTIN: Marked for today?
  5. MR. TUVEL: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Like I said, this site plan demonstrates a small modification to the corner of the building to deal with the sight triangle. And it's also a modification that we used in reexamining the design of our tower, that I'm about to show you in a moment. That is a 10 x 10 triangle, represents 50 square feet of floor area on all five floors of the building. So it reduces the floor area of the building by 250 square feet. This is a floor plan that shows how that would look on the first floor (indicating).

But to the tower design that Jason mentioned, this is our original rendering that I presented to you on October 4th. This is A‑14 for the record. And as you may recall, we received a lot of comments from the board members about the corner element in our design. And you required the ‑‑ how the angle of this roof, for example, compared to the angle of roofs in some of the buildings I had mentioned as some of my design reference, in looking at downtown Ridgewood. So we took a very hard look at that and in conjunction with the change that accounts for the sight triangle, we redesigned the tower.

So ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: Once again, let's mark that as an exhibit, it's similar to ‑‑ it's the exact image that you guys got in your packet, but let's just mark that. And mark the floor plan that you have before that, so...

THE WITNESS: All right. The floor plan will be A‑22. (Whereupon, Floor Plan was received and marked as Exhibit A‑22 for identification.)

  1. MR. TUVEL: Right.

And then this colorized version of the architectural plans that were in the board's packet will be A‑23.

(Whereupon, Colorized Architectural Plans were received and marked as Exhibit A‑23 for identification.)

  1. MR. MARTIN: And, Jason, for the record, the updated plans have been provided to the board?
  2. MR. TUVEL: No. Those are ‑‑ those are react ‑‑ were reactions based on the letter from MS. McMANUS.
  3. MR. MARTIN: Oh, really, there was a letter of ‑‑
  4. MR. TUVEL: Whatever it was, April 14th?
  5. MR. MARTIN: The 14th?
  6. MR. TUVEL: Right.
  7. MR. MARTIN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So, in this redesign, you see a couple of things. One, the corner, as I mentioned, is chambered. It's now angled. And we took advantage of that angle to change the shape of the roof. It's actually quite evocative of some of the historical roofs downtown. We've lowered the eave line and we've lowered the peak of our tower. We also eliminated it at the west end where the garage is at Broad and Franklin. We did make some modifications in conjunction with this major change to the fenestration of the corner element. All in an effort to address those comments that we heard from the board members its bulk and its mass and its reference to historical elements of downtown.

  1. MR. TUVEL: That concludes the testimony. I just wanted MR. NICHOLSON to go over that revised tower element that the board had asked us to take a look at.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

David, do you have any questions?

  1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Those are double doors at the first floor of the chambered section?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We would propose that the entrance to that retailer be on the corner, but that's not a hard and fast rule and that would, I think, depend on the desire of the tenant when they eventually came along.

  1. MR. SCHEIBNER: That's the only question I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: COUNCILMAN VOIGT

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: As this relates to the intensity and use of the retail space, I'm a little concerned about that. Do you have ideas as to who's going to be in that space? I know we talked about this before. You know, based on the intensity of the use, for example, if it's a restaurant, I would imagine that the pedestrian traffic would be quite more intense than ‑‑ than if it was something else.

And as well, the parking spaces for the restaurant going in and out of the ingress and egress on Broad/Franklin, raises some concerns as well as it relates to that light and our traffic flow in and out of there. So can you help me understand what the type of business would be in that space? Do you have any idea?

  1. MR. TUVEL: I think we've been over this before, but just to go over it ‑‑ go over it again, no, the tenants ‑‑ specific tenants have not been chosen. The uses that will go in that 5500‑square‑foot area are those that are permitted by the zoning. The parking complies. And I think, you know, our ‑‑ I guess I went over this before, and I said "it complies", "it complies." However now, your traffic engineer has issued a letter in connection with off‑tract improvements that deal with mitigation timing at the signal there as well as some other off‑tract improvements. So again, I think, not only that we comply with the ordinance requirements for the site plan and zoning requirements, but your traffic expert has also given some recommendations that we've agreed to comply with in connection with potentially mitigating some of the issues in the area. So that's all I can say about that. Typically, like I said earlier or at the prior hearings, rather, the tenants are not identified in these mixed‑use buildings at the beginning. So all we can go with is the 5500 square feet and what's permitted by the zoning ordinance. But I think the off‑tract improvements from a traffic standpoint that you're concerned about, I guess kind of address those issues.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Will we be able to get to that later on? I mean I don't want to ask it now. I do have some issues on the off‑tract improvements. And I know that the ‑‑ our engineer talked about some of those, but I think there's some additional things that we should probably ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: Yeah, I don't think that's for this witness.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No, that's fine. Yeah. So I'll just ask later.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Just as a point of order, the Councilman's question assumed that a restaurant would come in.
  2. MR. TUVEL: Right.
  3. MR. MARTIN: And you said that there's enough parking.
  4. MR. TUVEL: Correct.
  5. MR. MARTIN: The parking ‑‑ would you agree that the parking would be based upon the number of seats and things like that, and whatever parking is allowed, would limit the number of seats if a restaurant were to come in.
  6. MR. TUVEL: But the ‑‑ but the parking requirement ‑‑ and this, we can talk about this with the planner, is geared towards nonresidential square footage. It's not based on, I believe, the number of seats. It's based on nonresidential square footage. And this ‑‑ the square footage here is only 5500 square foot. You're not looking at some of those ‑‑ it's not like there's, you know, 20,000‑square‑feet retail under this building. But the requirement is based on nonresidential square footage.
  7. MR. MARTIN: As opposed to ‑‑ yeah, sometimes restaurants ‑‑
  8. MR. TUVEL: Those ‑‑ I've seen ordinances do a whole bunch of different things.
  9. MR. MARTIN: Right.
  10. MR. TUVEL: Yeah, I've seen seats. I've seen employees. I've seen square footage. Everywhere it's different.
  11. MR. MARTIN: Now, just based upon the Councilman's question?
  12. MS. McMANUS: On the parking I'm actually looking it up the ‑‑ that figure right now. I don't recall off the top of my head, so if you'll give me just one minute.  
  13. MR. MARTIN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is that it, Jeff, or ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, first, I had a question about that corner design, while I think it's much improved, I have a big issue or a very big problem with the actual kind of, I want to almost call it, it looks like cat ears to me. And it doesn't seem to compliment now the new corner that you created. I just want to know if there's something else you could do with that so it looks more architecturally pleasing. It's ‑‑ it's...

THE WITNESS: Well, of course ‑‑ of course, at this stage of the project one would classify these as pre‑schematic or schematic designs. And as the ‑‑ as the plans develop, when I eventually move forward, all these elements would be re‑examined and fine‑tuned. The shape of the corner dictates a certain geometry. When you introduce a chamber into the base plan the roof shape, there does have to be another plain introduced into the roof design. But we would certainly, you know, continue to look at the design to make sure that it presents a unified whole. This was prepared in short order for tonight's meeting.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But you knew about the sight line for, I think, months now, right? This isn't the first you've heard about it.

  1. MR. TUVEL: No, the sight line, like I said we comply based on Mr. Brancheau's prior comment because it was the intersection is under county jurisdiction. That's what was in his prior letter.
  2. MS. McMANUS mentioned that. She raised the issue again. And to be conservative here, we decided, based on her letter, to even further reduce it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I understand. But that's not the first time it came up. So I'm just saying, I understand what you're saying. I'm saying it's not the first time it came up. So to say it was produced in short order and so this is what we're looking at, I have to tell you, it's ‑‑ it's not at all attractive. And I would be not really thrilled if this was what was sitting on the corner of Franklin and Chestnut. I understand, you know, it's a quick thing, but it's ‑‑ it's just unattractive, plain and simple. The base of it looks fine, but that peak ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: The tower ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Tower element is the concern here?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah. It's just ‑‑ it's remarkably unattractive. I don't even know any other way to say it, that it's ‑‑ it's not what I would have expected of trying to be up to the standard that ‑‑ of this type of a building. Let me just go ‑‑ I don't know if Mr. ‑‑ David will answer this question, I wanted to go to something that our planner had in her report. I'm not quite certain that this is ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ under his wheelhouse, is that outdoor amenity space. Is that something that you could address?

  1. MR. TUVEL: We could try ‑‑ why don't you ask the question, and then if I don't feel that Dave's the person, we can ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So under comments of our planner and Beth can jump in, tell me if I'm misrepresenting something that she wrote. I understood that she felt that the outdoor amenity space was kind of a people watching space and that it would be much better if moved elsewhere on the property and out of the corner where it just seems to have been placed. And I know, once again, this did come up several weeks ago when I believe Kendra was the planner that was here.

THE WITNESS: Uh‑huh.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It seems to me it was just put there not with a tremendous amount of thought, and I think the suggestion was to create a garden‑type planting there and move off the amenities site to a place more conducive to a quiet area, especially given there's no [green] space essentially on this ‑‑ in this space, so how could that be addressed?

  1. MR. TUVEL: Let me ‑‑ I don't think that's something for Dave to answer, so why don't we just table that for a minute and then ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

  1. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ we'll just stick to with the architecture with Dave.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Sure. Let's see. I'll just ‑‑ you can continue down that end. Sure.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Carrie, do you have any questions?

  1. MS. GIORDANO: Yeah. You mentioned that the peak is lower now. So what is the new height for the peak and for the eave line? Did you said you lowered it, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. The ordinance permitted, measured from average grade, the peak to be 58‑feet above average grade. It's now 55 1/2.

  1. MS. GIORDANO: And what was the eave line there?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?

  1. MS. GIORDANO: The eave, what's the eave?

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ this line, here (indicating).

  1. MS. GIORDANO: Yeah. What ‑‑ what's the height of that?

THE WITNESS: I don't ‑‑ I can't tell you. It ‑‑ you know, it's ‑‑ it's approximately, I would say, at 49 or 48, based on its relationship to the top of that roof.

  1. MS. GIORDANO: Okay.  

THE WITNESS: But it's 78 feet in section, you know.

  1. MS. GIORDANO: And can I just go back to something from, I guess, months ago, I'm just reading through and watching the old tapes just to get myself up to speed.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

  1. MS. GIORDANO: The parking stall sizes, now, they're all, like, initially, I guess, they were ‑‑
  2. MR. TUVEL: Yes, they were ‑‑ they are ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

  1. MS. GIORDANO: That's all ‑‑

THE WITNESS: They were smaller now they're compliant.

  1. MS. GIORDANO: Okay. That's it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Frances?

  1. MS. BARTO: Sure. I'm just wondering, I'm in agreement with the Mayor over these towers looking very misplaced in the neighborhood. And I'm wondering what the alternatives to the tower is, if anything? You said there are things that could be done. What could be done with that?

THE WITNESS: I could imagine, the options are infinite.

  1. MS. BARTO: Okay. Would you care to expound on that?

THE WITNESS: Well, I'll answer it this way ‑‑

  1. MS. BARTO: Because we have a roof line that ‑‑

THE WITNESS: my obligation is ‑‑ is to my profession and to my client. And despite what the Mayor says, we like this. We want to build this. And I think when it's finished, you'll be very proud of it.

  1. MS. BARTO: Okay. All right. That doesn't really answer my question, but thank you.
  2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Just what is the ‑‑ what is the height that you have for the front, the two ‑‑ the double front doors on the flat corner now.

THE WITNESS: The height of the doors, themselves?

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Yes, those two front doors, what would be the height?

THE WITNESS: Of the doors, themselves?

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: I don't think we've studied it in that detail. We'd like to do 8‑footers, but we might not be able to do 8‑footers. We might have to do 7'6.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. And the height of the archways for the entrances and exits?

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ because we're dealing with the 50‑foot overall height and we had an objective to give our apartments more than an 8‑foot ceiling height. The ceiling height in the ‑‑ in the retail portions of the building are not as high as one might find ordinarily. So that represents there, on the top of that arch on Franklin, more or less where the ceiling of the retail is. It's as high as it can be, about 10 feet, 10 1/2 feet.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. I think my meaning archways depicted for the cars coming in and out. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry. No, that's okay.

THE WITNESS: We did have testimony about that at length.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I just can't find it.

THE WITNESS: They've been designed to provide 13‑foot‑6‑inches clear.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Yes, they comply with the ‑‑ the testimony was both, I believe, by the traffic and site engineer, was that they complied with DOT standards for that type of clearance.

THE WITNESS: As a matter of fact, that is what is required by the Federal Highway Administration for urban interstates. It actually is much higher than it probably needs to be.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I know that this was covered and this might not be a question for you; and that's fine, I didn't know ‑‑ it's in my notes somewhere and I'm trying to pull but everything is getting ‑‑ so many different dates. So I'm trying to pull back specific numbers, that would be the entrance of any truck deliveries for the retail businesses are going to be using, right? Those are the entrances and those are the exits?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: So ‑‑ okay. We don't expect any large ‑‑ anything bigger than, say, a small box truck for be delivering?

THE WITNESS: There was a lot of testimony from the traffic engineer ‑‑

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right. And I remember.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ on that ‑‑ on that remark, yes. And he was very specific about what truck he expected. I don't recall.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: No, I ‑‑ I think I had even asked those questions.

THE WITNESS: What I do recall is that it's lower than the 13‑foot‑6 and it's much shorter than the 7.  

  1. MR. TUVEL: Yeah. I think ‑‑ yeah, I think he talked about that.
  2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Well, you know, I just ‑‑ you know, okay. So then ‑‑ and then my last question is just on the sidewalk width that I think ‑‑ sort of that I can see here, depicted here it looks huge. I mean, the sidewalk depicted in your rendering I'm just seeing, so how much are you expanding the sidewalk? Again from where it is now to what is sort of depicted here? Is there going to be much widening?

THE WITNESS: Well, I have to give my renderer a bit of artistic license.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The sidewalk is not ‑‑ the sidewalk is not ‑‑

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Is it changing?

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ the sidewalk is not changing.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. That's what I want to know.

THE WITNESS: The curb doesn't change. Of course, it's very hard to tell right now where the property line is because the buildings are set back from the street. And there are a lot of driveways. But the sidewalk is not changing at all.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: So the sidewalk that we see on Franklin and Chestnut, those corners now, those ‑‑ those however many it is 40‑something inches ‑‑

THE WITNESS: They're not ‑‑

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ‑‑ 40 inches is really all we can see up to the entrance of this building. So we would step out the doors here to exit (indicating) and be on the current sidewalk, essentially, and with the space provided?

THE WITNESS: Right. No different than Broad or East Main Street or East Ridgewood Avenue.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for now.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie.

  1. MS. PATIRE: Yeah. I just have a couple of quick questions. So the first thing I just want to go on record by stating with the artistic license, that we've given some folks, there is no three‑story building currently across the street from this building. So it's a little ‑‑ as you're looking at it, I can understand why you're doing it, but that's not really the true rendering of what's going on in that space. Right now it's a parking lot, with a bank, a little nail store, and I think it's a two‑level building on the corner. So the building that you depicted to the left, doesn't exist.

THE WITNESS: You're referring to this (indicating)?

  1. MS. PATIRE: Yeah. So it really should be wiped out or superimposed with Google Earth.

So I just want to go on the record saying that. The other thing is, as the cars are coming in and out of the archways, where is the stop sign for that car? And does that car physically roll out onto the sidewalk and then look both ways? How are the cars coming in and out of that arch?

  1. MR. TUVEL: Hold, hold on. Let's just stop for a second. So Dave was coming back just to go over the architectural elements that he changed on the plan. I believe we covered a lot of that at the last meeting with respect to traffic. I'm happy to have your traffic engineer give that answer if he needs to. There was a lot of comments made by your traffic engineer in his report regarding on‑site stop bars and traffic control signals that we agreed ‑‑ that we agreed to comply with. So, again, I'm not trying to stop you I'm just ‑‑
  1. MS. PATIRE: I'm just ‑‑ I know, I just ‑‑ I had a simple question on where the cars are stopping because there was an incident almost there today as I was driving. I'm trying to figure out where the cars are stopping on that sidewalk. Are they stopping prior to the sidewalk or are they ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, it's two different situations.

  1. MS. PATIRE: Uh‑huh.

THE WITNESS: On Franklin, remember that our building is set 30‑feet back ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: Uh‑huh.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ from the existing property line. That's a whole car length plus. So the car exiting on Franklin comes out completely from the building, stops prior to the sidewalk ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ so on Franklin, there's plenty of opportunity for pedestrians to be seen and the driver to see oncoming traffic.

The other driveway's controlled by a signal, so you will have ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: Right. That was in the report. I was ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ stop on the ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ asking a quick question. Okay. Okay.

That was my question. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

  1. MS. ALTANO: Yes. I agree with MS. PATIRE that although the renderer is to be commended for his ‑‑ you know for his knowledge or skills. However, if I live at the building now and look at the sidewalk, the sidewalk is very, very open. It does give the wrong feeling for someone like us, like the board, looking at it and getting this idea. You may not think it's important, but it is important because every time you look at something, you expect it to be what it is. And ‑‑ so that's one question ‑‑ that's one, you know, one comment.

The other comment is I agree with the Mayor, that something needs to be done architecturally with that tower. I'm looking at it and I know you want to build it that way. I'm not the only one on this board who feels that way. That corner needs to be looked again, it needs to understand also how it fits within the surroundings, maybe it can peak at the corners and not on the two sides, perhaps those things need to be just looked again. We don't feel comfortable the way it looks. We do respect, I know they did a lot with the rendering, I believe, really believe that you should do better to try to even make most of us very happy on the board. The other comment I have, would you ‑‑ would you be so kind as to go over briefly what you meant by the encroachment?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?

  1. MS. ALTANO: You said at beginning of ‑‑
  2. MR. TUVEL: Just confirm are you referring ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The encroachment ‑‑

  1. MS. ALTANO: ‑‑ before it ‑‑ before it ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ the encroachment issue?

  1. MS. ALTANO: Yes, if you could go over that again.

THE WITNESS: Well, listen, let me start by saying: our elevation shows in and out on each side. The various materials going in and out and small ‑‑ these are not true balconies, of course, railings, the windows, cornices that show projection.

  1. MS. ALTANO: Uh‑huh.

THE WITNESS: Our original ‑‑ our design has had that from the very beginning it was deliberate to create architectural interest. Mr. Brancheau's comment was, when he looked at the site plan, that the building appeared to be right on the property line and those ‑‑ the projections would go over the property line. Our solution, and it doesn't read it to scale, because this is, you know, 1 inch equals 50 feet ‑‑ 1 inch equals 20 feet. We're talking about 4 inches. The build's been pulled back 4 inches away from this property line (indicating), which isn't square to the building, right? The building is set square to Chestnut. The Franklin Avenue property line is slightly skewed, so there's a small sliver of land in front of my building that's on my property that I'm using for all my architectural projections. So none of them will ‑‑ will stick out over the property.

  1. MS. ALTANO: What's the total setback of the building again?

THE WITNESS: Well, the required setback on Franklin per the ordinance is zero. We're pulling it back slightly to ‑‑ so we can embellish the facade.

  1. MS. ALTANO: I see. It's pretty illegible the 3 to 4 inches. That's why I was trying to figure out what kind of impact that would have ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yeah, it's ‑‑ it's only ‑‑ it's only enough to accommodate our biggest ‑‑ our biggest projection. And the other thing we're doing in the facade, so we have some opportunity to ‑‑ to create a greater expression is that the facade will go back, right ‑‑

  1. MS. ALTANO: Uh‑huh.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ so this plain isn't the plain that touches the ground. It's back slightly. So when I get up here to a cornice, I can pull the cornice out a little bit more than the 4 inches. So, deliberately, looking for a lot of plainer play on the facade.

  1. MS. ALTANO: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I just want to talk a little bit about the towers again. So during your previous testimony you referenced three properties in town that, I guess, you used as your inspiration for the towers: 49 Cottage, 1 East Ridgewood Avenue, 18 East Ridgewood Avenue. I asked you then and I'll ask you again, if you compared the pitches of those towers, the roof pitches to what you're proposing here?

THE WITNESS: Yes. This is ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: Dave, just refer back to the exhibit that you ‑‑ do you have that?

THE WITNESS: This actually is a reprint of the one I showed last time, so it's not marked.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. But this was previously ‑‑ these images were previously marked as an exhibit.
  2. MR. MARTIN: This is new let's call it A‑24.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

  1. MR. MARTIN: A‑24, David.

(Whereupon, Images Depicting Roof Pitches received and marked as Exhibit A‑24 for identification.)

  1. MR. TUVEL: Mr. Torielli, I assume you were talking about based on prior ‑‑

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Correct.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Which is similar to A‑2.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Right. This shows three of those buildings, the corner of Ridgewood Avenue and Broad. That's the education center (indicating). This is the Moore Building, which is opposite the church (indicating). And you had asked the pitches of those roofs and how they compared to the original ‑‑

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Understanding you didn't measure the peak itself, that slopes ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's a little high, I couldn't get up there to measure it myself, but I believe that the pitch on the education center is not 12 on 12 or 8 on 12. The pitch of that obviously is quite extreme. It is really a spire, not a tower. And on the corner of East Ridgewood Avenue and Broad, that is also very steep, probably on the order of the reverse, 12 on 8. Our new design is more a replication of the Ridgewood Education Center as 8 on 12.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So do you agree that towers are typically taller than they are wide generally?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Towers are typically taller than they are wide, generally?

THE WITNESS: It depends on the building. Certainly, these examples in town, that is the case. The education center, you know, it's a central element. It represents ‑‑ although you're wondering what the architect was thinking because in a classic style it should have been symmetrical, it's not. In ‑‑ in this, you can see that, yes, it is considerably taller, almost up to the ‑‑ the main roof peak (indicating).

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I guess I have some concerns about the way you chamber the edge and it kind of changes the tower. I know we talked about a little bit, one of your obligations to incorporate high‑quality architectural features that are characteristics ‑‑ characteristic of the exemplary historic buildings reflecting traditional architecture in the central business district. And that the photo of the building at the corner of Broad and Ridgewood Avenue, and I saw how the prominent tower defines the corner of the property. I don't see a similarity between what you're proposing and this.

So I agree with some of the Mayor's comments on that.

THE WITNESS: I understand. I can only ‑‑ my only comment can be, it's not ‑‑ it's not our goal to replicate historic architecture.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I like the thought about the chamber, just for the sight triangle, but I guess the tower does set some questions for me. I guess we'll move on to our experts and ask questions. Beth, do you have any questions of MR. NICHOLSON?

  1. MS. McMANUS: I don't think ‑‑ I'm sorry. I don't think I have any questions for MR. NICHOLSON. I do have a number of architectural comments that have been recognized by the applicant's attorney and the architect, so it's really up to the board's ‑‑ what your preference is, if you'd like me to repeat those ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We'll probably do that after they present witnesses and then we'll have our experts. Okay. 

Chris, did you have any questions?

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: No comments at this time. Thank you.  

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

Andrew?

  1. MR. FERANDA: There was one question about the stop bars and the exits.

In our report, we had mentioned some different coloring and texturing for the sidewalk and I think that was in addition to the stop bar to help when the vehicles exiting the garage.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Can I just say one last thing ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure.

  1. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ on the architectural report, MR. NICHOLSON, gave some, I appreciate, obviously, the Mayor's comments and the subsequent comments regarding the tower element. Obviously, architecture ‑‑ the case law on architecture is that, you know, it can't be a basis for the board to either approve or deny an application because they're subjective and there's no ordinance requirements on them. However, what some times occurs, if there's an architectural issue that arises, as a condition of approval, the applicant would agree to meet with the planning staff or even a small committee of the board, obviously, it can't be a quorum of the board, but a small committee of the board, to try and work out some architectural issues. Nobody's bound by it. We'll be happy to do that. Just because ‑‑ I feel as though we keep on talking about architecture, without any ordinance requirements, you have 10 people, you have 11 different opinions on architecture. And that's the reason that it always coming up as not being a basis to either approve or deny an application. But in order to work with the board on this issue, we would be willing, as a condition of approval, to meet with MS. McMANUS‑‑ sorry ‑‑ and any member of the board, if the board so designated a person, to go over that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.

Is there any members of the public that wants to ask questions of MR. NICHOLSON

Please state you name and address?

  1. MS. REYNOLDS: Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue. Hi.

THE WITNESS: Hi.

  1. MS. REYNOLDS: We had a discussion last time about a 3D possible ‑‑ not a 3D model but something on the computer, you know, where it could be ‑‑ I don't know the terminology ‑‑ I'm going to use overhead projection ‑‑ and date myself. But it sounds like, based on some of the planning board comments that that would be a good thing, that there was ‑‑ I know there's programs on computers that you can do a 3D model to see what it actually looks like driving on Franklin or driving down Broad.

THE WITNESS: I wholeheartedly agree with MR. TUVEL's suggestion that there be further development design after approval. And 3D software is a great tool to ‑‑ to use when you're working with a group of people rather than a single designer on this board because you can manipulate the model and you can make changes relatively quickly and see the result. And that's the kind of tool we would use at that kind of session. 

  1. MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else? Okay. State your name and address.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road.

Can I just ask, are the questions just limited to architecture?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: To his testimony, yes.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: To the testimony tonight? Okay.

Just on the architecture, it looks to me as if the architectural elements that we talked about, elements and projections that they appear as ‑‑ to me, as kind of an afterthought as if you were tasked with building the largest box and then had to fit the tower ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Quite ‑‑ quite ‑‑ quite the opposite ‑‑

  1. MR. SLOMIN: ‑‑ is ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Quite the opposite, from the very beginning ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can we just actually I'm going to call ‑‑

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Can I just ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Go ahead.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Excuse me. I'm going to call a point of order because MR. SLOMIN was actually asking a question and making a comment as he was framing his question, and you didn't let him finish and you really have to ‑‑

THE WITNESS: My apologies, please continue.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

And in my perspective, honestly asking a question, framing my question, I've been involved with this for the last five years. We have had great concerns over planning and ultimately leading to the design and how this Planning Board of Ridgewood, to me, you know, it strikes me, being involved in this, as kind of our worst nightmare. So when I see some of the ‑‑ these elements are very flat. They appear as faux, can you do anything even potentially lose some square footage, some floor area ratio, which you have an abundance to begin with, to improve on the architectural elements to make them properly sized, properly scoped, properly setback and projection so they appear as real. So they appear like the Cottage Place building, like the other truly architecturally designed buildings that are just not, you know, this big, so they're able to fit.

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ the design goal from the very beginning was to take from Ridgewood Avenue and its streetscape, particularly the streetscape north of ‑‑ west of the park, and take what it represents and use it to take what is admittedly one of the bigger buildings in the downtown, and ‑‑ and have it look like a series of different buildings. And if you look at those sections of Ridgewood Avenue, you will see they're pretty flat. They're not a single piece of architecture like Cottage Place, that sits on its own parking lot. It is a streetscape. And it was our deliberate objective to replicate that appearance.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: And you feel that this works?

THE WITNESS: I do.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: One of the things that did come up was the egress that was part of the testimony tonight. And I'm just wondering how can we put an egress point, however you look at it, into the already awful traffic that exists by the underpass, help the situation of safety and traffic in Ridgewood?
  2. MR. TUVEL: I didn't want to interrupt while the questions was being asked because I just wanted to be sure what the topic was before I got up. So, Mr. Chairman, we're just focused here on MR. NICHOLSON's testimony regarding what he introduced this evening. And I don't mean to ‑‑
  3. MR. SLOMIN: No, I still have a right to discuss what's part of the testimony, correct?
  4. MR. TUVEL: Well, somebody brought it up as a question, but MR. NICHOLSON's testimony this evening is based on a revised tower. We've had three other hearings where we've gone through traffic and I'm sure maybe that'll come up later. But in terms of the questioning, I just respectfully request that you just gear it towards the testimony that he gave at this hearing tonight.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. 

  1. MR. MARTIN: MR. SLOMIN, I happen to think that that's an excellent question. However, I believe it's for the traffic person.
  2. MR. SLOMIN: Okay.
  3. MR. MARTIN: And I believe ‑‑ I do disagree with MR. TUVEL that that will be brought up tonight, so you'll have an opportunity to ask the traffic professional.
  4. MR. SLOMIN: Thank you. I appreciate that. As a trustee for Ridgewood Citizens For Reasonable Development, I just want to say that this is kind of ‑‑ it appears to me ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You need to phrase it in the form of a question.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: ‑‑ as what is, I guess ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: There will be public comments.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Given, as ‑‑ I will phrase it as a questions. As a trustee of Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development, I'm concerned that something designed as this is laid out as it is with very faux looking architectural elements, it presents kind of the worst nightmare that we've been concerned about for the last five years. I'm wondering, will you listen to residents along with the planning board, be open to that and go back and take another look at how you're addressing our village? I will leave it at that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, if you can provide an answer?

  1. MR. TUVEL: No. I think that was more of just what I said earlier that we would agree the architecture is compliant but, if the board, as a condition would like us to meet with one of your professionals and a board member to discuss some potential enhancements or modifications, we'd be happy to do that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from the public want to ask questions of the architect?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I guess your next witness.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the next witness I'd like to call is our professional planner, John Szabo.
  2. MR. MARTIN: MR. SZABO, good evening.
  3. MR. SZABO: Good evening.
  4. MR. MARTIN: You remain sworn and qualified as a professional planner.
  5. MR. SZABO: Thank you.
  6. MR. MARTIN: Jason, he's been ‑‑ he's been ‑‑
  7. MR. TUVEL: He has not ‑‑ we haven't ‑‑ no, we have to swear him in and qualify him.
  8. MR. MARTIN: He hasn't testified yet?

Okay. If you can raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

  1. MR. SZABO: I do.

J O H N S Z A B O, 25 Westwood Avenue, Westwood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

  1. MR. MARTIN: And state your full that I mean and business address for the record.
  2. MR. SZABO: My name is John Szabo, S‑Z‑A‑B‑O. I'm a senior associate at Burgis Associates located at ‑‑ our office's at 25 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey.
  3. MR. MARTIN: Any voir dire?
  4. MR. TUVEL: Sure.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

BY MR. TUVEL

  1. Q. MR. SZABO, in connection with your professional qualifications, can you give the board the benefit of your educational background, licenses held, experience testifying before land use boards in the State of New Jersey?
  2. A. Certainly. I have a bachelor's of science degree in planning and design from the college of Rutgers University. I have a master's in public administration from New York University. I'm a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey. Licensed since 1986 and I'm also a certified planner and member of the American Institute of Planners which is a nationwide accreditation for planners recognized as a credential as a professional. I've testified before numerous boards, including this board recently on a sign application, but throughout the State of New Jersey before both planning boards and boards of adjustment. I have over 30 years of experience in planning both as a municipal planner and as a consultant.
  3. MR. MARTIN: So we'll accept him as a professional planner tonight.
  4. MR. TUVEL: Great. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TUVEL

  1. Q. MR. SZABO, in connection with this application, you visited the site of the surrounding area?
  2. A. I did.
  3. Q. Okay. And you've also reviewed all the application materials, plans and reports ‑‑
  4. A. I have.
  5. Q. ‑‑ that have been submitted?
  6. A. Yes.
  7. Q. All right. And you reviewed the Village of Ridgewood's Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance in connection with this application?
  8. A. I have.
  9. Q. All right. And based on all that, have you been able to render or come up with a professional planning opinion in connection with this specific application; is that right?
  10. A. Yes.
  11. Q. All right. Why don't we give the board the benefit of that professional opinion, and if I have questions while you're going, I'll chime in.
  12. A. Okay. Thank you. I'll spare the board a lot of background. I believe you've heard a great deal of testimony already about site characteristics and site plans, the traffic, the architecture. So what I'd like to do really is focus my testimony on the planning aspects of the application. In terms of the proposed development, it seeks to redevelop what I consider an obsolete and unattractive site, to provide for a mixed‑use commercial/residential development in complete conformity with your master plan policies and zoning ordinance. This is accomplished basically by the demolishing of the existing structures on the site, constructing a mixed‑use development that consists of 66‑rental units, of which 10 will be designated as affordable as required by your ordinance, which represents a 15 percent set aside affordable rental and 56 market‑rate units. These units will be broken up for the affordable units for the two 1‑bedroom, six 2‑bedroom, two 3‑bedroom units. And for the market rental that will be 56 of which 21 will be 1‑bedroom and 35 will be 2‑bedroom. In addition, there will be 5500square feet of retail space on the ground level.

The FAR for the proposed development is 1.17 where 1.45 is permitted under your ordinances. It's a five‑story building that complies with the height limitation, 50 feet is required and provides for 150 parking spaces. Now, the genesis of this project really has its roots in the Village's master plans. There's been a number of documents that really relate to this development proposal. The first of which 2006 Master Plan Reexamination which outlined part its overall goals on Page 10, it ‑‑ it reviews a series of documents go back to 1983 and reaffirmed the need to provide for a wide range of housing types and densities, recognizing that the Village of Ridgewood is primarily a single‑family residential community. 

Significantly, in 2015, the planning board adopted its land use amendment recommending the creation of the AH‑2, B‑3‑R, C‑R and C zone districts. And the general ‑‑ there are a number of general objectives that were enumerated in that planning document that was adopted back in June 2015. And I think it's important to establish what those objectives were. And part of the general objective, for example, they were drawn from the land use law itself, to promote the establishment of operation densities and concentrations that will contribute to the wellbeing of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment. And that takes its objective from N.J.S.A.40:55D(2)(e) it's one of the purposes.

But the plan goes further and elaborates that proposed zone districts of which this the zone is created ‑‑ is included, can contribute to the wellbeing of persons and community by meeting the housing needs of various households suited to the type of housing by promoting massive transit usage and by supporting the central business district commercial uses. In other words, the plan amendment recognizes the synergy between residential development, mixed‑use development, promotion of mass transit also as an economic engine for your downtown. It really recognizes that. Then we went onto clarify again another objective to provide sufficient space in appropriate for a variety of residential/commercial uses according to the respective environmental requirements in order the needs of all New Jersey citizens. Again, gleaning from the Municipal Land Use Law purposes 2G.

But then again, the plan goes on to elaborate once again, the state that proposed zone districts will promote space, in appropriate locations for both commercial and residential uses. The permitted commercial uses in these zones are compatible with those in the central business district and nearby areas. Finally, I think one other general objective that's very important as enumerated in the 2015 plan was to encourage the location and design, transportation routes, which would promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging locations and such facilities and route which would result in congestion and blight. And that takes it general goal from 40:55D(2)(H) proposes of the land use law.

But, again, there's ‑‑ there's documentation that supports that further by saying by virtue of their proximity to the Ridgewood train station and various bus stops and routes. The proposed zone districts will help to foster transit oriented development, which can be defined as development which by its location, concentration, and other factors encourages the use of mass transit facilities by residents and employees and discourages the use of private automobiles. In addition, due to their proximity to the central business district, the zone districts, and we have to encourage pedestrian activity and discourage automobile use for nearby transit, shops, restaurants and services. So, again, recognizing the benefits of having the train station located in such close proximity to particular zones that were created that I just cited based on the 2015 amendment, the plan is really encouraging the Village to, again, create a transit‑oriented type of development.

The 2016 master plan was subsequently adopted by the Planning Board on February 2nd, 2016. And, again, it updated all the documents that were subject to 2006 master plan. And, significantly, one of our recommended changes ‑‑ actions that was put in the plan was that the Village adopt the pending ordinance to create AH‑2, B‑3‑R, C‑R and C and were recommend in 2015 land use amendment. So there are a series of land use policies that were put into place that encourage the Village to go and adopt ordinances to implement the recommendations to create, basically, mixed‑use type developments and affordable housing type developments. So, consistent with the master plan recommendations and policies of the Village did indeed adopt an ordinance No. 30‑9 in 2016 to implement policies to promote mixed‑use transit oriented type development in the vicinity or transit center per the ordinance. The intent of which is to multi‑development that supports and is consistent with commercial development patterns in the central business district. And to accommodate multifamily housing in a location that can address the housing needs and preferences of certain households and which supports the central business district. The B‑3‑R is one of a number of zones that was created as a result of the ordinance amendment back in 2016. This subject property is located in the B‑3‑R zone, which permits mixed use residential/commercial development which is the subject of the application that is before you this evening. 

In review of the proposed development against the B‑3‑R zoning standards indicates that it is in complete compliance with all the zoning requirements. Therefore, not necessitating any relief. You've heard testimony this evening on two of the issues that the planner has raised in terms of encroachments into the front yard and also sight distances at the corner which would be adjusted. Well, the testimony was there is no encroachment into the right‑of‑way or violation of that setback. And that there would be modifications to the design of the building such that there would be no interference with the sight distance on the ‑‑ on the corner. So that brings into compliance the proposed development. 

In terms of how this development shapes up, it's clear that not only is it consistent with the master plan policies in the ordinance, but it actually is at an intensity of development a little less than the ordinance ‑‑ than is permitted under your ordinances so that it doesn't really completely maximize the site. It does represent an appropriate development of the property in the context of your Zoning Ordinance. So the fact that it's a land use that is recommended as a matter of policy by your documents as a matter of law consistent with your zoning ordinance, this actually ‑‑ this application, I think, achieves the number of purposes that are outlined that I have enumerated early. And I believe it is consistent good planning.

There are a number of benefits from ‑‑ that derive from the proposed development. It's not only the most obvious is that it implements the Village Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, by providing rental housing near a transit center, it diversifies the Village's housing stock and assists the Village in achieving compliance with its affordable housing obligation under the third round which I understand is, you know, we all know that the DAG action process is pending, but of course, this will assist, as required by ordinance, the Village in that effort. The proposal promotes mass transit and reinforces pedestrian activity which encourages walkability and less reliance on automobile, thereby, reducing traffic congestion. Now, what attracts renters to this type of facility is the fact that it is in close proximity to a transit center. These are individuals who rent to save and be able to commute either by train or by bus. That, by itself, will encourage walkability because it will attract a certain clientele to these rental units that would enjoy benefits of being near transit. So it's a very specific and targeted population and will be well‑suited to this type of location.

In doing so, bringing residential units and a mixed‑used development in this ‑‑ in this location also will have a synergy, as I mentioned earlier, consistent to your downtown by bringing people to downtown. And the ability ‑‑ and your master plan speaks to this, the ability to leave your apartment, not have to get into a car, and walk through the downtown district and enjoy the restaurants, shops, and services that it has to offer. So, again, this enhances not only the site by redeveloping in an appropriate manner, but also enhance, I think, the entire central business district.

In terms of the redevelopment, is this an appropriate design for the site. The stormwater management that's being incorporated to the property; there's a reduction in impervious coverage. There is going to be greater interior recreational amenities provided than what is required by ‑‑ provided as required by ordinance. The parking and circulation is compliant with not only the zoning ordinance and good engineering standards, and, again, it provides for the limitation of the master plan policies and zoning ordinance. So I think that that ‑‑ those are important considerations any time you look at an application and at least achieves all those purposes and benefits for the community. 

  1. Q. Just to reiterate, you looked ‑‑ you examined all the zoning requirements of the ordinance as it applies to the property; is that correct?
  2. A. That's correct.
  3. Q. All right. In terms of ‑‑ I won't go through every single requirement of the ordinances because that would take forever.

But in terms of the more ‑‑ I call them the higher tier gold standards than we typically go over in these meetings, setbacks, building heights, coverages, FAR, those are all compliant with the ordinance; is that correct?

  1. A. Yes, that's correct. And when you look at the ‑‑ the measurements that I used for intensity of development, like FAR, impervious coverage, parking, all of those fall well within the scope of the requirements of the ordinance.
  2. Q. Okay. And in terms of the parking as well, the parking also complies; is that correct?
  3. A. That's correct.
  4. Q. All right. So you reviewed the plan, it's fully compliant with the site plan and the zoning ordinance for the Village?
  5. A. That would be my conclusion based on my review of the testimony that's been presented.
  6. MR. TUVEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Dave, do you have any questions?

  1. MR. SCHEIBNER: I have one question. I'm not sure I'm asking it of the right person, but we'll give it a shot. The affordable units inside, are they segregated from the market rate units or are they intermixed?

THE WITNESS: That would be a question for the architect.

  1. MR. SCHEIBNER: That's the only question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Jason, can you answer that question?

  1. MR. TUVEL: Yeah, sure. I'll just...
  2. MR. SCHEIBNER: They're mixed throughout the building.
  3. MR. TUVEL: They exist on all floors.
  4. MR. SCHEIBNER: I think I would encourage that.
  5. MR. TUVEL: I would just rather Dave confirm that in his testimony than himself.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

  1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: COUNCILMAN VOIGT


COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, I ‑‑ I found your testimony fascinating. So you said a couple things. That it kind of concerned me related to our master plan and our ordinances. So you said promote the free flow of traffic is one thing. You talked about discouraging use for private vehicles as another thing.  You talked about promoting transit‑oriented type development as another. So, in while, what you're doing is probably consistent with our master plan and our ordinances, it seems to me our master plan and our ordinances are inconsistent. And I say that because you're ‑‑ you're complying with parking regulation which are going to increase the number of cars in downtown. We don't want that based on what you just said. You're going to be promoting the free flow of traffic at a ‑‑ at an intersection which, frankly, is probably one of the worst intersections in town. And that concerns me greatly. And we'll get to the traffic issue in a second. 

And so, I almost think that it's ‑‑ I almost think that our town, in essence, is ‑‑ we're promoting that plan just based on what you just said because they really aren't inconsistent. This development is inconsistent with what we're trying to do. You're adding cars. You're putting in ay an intersection which, frankly is, again, the worst intersection in town. So I'm just having a tough time wrapping my head around that based on what you just said. And I understand what you said and why you said it, but from my standpoint, it just doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry. o...

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is this a question so he could respond?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, so ‑‑ so ‑‑ I'd like you just to comment on that. I mean I'm just ‑‑  

  1. MR. TUVEL: I'm not going to allow him to comment on it. It's not ‑‑ this isn't a hearing on whether your Master Plan is correct or your zoning ordinance is correct. This ‑‑ this is a hearing on an application. And with all due respect, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, the statements that you just made were just your opinion on some inconsistencies that you personally find in some of the planning policies of the Village, but that's not what we're here to discuss.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But ‑‑ but ‑‑ but, no. I disagree with that. Yeah, so my question is, what you're saying I'm finding inconsistent with what we're trying to do. Okay. And what this development is doing is inconsistent with what we're trying to do. And my question to you is: Wouldn't you agree?

  1. MR. TUVEL: I'm not going to ‑‑ we're not going to go down that road. Actually, the case law that was cited by ‑‑ the case law in this issue about site plans, and fully conforming site plans couldn't be more equivocal and express that a planning board in this type of forum ‑‑ now, you'll have another forum if you deal with your master plan separately, that's your own forum to deal with that. But with respect to a forum on a site plan application, we're not here to discuss whether a conforming application meets sound principles of zoning. That's already been decided.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm having ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: He's asking if there's an inconsistency. I think that's a direct question.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. Yeah, I just find it ‑‑ I find it inconsistent with what you're saying and what we're trying to do with the downtown. It doesn't make any sense.

  1. MR. MARTIN: I understand.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

  1. MR. MARTIN: You're both right. MR. TUVEL, we're not bringing up master plan issues. However, I would recommend that the board strike a significant portion of the planner and not consider it if you don't let COUNCILMAN VOIGT asked: How can you add 150 parking spots and how is that consistent with your own planner's testimony with a transit village reduction of traffic flow.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And ‑‑

  1. MR. MARTIN: That's what he said.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And also reducing the number of vehicles because you're adding a hundred and ‑‑

  1. MR. MARTIN: Well, Jeff ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

  1. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ I'm just saying, if he's being presented not in terms of the master plan in general, but ordinances, all the things you said, present him that way, you're right. But if his testimony is to be presented as to this application whether it's consistent with what the ordinance is, he just said there's 150 spots. How is the consistent with reducing cars in the area? He just testified to that. I think it's a fair question. He should have to answer.
  1. MR. TUVEL: He was citing to purposes that were raised in your master plan.

Again, we're not here to debate whether your master plan is accurate or not. If we supply ‑‑

  1. MR. MARTIN: Agreed. Then we can strike his testimony.
  2. MR. TUVEL: Hold on. We're not striking any testimony.
  3. MR. MARTIN: Well, then I ‑‑ I'd recommend that. Why don't you let him answer his question? It's just on this application.
  4. MR. TUVEL: Because I just ‑‑ because I just want to be clear. It's about ‑‑  
  5. MR. MARTIN: It's not about ordinances. You're cutting me off now. It's not about the master plan. I happen to agree with you. His question was simple. You're testifying that this particular project is consistent with the ordinance that's been adopted. We're not reopening the ordinance. Therefore, why can't you let your own planner who says that somehow justify that? Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but it's a fair question.
  6. MR. TUVEL: I'll let him answer the question. I guess what my point was, I just wanted to make it clear that we weren't going down the road of debating whether the Village's policies are correct or not.
  7. MR. MARTIN: I agree.
  8. MR. TUVEL: That's all.
  9. MR. MARTIN: And the board must consider that, but it's a fair question. If you put up the person to testify, if he's material testimony, it's a fair question.
  10. MR. TUVEL: Can you repeat the question?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Repeat the question. Let me try this.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Let's rephrase it.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'll try for that. 

Lt me try this, Chris, please jump in, okay? So my question is: How is what you're saying consistent with our master plan and ordinances when we're adding a hundred some‑odd vehicles to that area, and you're promoting the free flow of traffic in probably the worst intersection in town. I'm finding that to be ‑‑

  1. MR. MARTIN: That's the question, keep going on ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, right, right.

  1. MR. MARTIN: MR. SZABO?

THE WITNESS: Thank you. First of all, it's not inconsistent. What we're proposing is not inconsistent. The ordinance ‑‑ the master plan specifically identifies certain properties for certain treatment and analyzes all those factors when created the ‑‑ an ordinance that went to implement the recommendations of the 2015 plan, which was further recommended with the 2016 re‑exam. The ordinance requires that we comply with parking, requires that the commercial aspect and the residential aspect requires 150 spaces. The fact that there's a traffic generation, all uses generate traffic, this particular site was expected to develop at the intensity of the ordinance as it was designed and that's what we're doing. So it's not inconsistent at all. We understand as planners that when you have residential densities and mixed uses near transit centers, that there, in fact, and there are studies to back this up, that there is a reduction in ‑‑ in traffic. Solely because there is an opportunity to take transit as an alternate means of travel, plus the ability to frequent the stores, the services, the restaurants in the downtown without having to get into a car. The fact that we required 150 spaces is a function of the ordinance. Now, in reality, we know that there's going to be behavioral modification based on the clients that are looking to live here. This is ‑‑ in fact there are many transit centers across the country that forcibly reduce parking standards because they want to promote the access and use of mass transit. However, what we're doing is complying with the requirements of the ordinance.

Now, there's been a tremendous amount of traffic testimony provided that would ‑‑ that addresses the whole issue of traffic. And that's for the board to weigh. But this is completely compliant. And when you do master plans and you do zoning, traffic, in and of itself, is part and parcel to the zone that you've created and you basically ‑‑ as your attorney's outlined in his ‑‑ in his brief to the board, which I've read and I agree with, you kind of consider it as part of your planning process.

Now, if there is another expected result? You're not happy with that? There's a whole other process that's not before us tonight, but you can go through it and re‑examine all your land use policies and ordinances. But I don't find this inconsistent at all. In fact, I find this project an example of how you go through a planning process through zoning and actually effect change on a property that is basically delinquent, sitting there doing nobody any good in it. That's my answer. You can agree or disagree.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes. I find it remarkable that ‑‑ I am going to agree with my colleague here ‑‑ but what I find remarkable is that ‑‑ and perhaps you'll get into this, I have no idea...I find it remarkable that the focus is on the inhabitants of the building in terms of the traffic they generate personally and their behavior and their habits and where they'll walk to and that they'll get on the train. But just by virtue of a 66‑unit apartment building and the addition of the retail on the bottom, 66‑apartment units themselves bring in traffic. It's not just traffic that goes out. It's traffic comes in, because people come to clean, there are service businesses. There are vehicles, deliveries. There's traffic that actually comes in. And so to the Councilman's point to about the free flow of the traffic, how does that equate into your assessment that it doesn't impact or that it's consistent?

THE WITNESS: It's consistent because when you're in your master plan documents ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could you just do me a favor because you're very soft spoken. I don't know if it's ‑‑ you know, because you're ‑‑ just speak into the microphone and loud and clear because ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Of course.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ I want everyone in the room to hear you.

THE WITNESS: Of course. Your master plan documents talk to this issue. And it talks about ‑‑ you know, you had said, Mayor, about how this is focused on how the inhabitants of the development. But the master plan documents that I've read talk about the benefits to the entire community by diversifying the housing stock, by identifying ‑‑ the site was identified along with others for redevelopment, and ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm going to stop you. I don't mean to be rude. I'm going to stop you. That was not my question. My question was that your approach only looks at the inhabitants of the building and the traffic those inhabitants generate by their own personal behavior. What I'm suggesting is that despite the business district and the foot traffic or the support of the business district, unto itself, 66 units brings in traffic that didn't exist before. I'm just asking how do you reconcile that because people come to clean ‑‑ I see MR. TUVEL standing up and his microphone is ready. 

  1. MR. TUVEL: I'll let him answer.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So that traffic doesn't currently exist. It's not traffic that's in the central business district. It's not supporting businesses. It brings in cleaning people. It brings in nannies. We bring in deliveries. Amazon ‑‑ if I tell you Amazon delivers to my house every single day. If 66 people are on my present track, we are in a lot of trouble. I just want to know, how does that ‑‑ how is that reconciled when you are ‑‑ the assessment you gave to the Councilman moments ago?

THE WITNESS: It's very clear. That was all accounted for when you created the zone. The intensity level of the development here is consistent with the parameters that were established not only by the master plan, but by the implementing ordinance. There's been testimony presented by our traffic engineer that indicates that this can work. They already ‑‑ circulation on‑site and off‑site works. I read the ‑‑ the traffic ‑‑ the village's traffic engineer's report. And there's certainly some ‑‑ and there's certainly some tweaking that can be done with the lighting systems and all that can be addressed. But it's not inconsistent. It's absolutely consistent with the whole process. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Just ‑‑ I'm going to get off the traffic for a moment. Are you the person who can answer the outdoor amenity question as well? Should be do ‑‑ should the planner be able to answer that, whether or not that's consistent?

  1. MR. TUVEL: Whether it's consistent or whether or not ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The outdoor amenity area ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ we're going to ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: What the outdoor amenity area could ‑‑ is he all right to answer that?

  1. MR. TUVEL: Depending on what your question is regarding it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: My question was, as I asked earlier, the outdoor amenity site as our planner indicated, is in a ‑‑ just a somewhat awkward spot. It's more people watching. I believe that's how the language that she used in her report. And the suggestion was it would be more consistent with the expectation of the ordinance the way it was intended, not to be just an aside over to the corner, but more integrated into the back of the property where it quieter. And I just want to know if you could ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, first of all, it complies. But to your point or your planner, that is the function of the site plan process whereby a planning board and the applicant can resolve these types of issues through site plan. And if the applicant has to do that, that's fine. That could be a matter of discussion. We've already offered to sit down and create a process by which some of the facades can be adjusted. This certainly can also be an area of discussion as well. So it complies, can it be made better? That's up to the board and the applicant.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: You know and I appreciate that you just mentioned that it's ‑‑ the process is to come and bring these issues up and we draw can draw some conclusions and reconcile those. It's the second time it's been raised at this meeting. It was raised by Kendra back in, I believe, February or March perhaps?

  1. MS. McMANUS: March.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: March. So Kendra, our planner, raised it then and the ‑‑ even though the corner of the building seems to have been addressed, that piece hasn't been addressed. And I'm just confused because it was raised by the board members. It was raised by our planner. And here it is being raised again and still it hasn't reconciled. So I just, you know ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: I think the answer is: There's no issue. It's not a variance with the ordinance based on where it's located. We feel as though it's actually in a good area, I know that obviously there's some disagreement about that maybe based on the board and based on some of the professionals, but we actually think it's in a good area. But that's something that we haven't raised, I can discuss with my client. That's more of a, I think, business decision as opposed to a site plan decision at this point because where it's located in consistent with what the ordinance requires.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Carrie?

  1. MS. GIORDANO: I have no questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Melanie?

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I think ‑‑ I think what the Mayor and Councilman are trying to say is just, you know, whether and specific to where it comes to this outdoor amenity area and certain other areas, I think what's been raised repeatedly is that while things are compliant, they're compliant ‑‑ like they're compliant to an inch or 3 inches. And I think that's maybe what was trying to be addressed with that. So I don't know that I have a question anymore because I had the outdoor amenity area on my list. It's ‑‑ you know, you say it's compliant. It's just that it is so barely compliant with what it ‑‑ with what the ordinance intends for that. So if that is something that's to be ‑‑ that is on the table for discussion, I think that probably answers my question right there, for now.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie?

  1. MS. PATIRE: Yeah. I'm sorry. I was just trying to find in my notes. So I understand how the units break out. From a planning perspective, how many children did you assume was going to be in this building?

THE WITNESS: We did not do an analysis of school‑aged children being generated by this project because it's a permitted use.

  1. MS. PATIRE: Okay. So, if there's 41 two‑bedroom units in this building, let's assume that even half of them are used for home office, maybe half of them are used for children, is there a checks and balance ‑‑ and, Chris, you can comment on this too, to understand the amount of the children that will be in this building?
  2. MR. MARTIN: The unfortunate ‑‑
  3. MS. PATIRE: Because there were projections in ‑‑ in the paperwork.
  4. MR. MARTIN: Right.
  5. MR. TUVEL: I believe that goes back to an overall site evaluation for the development of the ordinance.
  6. MS. PATIRE: Okay. Okay.
  7. MR. MARTIN: I think you had a similar and a good question on another matter recently that that came up ‑‑
  8. MS. PATIRE: Yeah, I'm just ‑‑
  9. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ more as to the traffic.
  10. MS. PATIRE: Yeah. It was ‑‑ it goes back to that and the traffic and the walking, but I'm also just ‑‑ I'm very concerned that there's two bedrooms and I know that everyone thinks that transportation is going to be the way to go. But, you know, we've got two‑bedroom apartments. You know, there's going to be children. And there's going to be an impact, so...
  11. MR. MARTIN: Just to clarify the record, Counsel, it's six one‑bedroom, two two‑bedroom, and two ‑‑
  12. MR. TUVEL: I have the breakdown somewhere.
  13. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ two three‑bedrooms.
  14. MR. TUVEL: Do you have the breakdown? I'll just let him give you the breakdown.
  15. MS. PATIRE: Yeah.
  16. MR. TUVEL: I try to have everything memorized. Sometimes I forget.

THE WITNESS: There are 66 units. All right. And I broke them down between 10 affordable housing units and the 56 market‑rate units.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Of those 10?

THE WITNESS: Of the 10 affordable units, you have two one‑bedroom, six 2‑bedroom, and two 3‑bedroom. We need to comply with the Universal Housing Administrative Control Act to ‑‑ rules to diversify the number of units and bedrooms. That's why we have that, so we comply, 56 market‑rate units, you have 21 one‑bedroom, 35 two‑bedroom, no three‑bedroom.

  1. MS. PATIRE: And I think to my point, also, the Mayor and Councilman have spoken, it's ‑‑ it's traffic. There's ebbs and flows of traffic. So those children are walking to the middle school, you know, maybe the children will walk. If not, their parents will be driving them so it's in and out from a planning principle perspective. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

  1. MS. ALTANO: I share the same concern, that although you say you've done everything to be compliant, you're putting in apartments with 66 units, you are going to increase the traffic. So we are very concerned about that. So just so you know that it's something that most of us share and how that is going to affect the entire area.

Thank you. Just a comment.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I have no questions at this time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have no questions either.

To our professional staff, do you have any questions?

  1. MS. McMANUS: I have no questions for the planner at this time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris?

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Thank you. No questions at this time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Andrew?

  1. MR. FERANDA: I do have one, I'm going to try and frame it as a planning issue and not a traffic issue. There's 150 parking spaces being provided and that's per the requirement. I understand that. But in your opinion, as a planner, you said this is a transit‑oriented development. In your opinion, will the residents have less vehicles and, therefore, there will be excess parking on‑site or will they leave their vehicles on‑site, use transit, and, therefore, the parking spaces will be filled most of the time during the day when typically parking spaces are filled by residents through the evening and available during the day? And I don't know if that's strictly planning, but maybe your traffic engineer can also assist in that. But I think that's an important question because this is a transit‑oriented development and you want to know how that parking will be used. Will the residents have, more or less, cars in that parking area?

THE WITNESS: Generally speaking, the way the ordinance breaks out the parking there has to be a combination. There was an issue earlier that spoke to what happens if a restaurant goes in? What happens when there's combinations? The ‑‑ actually, the ordinance addresses that, through a site plan review process, an exemption process, through a CO process, and it gets into site plan under article ‑‑ I looked it up, article 7. To your question, there's a synergy between renters, proximity to transit and the mixed uses and the retail or the commercial nonresidential portion of this. So it's really, my opinion, by a combination of both. It'll be those that will have vehicles, but then it will be, you know, using the transit during the day, there will be those who will be commuting out to their jobs without transit. It will be a mix of a number of things.

But our experience has shown that in the combination, there's adequate parking, that traffic levels kind of balance out. That was testimony that was provided by the traffic engineer in this application. So I don't ‑‑ I see a synergy that will not create the congestion that is anticipated as a result of this. And the term transit‑oriented development really is coming out of the Village's own planning documents. So, again, its proximity ‑‑ I mean, it's right outside the station, and it's going to attract renters who specifically want to use that facility and shun vehicles, for the most part. But they will have cars which is why we provide for it pursuant to the ordinance.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is that it? Thank you.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Before you open it to the public on planning, it's up to you, can we just take a five‑minute recess; is that okay?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah, sure. Wait.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: First, does anyone have to run home or something? Can people wait for five minutes?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. We'll take a five‑minute break.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Call back to order.

Roll call, Michael?

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?
  2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Here.
  3. MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?
  4. MR. SCHEIBNER: Here.
  5. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?
  2. MS. ALTANO: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: MS. PATIRE

  1. MS. PATIRE: Here.
  2. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. GIORDANO?
  3. MS. GIORDANO: Here.
  4. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. BARTO?
  5. MS. BARTO: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Proceed.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So, I'm sorry. I guess we're up to cross examining ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ public questioning of our planner, if there are any.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Anyone from the public want to ask questions of the planner?

  1. MS. REYNOLDS: Hi.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Name and address?

  1. MS. REYNOLDS: Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue.

I actually ‑‑ I'm sorry. I don't have a question for the planner, but I have a ‑‑ but MR. SCHEIBNER asked a question of MR. NICHOLSON and it made me think of another question. If I can ask MR. NICHOLSON a question? 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is there any ‑‑

  1. MR. MARTIN: May I make a suggestion that we wait until you're closed? And then that question could be posed to an architect any maybe any other ‑‑
  2. MS. REYNOLDS: It's a really ‑‑ okay. I mean, it's a ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, is it a quick, simple question?

  1. MS. REYNOLDS: Yeah, it is. It's just based ‑‑ it's the affordable housing units, he asked if they were going to be disbursed throughout and you said yes.

Are they going to be using the same design elements in the affordable housing as the market rate apartments or will they be different?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Same finishes?

  1. MS. REYNOLDS: Same finishes.
  2. MR. NICHOLSON: Identical.
  3. MS. REYNOLDS: Identical. Okay. Great. That's it. Thanks.
  4. MR. MARTIN: That was a good question.

THE WITNESS: Thanks.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Thanks.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else? Questions for the planner?  

State your name and address?

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. Great. Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road.

In your testimony, you talked about transit‑oriented development and lower use of cars.

Do you live in Bergen County?

THE WITNESS: I do.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Do you think that residents living in Ridgewood, so far from the city, will not have cars?

THE WITNESS: No. I didn't say that. I said they will have cars, but the use of the vehicles will not be as significant as if you had just a straight retail type of development here because you know that people that are going to rent here are going to be attracted to the facility specifically because they want to be able to use mass transit.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: We also talked about these facilities for seniors and people selling their house so they can remain in town who aren't necessarily using mass transit to commute to the city, to jobs, so they would have ‑‑ a substantial number of folks here would be using vehicles.

THE WITNESS: Well, I would hope that they would take advantage of the benefit of being in close proximity to all the needs that seniors have. We have a real serious problem in New Jersey with aging in place where people don't have alternatives, as they get older, to downsize. And the benefit of presenting this opportunity is that they would be able to not have to drive and be able to get the services and their ‑‑ their ‑‑ and the benefits of being able to shop and take advantage of the downtown. So that would be a positive.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: So they will do all their shopping in the downtown?

THE WITNESS: I didn't say that. I said that they would have the benefit of being able to do that.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. It's pretty far from the supermarkets, I think you would agree so...

THE WITNESS: No. It's right down the street.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: They're going to walk?

THE WITNESS: Why not?

  1. MR. SLOMIN: With a full week of shopping?

THE WITNESS: Maybe you can walk and shop more frequently than having to do everything in one shopping run with the car. I mean there's are all kinds of lifestyle changes that could be promoted by this development that ‑‑ that are not available at the present time.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: And we have a lot of ‑‑ we have a lot of apartments in town in somewhat similar proximity to public transit that still generate a large amount of vehicle traffic already with more cars than parking spaces allow as has been testified at the prior planning board hearing by property owners in town. So do you think that will not ‑‑  

THE WITNESS: That is a statement.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Do you think that will not ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No, the traffic and parking has already been testified to.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. There's been a lot of talk in all the hearings about whether ‑‑ related to multifamily or parking issues in town, about struggling businesses in the CBD, and the need to support them. How will adding 5500 square feet of very ‑‑ at least as shown there ‑‑ a good number of individual stores, I don't know, six or eight? How will that help the current businesses?
  2. MR. TUVEL: I object to the question. We're not here to discuss whether the retail should be allowed or should not be allowed. It is allowed. So its effect on other businesses in the community is not a proper discussion for this ‑‑ for this board. I just want that objection noted for the record.
  3. MR. MARTIN: MR. SZABO, do you have a response related to the planning on this ‑‑ what is it 55 [sic] square feet?

THE WITNESS: It's 5500 square feet.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Yes, 5500 square feet of retail.
  2. MR. MARTIN: Do you have any ability to respond?
  3. MR. SLOMIN: Well, I guess I asked that in the context of the statement that was made that this property, a property such as ‑‑ you know, as this will ‑‑ are designed to help the businesses in town. And I guess I'm asking are there any negatives?

THE WITNESS: I see no negatives because the benefit of this type of development is clearly documented in all the planning documents that the Village has adopted. And all the references to this type of development has always been in the context of community‑wide benefit, not just property benefit. And one of those benefits is that it will have, you know, like, people, public, into the downtown. There will be retail, mixed use. It fits ‑‑ in fact, the documents that I read talked about the compatibility of this type of mixed‑use development within the context of your CBD.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: You're talking about this site?

THE WITNESS: So I ‑‑ yeah, so I don't see the inconsistency. And I don't see the negative at all.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: So, sir, in that statement, would you hold that because those planning documents were adopted in Ridgewood by the prior planning board and prior council that they are true and, indeed, factual?
  2. MR. TUVEL: Again, I ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I can't testify to that.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Again I ‑‑
  2. MR. SLOMIN: He's holding that ‑‑ that Ridgewood adopted it means, therefore, they are true. I would argue that because they were adopted doesn't mean that they will result in truths.
  3. MR. MARTIN: May I.
  4. MR. TUVEL: Sure. Go ahead, go ahead, Chris.
  5. MR. MARTIN: I thought MR. SLOMIN's question as to a (c)(2) variance, and the planner can correct me if I'm wrong, was on all fours. My understanding of this application, though, is it doesn't require a (c)(2) variance.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

  1. MR. MARTIN: So this is ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The negative criteria doesn't apply.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I think it was an excellent question.

However, you don't care because you're not looking for a variance because you're saying you don't need one?

THE WITNESS: Correct. We're not ‑‑ there's no relief being requested.  

  1. MR. MARTIN: I mean, that's because of prior decisions were made and you're relying ‑‑ I think this is a fair statement, you're relying on the fact that the ordinance says what it is and you're saying that it complies?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Simple as that?

THE WITNESS: Simple as that.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Whether it's right or wrong you're saying "I comply".

THE WITNESS: There is an expectation that when you go through a planning process that is vetted out publically after due notice and there's a whole process, it's very transparent. There's an expectation, not only on the part of the community, but the property owners that these are the rules because this ‑‑ this ordinance that generated this development, as a result of a planning process. So, there's an expectation that these are the rules in order to develop the property accordingly. And what that brings about is stability in land use decision making on behalf of the community. That's the overall benefit. Now, I eluded to earlier that there's an alternate process, I think our attorneys also suggested it. There's ‑‑ you can re‑examine those policies at any time, but there has to be a point in time where we have to work with the documents that we have.

  1. MR. TUVEL: I think the bottom line is, yes, we're going off the ordinance and the master plan as it exists today. That's what we based all our planning on, correct.
  2. MR. SLOMIN: But you're also accepting that ordinance as a document, which it is, but as permanent fact, which it is not, because there's currently a legal challenge from the Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development that is in the courts. That is saying there was a problematic, tainted, and conflicted process that resulted in those ordinances. Therefore, this is not ‑‑
  3. MR. TUVEL: This is public commentary ‑‑ this is ‑‑ I object. This is public commentary. MR. SZABO is testifying as to what the ordinance is now, what the master plan is now. If somebody wants to make public comment about other things that are not related to MR. SZABO's testimony, there's a public portion of the ‑‑ of every single application where somebody could say whatever he or she wants to say. But these items are completely irrelevant to the planning testimony that MR. SZABO has given.
  4. MR. SLOMIN: They're not because there's a current challenge ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Point of order ‑‑  
  2. MR. SLOMIN: I'll go back to the questions, which is what I was trying to do.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, let's just hear from counsel for a second.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Just one second, to our planner, what ordinance must the applicant's planner follow in terms of this application?
  2. MS. McMANUS: What ordinance?
  3. MR. MARTIN: What ordinance ‑‑
  4. MS. McMANUS: They must file the ordinance that is applicable to the property which is the B‑3‑R district, the zone district. Is that what you're asking?
  5. MR. MARTIN: And is that the one ‑‑ when ‑‑ when is that the binding ordinance on this application?
  6. MS. McMANUS: When is it?
  7. MR. MARTIN: At the time of filing or ‑‑  
  8. MS. McMANUS: Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I understand the question now.
  9. MR. MARTIN: I know it's late. I'm sorry. It's 10:00.
  10. MS. McMANUS: Yeah, the time of application law was put in place several years about by New Jersey. And what that states is that any application, once deemed complete by the municipality ‑‑ by the board for which it's seeking approval, any application deemed complete is held to the ordinances in place at that time. So it specifically prohibits municipalities from deeming an application complete and then changing the ordinance in the middle of their application so that there are alternative rules or alternative ordinances that they must comply with.
  11. MR. MARTIN: Okay. I'm going to just ask MR. SLOMIN, because he brings up some good points in that regard, is there anything you want to confirm with our planner on that issue?
  12. MR. SLOMIN: No.
  13. MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thank you.  
  14. MR. SLOMIN: Yeah, but I appreciate that. I guess I'll move ‑‑ I'll move on from that, you know, I was not meaning to challenge, but just to point out that we're accepting these ordinances as established fact when there is indeed a very viable and real, and I believe, valid challenge to them. Going back to the discussion on parking and the traffic related, from a planning perspective, you described or discussed the free flow of traffic as a goal. I guess my question is ‑‑ a few questions related to that, how does this development help the free flow of traffic?
  15. MR. MARTIN: That's one question, let him answer one question at a time.
  16. MR. SLOMIN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That comes right out of the ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ that comes right out of the master plan documents that I reviewed. And the theory and the idea behind the plan was that by getting ‑‑ due to the proximity of the development next to the mass transit, people will choose to walk, rather than drive. It's stated plainly in the documents.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: I guess I'm asking as a resident of Ridgewood and someone who goes through that underpass every day on the way to work, many times to pick up kids, and drive to the high school, and has my own issues with it. I'm not looking at master plan. I'm looking at the reality. I guess as a ‑‑ as a planner, your knowledge of senior developments and in reality, does ‑‑ do you think this truly helps or hinders?

THE WITNESS: No. I think this is a benefit to the community for all the reasons I testified to.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. In addition to this property, there is another redevelopment that was just approved right down the block. There's another development seeking approval right down Broad Street who will all viably probably access the same roads, Broad Street, Franklin, Chestnut, with the addition of all these retailers. Your testimony here is focused, and understandably so, on this property alone. And that's what you were charged with doing. However, as a professional planner charged with the concept of true planning here, have you ever looked at all these other properties and the impact on these intersections as a whole in what you're doing here?
  2. MR. TUVEL: The traffic engineer testified ‑‑
  3. MR. SLOMIN: We need an answer.
  4. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ the traffic engineer testified to that at the last meeting and, in fact, used the data that was accumulated by the Village in connection with the development of all four sites as a whole, so that's been testified to.
  5. MR. MARTIN: MR. SZABO, from a planning perspective, can you answer his question?

THE WITNESS: You do that in the context of your master plan, you try to determine what the appropriate mix of land uses are when you start to lay out a land use element plan. And that done with the amendment that was adopted in 2015. Now, I don't know the specific knowledge of the developments that this gentleman's referring to specifically, but if they're in the context of that plan and it's been implement by virtue of a zoning ordinance, then that was all considered as part of the planning process and deemed to be appropriate levels of development which were then subsequently implemented by the Village.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: So, we're just really relying on the master planning documents as they were not taking a look at, "Hey, how's what we're doing here really going to impact the Village as a whole"?

THE WITNESS: I have no reason to deviate from documents that have been studied, vetted, pubically presented and adopted during the public process and that those considerations had to have been noted during that process.

  1. MR. MARTIN: And you did nothing additional in terms of your preparation ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No.

  1. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ for ‑‑
  2. MR. SLOMIN: And, again, I would say vetted in a process that we believe was conflicted and in respects tainted.  
  3. MR. TUVEL: We really have to stay on topic and not get on commentary about other things.
  4. MR. SLOMIN: And I apologize.
  5. MR. MARTIN: There will be public comment later.
  6. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. The ‑‑ in the design of this building, do you know how it will look if this building were to be viewed from Crest Road and, you know, Ridge Road, Crest Road, from up on the hill, you know, what ‑‑ there's a lot of apartments, private homes, developments up there, people currently living there. On the illustration there, another, I guess, wrong element of it is the fact that it doesn't show the ridge in Ridgewood. It doesn't show the apartments, the homes or anything. It's as it that ‑‑ that building is standing on its own, which it is not. So can you describe what what folks who live up there in the apartments and the homes and the condos will see?

THE WITNESS: I did not do a site analysis, visibility analysis of that nature for this application.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: And you're anticipating lower traffic and some folks are concerned, but in looking at the building there, the ingress there is right directly into that worst intersection. And you have no issues whatsoever with that?
  2. MR. MARTIN: That we have to rely on the traffic engineer, it's his jurisdiction.

THE WITNESS: I would rely on the traffic engineer.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Traffic engineer.
  2. MR. SLOMIN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The traffic engineer covered those issues at the last meeting.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else have any questions?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I actually have a question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Since you brought up the issue of the planning documents and, you know, all the materials that were relied upon for this particular development, when the resident was asking a question, he was asking if they were truth ‑‑ like truthful documents, but I think my question is ‑‑ and I think this is perhaps where he was going, but pardon me if I'm wrong, but are the planning documents always right? Are the planners ever wrong? And what kind of ‑‑ could you even describe an instance where they're wrong? And I only ask because you brought up to planning documents.

THE WITNESS: Sure.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So I think it's fair game.

THE WITNESS: That's a fair question. I think the best way to answer that is that there's a process. Planning's a fluid profession. It's fluid, it changes. Things are always constant. This is why we plan. That's why the Municipal Land Use Law provides a process for making changes to ordinances and master plans, re‑examinations, why it requires consistency between the two. And the best way to answer that is if there's something that needs to be adjusted, then it needs to go through a planning review and process so you can analyze that. And, you know, whether right or wrong, I can't answer. 

  1. MR. TUVEL: Because that's a legal question and the answer to the question is: There's a presumption of validity as to any enactment done by a municipality. So unless that ‑‑ unless that presumption ‑‑ you're asking us what we're bound by, we're bound by ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, that's not what I asked. I did not ask what you're bound by ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: You're asking us to opine as to whether or not we agree with the master plan document ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, no, no.

  1. MR. TUVEL:  ‑‑ and it's not up to us to do that ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That was not my question, Jason.  

  1. MR. TUVEL:  ‑‑ our job to do that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That was not my question.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I simply asked, are planners always right?

THE WITNESS: I'd love to say yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's my question so you answered it.  

THE WITNESS: But, again, that's ‑‑ that's ‑‑ but, that's ‑‑ see, that's a very simplistic way of approaching the question. And that's not the correct answer because that's why we have a process in place to review our planning documents. And I always admonish my boards to look at these things and to have periodic meetings and discuss issues that face the town. That's why the board of adjustment adopts an annual report, submits it to the governing body. That's why we have case law. But, again, to reiterate what our attorney said, there is a presumption of validity that goes to the ordinance and is supported by a master plan. 

  1. MR. TUVEL: And the answer to that question is, Only if that planner is my wife are they always correct.

(Laughter.)

  1. MR. TUVEL: I have to bring some levity to the situation. I'm sorry. It was too tense for me.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I actually had another question for the architect, so if I can ‑‑ I don't know if ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: Are we done with the public with MR. SZABO?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah.

  1. MS. PATIRE: Can I ask one more ‑‑ can I ask one more question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

  1. MS. PATIRE: You were talking about the property and folks wanting to commute to New York City, I believe that that's the draw, with everything going on with the current tunnels on New Jersey Transit which, obviously, the rail line is right there, are there any concerns or anything that you thought of from a planning principle when they close one of those tunnels in the next however many years to get people in and out of the City, what would be going on with the cars and would people be driving? How are they going to physically get into Manhattan? If it's going to be a big draw on this, from a planning principle, I'm just wondering have you thought about that?

THE WITNESS: The regional plan association did a wonderful piece on that, in fact, to promote the idea of getting tunnels refurbished and I think they showed exactly what the impact was going to be, and very, kind of, cartoony but it was very informative. That's a problem now whether this gets developed or not. That is an issue that has to be addressed through the states of New Jersey, New York, and Port Authority. And infrastructure improvements and all that, that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

  1. MS. PATIRE: I get it. But, again, in planning principles, because we believe that this is going to be, from a transient perspective, it's something that should be thought about how these folks, if they want to get in and out ‑‑

THE WITNESS: And that's ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ of the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: And that's why we have regional transportation planning authorities that ‑‑ who's job it is to figure that out so that they know how to address that ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: True, but you're ‑‑ true, but the numbers from the traffic consultant, everybody cars in and cars out is based on so many people. Again, mixed‑use development using public transportation, et cetera. So I'm just asking that question if anyone has thought about that. As these things happen and they are going to be real. So I've attended quite a few these ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I doubt that a 66‑unit development, one way or another, is going to have a major impact on tunnels, but that's a larger ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: No, no, no. I'm talking about ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ planning issue ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: That's not ‑‑ that's not what I said. I said that the folks will be leaving that apartment complex, coming in, coming out, and possibly ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The reality is that New York City ‑‑

  1. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ the traffic patterns may be different.
  2. MR. TUVEL: I think the answer is, we did a traffic ‑‑ we provided traffic testimony within industry standards. We submitted it to the county for them to review, to your home experts to review. There were comments by your experts that we agreed to comply with. That's why there are industry standards that the ITE looks at, Institute of Transportation Engineers. That's why we ‑‑ you know, to be honest with you, if it ‑‑ as an as‑of‑right development, the law says we don't even have to do traffic reports sometimes. But we did one here to make sure that the traffic does work. And it does. There were some comments by your professionals and we agreed to adhere to all those comments. So, I appreciate the concern, but all I can say is we've worked with your professionals to make sure that anything that we're doing from a traffic standpoint will work.
  3. MR. MARTIN: MS. PATIRE, You were catching flies with your mouth open. Is there anything that from a planning perspective, I think the question, that you'd like to add before counsel testified?

THE WITNESS: No, just that the ‑‑ the market for rental apartments particularly in transit center is strong. And your concerns that they'll fly out of these units because they won't be able to get to wherever they need to go, well, don't forget there's other modes of transportation here available including buses, you know, so I don't think that's a fear that's going to be reached.

  1. MS. PATIRE: Okay. Can I ask something of MS. McMANUS Based on something that some of the public stated? And I think what MR. SLOMIN was saying is in looking at the aggregate effect on multiple units from a planning perspective at what point can we look at ‑‑ what's based on the day submitted, as you stated earlier, at what point can we, as a community, look at the impact on that?
  2. MR. MARTIN: Stop. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
  1. MS. McMANUS: I do.

E L I Z A B E T H   M c M A N U S,

100 Barrack Street, Trenton, New Jersey having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

  1. MR. MARTIN: Please state your name and your address for the record, in terms of your business.
  2. MS. McMANUS: Elizabeth McManus, Clarke, Caton, Hintz is my firm. I'm a board planner.

My business address is Clarke, Caton, Hintz, 100 Barrack Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.

  1. MR. MARTIN: MR. TUVEL, do you stipulate that MS. McMANUS is a professional planner?
  2. MR. TUVEL: Yes.
  3. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Go ahead.
  4. MS. McMANUS: So the question is at what point is a planning board able to consider the aggregate impact of, I think, multiple projects is your question?
  5. MS. PATIRE: Yes.
  6. MS. McMANUS: The process for doing so ‑‑ the most appropriate process for doing so is the master plan process. So if you're concerned that there are impacts from a variety of projects coming in, I would normally recommend that a planning board undertake a planning process such as re‑examination report, and perhaps a land use ‑‑ an amended land use plan, an amendment to ‑‑ or perhaps a circulation amendment if the impact are transportation related. In order to evaluate what those impacts are and to conduct an analysis on how ‑‑ how they should either be mitigated or how they should be reduced through zoning amendments.

I think the question and the concern that I hear from all the board members is that you feel inundated by multiple applications at this point. Maybe ‑‑ maybe there are concerns about one particular application, but there are more significant concerns given the volume of new construction that's currently being proposed in the ‑‑ in the Village, either proposed or previously approved. And from the perspective of those concerns, what you heard this evening is correct in that the applicants do have the ability to rely upon current ordinances, current master plan documents. But what I ‑‑ but what I hear from the board is there's a larger concern that really needs to be addressed, perhaps outside this board or this application approval process, and that really is the master planning process.

  1. MS. PATIRE: Because what I'm hearing from testimony here tonight, as well as other applications, is we're looking at it very singular and not one applicant has come and said, "Here's what looking at in an aggregate" and showing any data that makes me personally feel any better about any of the developments, so...But it's old data. So, again, we're looking at things with New Jersey Transit, which is why I brought it up here, and basing information on what is now, so just it's concerning.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. MR. TUVEL, you're done with your witnesses? 

  1. MR. TUVEL: Sorry. Yes.

Does the board want to hear from its professionals; is that the next step that ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, that would be the next step.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So I'll reserve the right to obviously make a closing and respond to anything that the board professionals have to say.

And then I guess you also have to open it up to public comment as well.

  1. MR. MARTIN: One question, if you may, the Mayor had for your architect.
  2. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

If it's just one it's okay.

(Laughter.)

MAYOR KNUDSEN: This goes back to my colleague's question about the affordable units and was your question about disbursed? So he asked about disbursement of the affordable units and to my ‑‑ my records indicate the last plans we have from you were December ‑‑

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: That's right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ December 30th.

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: That's right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Is that correct?

And so I wanted to know, when would that be changed because at that time most of the affordable units, the 2 three‑bedrooms were the ones that were closest to the railroad tracks.

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. And then with the exception of maybe one of the two‑bedrooms, they were mostly on that side of the structure. So I just wanted to know, how will they be disbursed and when will we see that plan?

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: Let me refer to my plan.

These are the boards that I presented in October. The apartment distribution didn't change between ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm sorry?

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: The apartment ‑‑

These boards are what I presented in October.

The apartment distribution did not change in the resubmittal in December. The revision in December was all relative to the retail space.

  1. MR. MARTIN: And, Dave, just for the record, I have in my notes from way back when, A‑5 was that colorized version of the second floor plan, 13 apartments.
  2. MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.
  3. MR. MARTIN: And then A‑6 looks like a third and fourth floor plan, colorized versions?
  4. MR. NICHOLSON: That's right.
  5. MR. MARTIN: And finally, A‑7 fifth floor colorized floor plan.
  6. MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.
  7. MR. MARTIN: Any others?
  8. MR. NICHOLSON: No. Those are the three floor plans for the residential floors.
  9. MR. MARTIN: Okay. Go ahead.
  10. MR. NICHOLSON: This ‑‑ this is A‑7 (indicating). It's an illustration of the top floor. There's an affordable unit here (indicating) on the north wing and an affordable unit on the west wing (indicating). This is the second floor plan. There's affordable units on the west wing (indicating).

The north wing of this floor is very short because of the ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could you just hold that up one more time, the second one. The second one. Yes.

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: So this is the second floor, it's short on the north side (indicating) ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right next to the ‑‑

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: ‑‑ that's where the property ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right, and ‑‑

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: All right. These are the two affordable units (indicating).

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Uh‑huh.

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: And then ‑‑
  1. MR. MARTIN: Dave, can you just show the people ‑‑ can you just ‑‑ the audience is looking, they might want to just ‑‑ they were just trying ‑‑ can you just point out where for the people? They were just looking at it.
  2. MR. TUVEL: The ‑‑ I think the answer, though, is being provided, they are compliant building the way they are disbursed throughout the building.
  3. MR. NICHOLSON: They're here and here (indicating). And typical floor, which has the three‑bedroom units that you pointed out here (indicating).

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And that ‑‑

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: The other affordable units are on the other wing.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So just show me, again, the two three‑bedrooms are on ‑‑

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: The three bedrooms are here (indicating).

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: The other affordable unit on the floor is here and here (indicating). So ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So I guess my question is: You talk about being disbursed, none of the ‑‑ could you just ‑‑ can you just hold that up, Dave. So none of the affordable units are actually on the Chestnut Street side of that, correct? I'm sorry ‑‑

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's correct? Okay. And then none of the affordable units are closest to the corner of Chestnut and Ridgewood facing the street. So all of the affordable units are either closest to the railroad tracks or definitely facing the railroad tracks; would that be accurate?

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: That is true.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So my question then is, in terms of disbursement, how will they be evenly disbursed so an equal number of affordable units are on the ‑‑ within the area that is on the Chestnut Street side?

  1. MR. NICHOLSON: If that's a concern of the board, I'm sure my client would consider rearranging them.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, I think ‑‑ I don't know about my colleagues, but I expressed it was a concern back when we started this process because, at actually too I thank MR. SCHEIBNER for bringing up tonight because it kind of was off my radar for a moment until he raised it and I had to go back and look at the plans. I don't know about my other colleagues, I think, it's important to me just like the finishes, I think MS. REYNOLDS asked about the finishes. When we talk about disbursement, disbursing things equally, it would seem to me that it's appropriate to ensure that the affordable units are appropriately placed on the street side and not all of them facing or ‑‑ either facing or closest to the railroad tracks. I just think that that would be more consistent with an equal disbursement. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We'll move on to our experts.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Are we allowed to ask the architect public questions or is that passed?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Who do you have a question?

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is the architect available for public questions and has that time passed?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: He already testified. That was just a supplemental question. All right. Beth ‑‑ actually, Chris, do you want to? 

  1. MR. 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. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I do.

C H R I S T O P H E R R U T I S H A U S E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

  1. MR. MARTIN: State your name and your business address.
  2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Christopher J. Rutishauser, village engineer, 131 North Maple Street, Village of Ridgewood.
  3. MR. MARTIN: MR. TUVEL, you stipulate that his qualifications as the Village engineer?
  4. MR. TUVEL: Yes, I believe I have before.  
  5. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
  6. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I think I'm just going to touch briefly, I believe the applicant has stated that they're going to do the investigation of the sanitary sewer line as part of the approval process. And I concur with that and look forward to looking at those results and seeing if there's any remedial action we'll need to undertake. The traffic issues, I made my comments to the gentleman from Shropshire. They were incorporated into the memo the board has. And I have nothing further.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. Thanks, Chris. Any questions of ‑‑ by the board of MR. RUTISHAUSER?

Dave?

  1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Well, it's almost a question.

In addition to the sewer issues, there are also water supply issues. And, those, obviously, need to ‑‑ you know, they'll have to run the fire flows and those sorts of things, in other to make sure that an adequate supply of water can be provided.

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I believe the water department did provide a will‑serve letter to the applicant.

Can we confirm that?

  1. MR. TUVEL: Yes.
  2. MR. SCHEIBNER: That's it. Thank you.  

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. COUNCILMAN VOIGT

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: MAYOR KNUDSEN

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm sorry. No, I don't have any questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Carrie.

  1. MS. GIORDANO: No. I don't understand the water issue because I don't understand how we ‑‑ we, obviously, have issues at the pump, right, there's not enough storage. Is that the issue that we have, there are ongoing new regulations ‑‑ anyways. It's not a comment for here, but I don't understand how there's no impact on the water. I never understood that. I still don't understand how its water supply is not impacted, I guess I don't get that.
  2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I assume you're referring to the potable water?
  3. MS. GIORDANO: Yes.
  4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. That would be the Ridgewood Water Company.
  5. MS. GIORDANO: Yes.
  6. MR. RUTISHAUSER: They did provide what is commonly called a will‑serve letter as part of the application process which indicates they have the ability to provide for the water needs of this development as far as, fire flow, and consumption. I'm more concerned with the end of the pipe operations.
  7. MS. GIORDANO: Got you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Frances?

  1. MS. BARTO: Don't have any questions. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: What are your concerns? Do you want to elaborate on that?
  2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes. As we discussed, there is a sanitary sewer line on Franklin Avenue that seems to be subjected to what is called I&I, in‑fill and infiltration. I've asked the applicant to verify that it has adequate capacity in that line for any flow they wish to discharge into it.
  3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Wasn't there a issue that we had asked that pipe be widened? Is that ‑‑  
  4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The pipe may need to be widened, but I first want to see what the flow values are. There are a number of technologies that increase the capacity. One, for example, is called CAMD (phonetic) that generally places the pipe tight in, eliminates the flow of infiltration and generally gives you the flow number so you can have a greater capacity.
  5. MS. McWILLIAMS: Is that something we're going to have to wait to see? Is that like a wait‑and‑see problem, to see if its an issue?
  6. MR. RUTISHAUSER: No.
  7. MS. BARTO: See if it's a wait‑and‑see issue?
  8. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Not really. I have spoken with the applicant's engineer, depending on where the process goes, they could start the initial testing quite rapidly. It'll be done in conjunction with our wastewater treatment division. And you'll see what the results are as the development of those plans goes forward.
  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Is it something that's going to be affected additionally by the Chestnut Village Property being built as well? Are they all flowing into sort of the same ‑‑ I can't see how they wouldn't but...
  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Well, you're partially correct and I just want to clarify.

Chestnut Village, I had to check the map to see which way it flowed, but everything flows down from Broad Street, down Franklin towards Maple and then goes down into East Ridgewood Avenue, to I believe, to the trunk mains. The section we're looking at for this applicant is Broad and Chestnut. That's the critical area that we previously identified.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: So all three of those developments are going to do something ‑‑
  2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, in the initial review of sewer capacity I did make comments that the capacity in the pipe will need to be verified by the applicant to make sure that they're discharge can be properly handled by the ‑‑
  3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Prior to approval of the site plan or prior to building?
  4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Prior to a CO, certificate of occupancy.
  5. MS. McWILLIAMS: All right. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie?

  1. MS. PATIRE: Chris, can you talk about for Public Service ‑‑ for PSE&G, with everything going underground, what is the disruption to any of those streets, albeit Chestnut or Franklin, and the businesses around there on that site? Will there be street closures, et cetera? Do you know any of that?
  2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Right now, PSE&G had just done the first phase of an underground cable project, South Broad/North Broad, and making the turn down Franklin. They installed the ducts. They anticipate pulling the wires in that in the next few weeks or months. They haven't been able to give me a certain time for that. They were made aware of these projects both this one at the Ken Smith site, the one down on Chestnut Street, the one on South Broad Street and also the one at 257 East Ridgewood Avenue. I don't know if they kept ‑‑ they had these projects in their planning mind. I'm hoping they did. Again, adequate water, they have to provide to the applicant for presentation to the board a will‑serve letter.
  3. MS. PATIRE: So my question is: Do we anticipate street closures, ripping up the streets, detours that type of thing?
  4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: There will be some excavation certainly to make the tie in for the utilities to the site, if the existing utilities are insufficient. And that I can't know for certain.
  5. MS. PATIRE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

  1. MS. ALTANO: I had the same question that Pat already had answered. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I have no questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have no questions.

Does the Applicant have any questions?

  1. MR. TUVEL: For Chris? No, we don't.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Does the public have any questions of MR. RUTISHAUSER

State your name and address?

  1. MS. LOVING: Thank you.

My name is Ann Loving, 342 South Irving Street.

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER, if I understood you correctly, you said that it would be up to the applicant to verify if the sanitary sewage flow was adequate; did I understand that?
  2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: They have to demonstrate that there's sufficient capacity in the pipe for their anticipated flow.
  3. MS. LOVING: So this would be after the building's occupied and everybody's flushing and showering?
  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: No. This would be before that. We've talked about it. You use the standard tables for the fixtures you have to calculate a flow volume and then that flow is calculated with peaking factors to see if it can fit in the existing capacity. That existing capacity has ‑‑ they have to determine.

If there is insufficient capacity, then we have to look at how we can improve that line, whether as I mentioned, lining it or as also one of board members had suggested possibly making it larger.

  1. MS. LOVING: And if it was determined in advance of everybody flushing and showering that the pipe, which sounds like it's old and it might need to be relined, if it was determined that it either needs to be relined or needs to be enlarged, who would pay for that?
  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: That could be something that the board could request of the applicant.
  2. MS. LOVING: And if the applicant refused, then...
  3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It's up to the board.
  4. MS. LOVING: It's up to the board. So ‑‑
  5. MR. RUTISHAUSER: And the board ‑‑
  6. MS. LOVING: ‑‑ and it would be after ‑‑
  7. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The board ‑‑
  8. MS. LOVING: I'm sorry.
  9. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The board can consider, subject to counsel, as a condition of approval.
  10. MS. LOVING: But it would be up to the applicant to say whether the current piping for the sanitary sewer is adequate?
  11. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The capacity.
  12. MS. LOVING: The capacity?
  13. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes.
  14. MS. LOVING: It's up to the applicant to say that?
  15. MR. RUTISHAUSER: We're going to be monitoring that. We've already had the preliminary discussions as to when that analysis would occur.
  16. MS. LOVING: Well, it certainly would seem to me that it would be in the applicant's best interest that the piping was adequate so why wouldn't we have people from the Village determining if it would be adequate rather than having the applicant determine whether it would be adequate?
  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: They're going to produce the data that we're going to review.
  2. MS. LOVING: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone else from the public have any questions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Let's see if we're done.

We'll move to our next expert, Beth McManus. All right. Actually, we'll do Andrew first.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
  1. MR. FERANDA: I do.

A N D R E W F E R A N D A, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

  1. MR. MARTIN: Just state your name and business address.
  2. MR. FERANDA: My name is Andrew Feranda. I'm a professional engineer licensed in New Jersey.
  3. MR. MARTIN: And traffic expert ‑‑
  4. MR. FERANDA: Traffic ‑‑
  5. MR. MARTIN: Qualified and testified in front of many board, right?
  6. MR. FERANDA: Correct.
  7. MR. MARTIN: Stipulate as traffic engineer?
  8. MR. TUVEL: Yes, I believe I did at the last meeting. But that's fine.
  9. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.  

Go ahead.

  1. MR. FERANDA: Our office prepared a traffic review, it's dated January 17th. That was presented to the applicant prior to the last hearing, extensive traffic testimony was provided. Our letter covered some engineering issues with the site as well as traffic issues. And I believe all of those were addressed and any items that we wanted ‑‑ changes to the plans or adjustments made, they were agreed to, in my understanding. We may have had one exception?
  1. MR. TUVEL: No. Are you talking about the memo that you did ‑‑
  2. MR. FERANDA: January 17th traffic ‑‑
  3. MR. TUVEL: I believe we covered every issue in the report as well.
  4. MR. FERANDA: Okay. And then as a follow up, lastly, dated April 13th, we provided a letter for off‑site improvement that would be necessary. In that letter there are six items addressing the sidewalk, roadway, and intersection improvement off‑site and that was the letter that they're –
  1. MR. TUVEL: I think you had some overlap on the first one and the second one. And the first one you did testify ‑‑ you did put in some items regarding off‑tract and you focused the second memo completely on off‑tract. So, we actually agreed to everything in both your memos.
  1. MR. FERANDA: With that stated, agreed to everything and provided testimony.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. Any questions from the board?

David, do you have any questions for Andrew?

  1. MR. SCHEIBNER: No questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. Andrew, a question on the ingress and egress of the site, most especially at the Franklin Avenue/Broad Street. It says the site plan is supposed to have ‑‑ this is ‑‑ I'm just reading municipality law it says: "Safe and efficient vehicular, pedestrians circulation, parking and loading." Okay. I just want to get your opinion whether or not that particular intersection and what's being done at that intersection and the recommendations you made are sufficient to ensure that there is safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation and parking and loading, most especially at that ingress and egress area. Could you provide some ‑‑ can you kind of provide us some, I guess ‑‑

  1. MR. FERANDA: I can give you insight only because the final design of that intersection has not yet been provided. I believe the township engineer and the county will be working on plans that will address many of these issues along the way, last meeting, through testimony. I believe the traffic signal design that will be provided will address these items and the items were obviously pedestrian crossings. We were talking about actuation of the approaches, changing ‑‑ changing the signal timings and allowing the signal pads to be visible from under the railroad overpass as well as from under the building which will be ‑‑ have its exit movement leading from under that arch in the building and the single head certainly will have to be visible. These are items that will be addressed in the traffic signal design. At this point, I haven't seen that yet.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, I'm not sure you answered my question, maybe you can't. But most specifically, looking at the actual entrance of that area and whether or not that's going to be safe? Based on whatever we do, do you think it's going to be a safe intersection based on that an ingress and egress in that area?

  1. MR. FERANDA: In my opinion, it will be safe for pedestrian because ADA compliance will required as well as it will be safe for vehicles based upon the design of the traffic signals. That will be built into that design, the safety of the pedestrians and vehicles.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So that's going to be an actuated light at that particular intersection; is that what you recommend?

  1. MR. FERANDA: Correct.  

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So you also ‑‑ you talked about in your report, you talked about an actuated light at Franklin and Oak in order to coordinate traffic flow to that area. Is that your recommendation as well as the actuated light?

  1. MR. FERANDA: There is a signal there now. I believe it's pre‑timed as well. Actually, it certainly would help distribute the green time and allow that to function more efficiently and it would be my recommendation that that also be actuated and be retimed. Additionally, in my most recent letter, the April 13th letter, I recommended that there be coordination between the signals because coordination will allow the traffic to flow more smoothly. When intersections act independently, it doesn't allow traffic to flow down the corridor. If they're coordinated, then there will be green time that's seen as a vehicle travels down the corridor without having to stop and then get a green and then stop. Coordination is important. And my recommendation in my most recent letter was that a contribution be made towards the coordination of the intersection's signalization, if that would be needed, that would be appropriate as part of that contribution.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right. So, it's your opinion that that particular area, if there are two actuated lights, at that area, it's going to be ‑‑ it's going to help with the flow of traffic in that area?

  1. MR. FERANDA: Correct.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right. So that's really kind of a corridor to Franklin Ave. It goes underneath the train trestle. It goes to Wilsey ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Wilsey Square.

  1. MR. FERANDA: Wilsey Square.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Wilsey Square.

  1. MR. FERANDA: Garber and Wilsey.  

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Wilsey. Wilsey Square, there's a light there too. Okay. So ‑‑ so let me ask you this: If you actuate these lights at both of those intersections, what happens to the light at Wilsey Square that's not actuated? And what happens to the light at Franklin and Maple that's not actuated? And what happens to the light at East Ridgewood Avenue when Maple that is not actuated?  Does it create backups in those particular areas if you actuate these two areas and ‑‑ and ‑‑ and if it does, what do we do? 

  1. MR. FERANDA: Franklin Ave is a very important corridor for this Village because it's the underpass. It's the crossing from east to west. It's your underpass between ‑‑ I believe there's another underpass a mile to the south and a mile to the north. So this really is your access and all traffic is passing along this corridor. I agree with you that a signal should be coordinated as far back as possible to allow this corridor to work most efficiently.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And does that mean actuated lights at those areas as well? I'm not sure how would have a timeline to actuate all this and have coordinated. I don't know ‑‑  

  1. MR. FERANDA: I haven't done an analysis of the Maple and Franklin, nor the ‑‑ I guess it's Graber and Wilsey.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

  1. MR. FERANDA: I haven't ‑‑ I don't know if they have actuation. I don't believe they're coordinated. I think their coordination is very important to get the offsets synced, to make sure that their ‑‑ and with commuter traffic terms, but what that allows is people traveling at the appropriate speed to pass Wilsey green as they go along rather than seeing a green and then a red and then a green and it's just not synchronized so that traffic can pass through the corridor.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So let me ask you this: Who pays for ‑‑ because it sounds like to me that there are only two actuated lights when we may need five. Who pays for that? I mean, again, I ‑‑ you know, I just know for a fact on a Saturday Wilsey Square is a mess. And if you actuate this light, you know, traffic will flow through Wilsey Square, and then they'll all stop. So you'll have a huge traffic jam starting at the trestle all the way through, which is not good. And then also, you know, on the corner of, you know, Franklin and Maple, it's going to be a mess as well. And so my question is: Who pays for that? I mean, we can't afford to eat that based on the fact they pay for the two actuated lights. That's nice, but it's just going to make ‑‑ it sounds like to me it's just going to make matters worse. Is that right or is ‑‑ or is ‑‑

  1. MR. FERANDA: Franklin Avenue is under the jurisdiction ‑‑ it's a county route. Maple Avenue is also a county route. I don't know if what the formula is between the Village and the county for the maintenance and upgrades of these signals. But certainly, the county should have some ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Responsibility? What happens if they say they're not going to pay for it? And ‑‑ which it sounds like they're probably not based on our Village Council meeting a couple of weeks ago. They said they'd pay for one traffic light.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: On a different street.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: On a different street. So ‑‑ so that's not going to help us at all. So we're going to have a mess, and, you know, over the next couple of years as this thing gets up and running, it ‑‑ you know, we're going to improve those two intersections we're going to make three even worse. I think that's a concern. Is it a concern of yours?

  1. MR. FERANDA: It certainly doesn't move traffic efficiently if they're not coordinated and if they don't have the current features. Looking at the North Broad and Franklin Avenue intersection, the key intersection for this site, it doesn't meet current design code. The signal's ‑‑ the equipment's been there for quite a while. It's pre‑timed equipment. The signal controlled probably couldn't even handle some of the things we could be requesting for it to do to be more efficient. That they may or may not be the case at the other intersections, I haven't looked at those as close. But certainly, bringing that up to code would be important and then once they're brought up to code, which we feel will be capable of handling actuation and coordination.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So let me ask you another question, do you need to opine on that because I, myself, am very worried about, you know, it's nice to have these two lights, but this ‑‑ we're creating ‑‑ we're solving a problem in one area and we're creating an issue in three areas. And it would seem to me that we need to consider that a little bit more carefully and then understand what needs to happen at those intersections in order for us to make sure that the traffic flows through town in an efficient way. Would that be ‑‑ would that be right to do or fair to do? I mean I just ‑‑ I'm worried about it. Would that be ‑‑ would that be ‑‑ would that be a good thing to do?

  1. MR. FERANDA: It is a fair concern. I worked for other municipalities and other boards who have tried to gather funds for improving corridors and off‑site improvements. It's not an easy thing to do. It's called a transportation improvement district and it's very difficult to set one up and to get the contributions made in a formal way so that it would be fair to all. But it has been done in some areas, and that might be an approach. But, again, it comes from the master plan testimony we had previously. It's something that would have to be established prior to an application coming in and then they would be held to that standard. If it's not in place, then they can't necessarily be held to a transportation improvement district ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No, okay. So let me ask you this: Do you think, because we're solving the issue at two intersections, it's creating an issue with two or three other intersections, should the developer be responsible for those jams that are created at the other intersections? Because it seems to me while it's not direct, it's indirect. And there should be some contribution to those upgrades in lights. Would you say yes or no? 

  1. MR. FERANDA: In traffic terms, I would say yes and that their contribution would be a fair share contribution. And, typically, if there's no formula in place, an accepted method would be the number of trips passing through that intersection generated by this site divided by the number of ‑‑ the volume of traffic already going through that intersection and it would be ‑‑ that would give you a percentage. And then you would get the cost of the improvements and you would take that percentage out of the cost of the improvements and that would be the fair share contribution.

Now, as you get further away from the site, because you're in an urban setting, traffic is going to disburse and there's going to be fewer and fewer trips that would potentially use the intersections downstream and upstream. But, certainly, if it's a major route such as Franklin Avenue where there's access under the railroad pass and there's access to Maple Avenue, which is another arterial, traffic could travel in those directions and that's a reasonable way to look at fair share contribution, is the number of trips traveling in those directions.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Major Knudsen?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just have a question regarding the traffic and that particular signal at Franklin and Broad as it relates to the number of pedestrians having to cross there because the sidewalk ends at that ‑‑ I guess, the most western point just before the underpass on the north side of Franklin. So with the volume of ‑‑ where we believe nobody's driving and everybody's walking, and so the question is: How does that signal work for those pedestrians that have to cross the north side of Franklin to get to the south side because then they have to go back underneath the underpass to get to the train station?

  1. MR. FERANDA: The –

MAYOR KNUDSEN: How is that ‑‑ like in terms of just delay and the signal?

  1. MR. FERANDA: The new signal, the new signal design will have pedestrian actuation. That's a push button that the pedestrians push. And then that impacts the signal time, it's going to ‑‑ a pedestrian pushes the button, it calls to the controller and says time is needed for the pedestrians to cross. And then based on calculations on how far pedestrians have to cross, not necessarily the volume of pedestrians, but how far they have to cross the road, time is allotted for those pedestrians to get across that crosswalk, pedestrians who are waiting. Certainly, if they don't make it through that cycle they would have to wait for the next cycle. So there is maybe an inconvenience and a time issue, but the volume will pass across, it just may have to wait for the light to cycle through.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. And so then the next light is also then timed based on that pedestrian ‑‑

  1. MR. FERANDA: Pedestrian actuation.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ actuation?

  1. MR. FERANDA: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So the next light back that's timed the same, it also then timed to that pedestrian instance, is that ‑‑

  1. MR. FERANDA: The pedestrian crossing is not necessarily coordinated. The lights don't necessarily coordinate with pedestrian actuation. When a pedestrian pushes a button, that signal then says, "I have a pedestrian." That pedestrian has to get time to cross.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. All right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Carrie?

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: No questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Frances?

  1. MS. BARTO: No questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: You, in your report, said or had suggested, that there'd be a one‑quarter contribution to the ‑‑ to these actuated signals at that one in particular, I believe the one right outside of ‑‑ you know, on Franklin and ‑‑
  2. MR. FERANDA: The driveway.
  3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Yeah, correct. I'm wondering if there's any give or take with that at all? I mean, I think ‑‑ I'm wondering what we're looking at, if we're looking at three lights and four lights, you said those are ‑‑ as you mentioned, $3‑ to $400,00.00 per? We're looking at $1 million or more in traffic signals needed, and not just to this ‑‑ not just at the, you know, lay that at ‑‑ you know, we can have their pro ‑‑ their pro rata share of the fee. But I'm wondering if we're talking about this light really taking on more like a third, they're ‑‑ then ‑‑ or this development would really add somewhere closer to a third of the ‑‑ I mean, is there any give or take with that at all in your recommendation?
  4. MR. TUVEL: Andy, can I just say one thing before you answer?
  5. MS. McWILLIAMS, there's actually an ordinance in the Village that actually provides a formula ‑‑
  6. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
  7. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ for how the ‑‑ for how the off‑tract improvement relating to traffic and it's based on, I think, Andy said earlier, trip generation. So the formula already outlined in the ordinance, I think it's section 195. It sets forth the formula for that.
  8. MS. McWILLIAMS: And, yes, I think I read ‑‑ I read that in your comments ‑‑ in one of the summaries. All right. And my ‑‑ so I guess it's up ‑‑ it's up to that and you would base it ‑‑
  9. MR. FERANDA: What I might say is they agreed to the one‑quarter because of the ‑‑ my suggestion was that it's one‑quarter of the total cost. In all likelihood, if they agree to the one‑quarter, it's going to be the fourth leg of the intersection, you're going to get more from them agreeing to that than would be a fair share contribution from their trips generated by the driveway because there's a lot of volume that goes through the intersection. And if you have 1,000 trips going through the intersection and 20 trips coming from the site, it's going to be a small percentage of the total cost.

Whereas if you're getting 25 percent as the fourth leg to the intersection their driveway being the fourth leg, I think that will get you more than potentially a fair share contribution. And I believe ‑‑ I can't speak for the applicant ‑‑ but the function of that signal is critical to the operation of their ‑‑ their site and that may be why they agreed to that as part of the...

  1. MR. TUVEL: Whatever's legally required of us to upgrade that signal, we will do.
  2. MS. McWILLIAMS: That I gather when you agreed to it. But I'm more trying to gather where we go with, when we're going further down the road. And I guess my other questions really had to do with, you know, adding in traffic so that ‑‑ I mean do you see actuated signals moving this back to the other intersection or any of the ones that are secondary?

Again, I don't have the safety data that provided was from the Village's four studies done a year ago, that gentleman isn't here to ask questions of. But do you see the level of service going ‑‑ moving from C and D and E and whatever, you know, to anything above that with actuated signals on say, a Saturday when it was operating when it's operating at a level of service D? Are we improving that?

  1. MR. FERANDA: The traffic ‑‑ the traffic report provided by the applicant showed that the single timing changes as well as the actuation improvement to the signal will make improvement to the levels of service. Signals are not magic. They're not going to solve all the problems, but they will make it more efficient. And you will see an improvement.
  2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Even with additional cars added in? I'm ‑‑
  3. MR. FERANDA: Even with additional cars added in, based on the information provided, the retiming of the signal, there will be improvements.
  4. MS. McWILLIAMS: Beyond the level of C, level of service of C, say, at the daytimes? You couldn't guess?
  5. MR. FERANDA: They have in their report the improvements. I believe there was a level of service E that went to a D or a C and when I see that E is usually a poor level of service ‑‑
  6. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.
  7. MR. FERANDA: ‑‑ and if you can bring that back to a D or a C where it's getting in a good range, that is a good thing for the intersection.
  8. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. And the last question I have is about the pedestrian, questions that MAYOR KNUDSEN said about pedestrian crossings, these ‑‑ so these same signals and what is being placed there, are you confident that they improve pedestrian safety, for this ‑‑ for these intersections? We've had fatalities in the Chestnut/Franklin intersection and repeated incidents, you know, throughout there's a sun glare issue, I know coming down at certain times of day. You know, we're adding in a significant amount, hopefully, pedestrian traffic. So I really want to ensure that I have asked everything I can to ‑‑ if ‑‑ I feel like at that point I have put it out there as many times and in as many ways as I can. Is ‑‑ are we doing every single thing we can to improve the safety of pedestrians and while we're adding as many as we are?
  9. MR. FERANDA: My answer is: Yes, we're doing what we can. Will it be perfect? We can't solve an issue by a driver, the visibility issue, Franklin goes east/west and, yes, in the afternoon, I experienced it just today when I was driving, there's a lot of sun glare. Signals can be designed so that they can have back panels so that the signals are visible so that they don't blind with the sun glare in the background. The pedestrian crossing will be brought up to compliance, ADA complaint, and there will be appropriate signal heads so that drivers as well as pedestrians can see their signals will be large enough, and a bright message telling you to cross in the crosswalks.
  10. MS. McWILLIAMS: And even down at the Franklin/Chestnut one, not just up at the Broad.
  11. MR. FERANDA: Franklin and Chestnut is not a signalized ‑‑
  12. MS. McWILLIAMS: No, I know, but I'm ‑‑ you know, we're adding in certain ‑‑
  13. MR. FERANDA: Crosswalks and ‑‑
  14. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.
  15. MR. FERANDA: ‑‑ other pedestrian amenities. I believe that with the signals upstream and downstream coordinated, that will create gaps that a pedestrian will be able to use. It will help. Again, pedestrians crossing the street is never a perfect situation, especially if it's not at a signal. But refreshing the crosswalks and doing all you can to make a pedestrian visible even at crosswalks and the potentially giving them the time to do that movement by coordinating signals and green gaps in between, that certainly will help.
  16. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you for your professional opinion. I have to say for the record, I ‑‑ I think adding in more pedestrians and more traffic, but adding those things in sort of like wipes each other out ‑‑ wiping each other out in some way. I have concerns about it and what we're putting there. I take your professional opinion and I ‑‑ I have nothing, I can't argue, but I have to put it on the record that I have real concerns about the bulk of the building and additional traffic and additional pedestrians even with that improvement. I feel I need to say that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie.

  1. MS. PATIRE: Yeah. I just want to clarify something you said to answer MS. McWILLIAMS' question, where she was talking about level of service, and you said it would be improved. Those were at the specific intersections of Franklin and Broad, et cetera, but it did not address COUNCILMAN VOIGT's concern about if you're rushing me through this intersection and it's timed, it's wonderful. But if it's stopped or I'm heading west or east somewhere else, we're talking that specific intersection, I just want to clarify that for the record.
  2. MR. FERANDA: Yes.
  3. MS. PATIRE: Okay.
  4. MR. FERANDA: That intersection will ‑‑
  5. MS. PATIRE: Okay. And then ‑‑
  6. MR. FERANDA:  ‑‑ have better level of services.
  7. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ my ‑‑ my question to you is, this is a fun one, so it's like when if I go to the hairdresser and I tell him to do whatever he wants to do and he gets excited. If you could whiteboard this whole thing, right, there's no ‑‑ no pretty pictures, nothing's done. Where would you put the ingress and the egress to a project such as this on that corner?
  8. MR. FERANDA: I would definitely put one on the driveways at the signalized intersection because that's the safest way to handle traffic.
  9. MS. PATIRE: You're saying at Franklin and Broad that you're ‑‑ you're ‑‑
  10. MR. FERANDA: You're asking the safest way?
  11. MS. PATIRE: I'm asking you safest for pedestrians traffic on this site, if you would whiteboard the whole thing, where would you ‑‑
  12. MR. FERANDA: Uh‑huh.
  13. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ in your professional opinion, put ingress and egress on this site so there's no building drawn, for the safety of passengers, walk by traffic and cars.
  14. MR. FERANDA: That's an interesting question.
  15. MS. PATIRE: I thought you'd like that.
  16. MR. FERANDA: My answer would be very similar to what you see on the plan. I would push the driveways as far away from the intersection of Chestnut and Franklin. I would use the signalized intersection. Any time you have a signalized intersection available, you certainly want to use it because it's a controlled situation with a lot of traffic in and out of your driveway. The Chestnut Avenue driveway is pushed about as far away from the unsignalized intersection as they can get it, that helps bring it away any queueing that might occur at the stop sign. It's not perfect, as testimony was provided at the last hearing that queueing may still go past the driveway, but that's where their property has frontage. So they pushed it as far away as possible. I would not have just one driveway, so I can have two driveways, so what they've done seems to optimize access with this particular site.
  17. MS. PATIRE: So you would still keep, in your professional opinion, ingress and egress at the busiest intersection, if not one of the busiest intersections, in our town, coming from east to west, i.e., overpass, you would keep something there?
  18. MR. FERANDA: I would still keep it there, correct.
  19. MS. PATIRE: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

  1. MS. ALTANO: No questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have no questions either. Okay.

Does the applicant have any questions?

  1. MR. TUVEL: No. I don't have any questions for the traffic engineer.

I'll ‑‑ I guess I'll hold back my comments on the overall application which may include some traffic comments for my closing after I hear from the public.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Does the public have any questions for the traffic engineer?

State your name and address.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road. The underpass at Garber Square and the underpass is sort of a lifeline for the function of west side of town getting to the CBD, getting to the high school, getting to the fields. It's already constrained by the addition of a bike lane. One of the concerns I have here is you have ‑‑ you may have a substantial number of residents of the apartments turning left coming into ‑‑ if they're coming from Midland Park or coming back from the school, coming west to east, making a left turn into ‑‑ how would ‑‑ how would you handle that because they're going to be sitting there until all the east/west traffic comes backing this up even further, especially when you have the one lane? Have you given that any thought? Would there be a left‑turn signal? How would that be timed? How would that work?
  2. MR. FERANDA: Okay. Currently, there's two lanes. One lane is a right‑turn lane and the other lane is a through lane, which allows for ‑‑ currently, it allows for left turns to be made there. I ‑‑ I assume there's cars parked in the parking lot, that cars do make that occasionally right now. In the future, this development certainly will add some vehicles to that movement. If that becomes a problem, and I understand your concerns with the right‑turn lane, there's now one lane for through and left‑turn movements and if that vehicle is waiting to make a left turn, that blocks up all the through movements as well. There are ways to handle that through the signal phasing. You can delay the opposing movement to allow traffic to go, but that only works for so much it will allow the first few vehicles to go. It's not going to allow the fifth vehicle after the first vehicles go.

Potentially, if that becomes an issue, the left turns could be prohibited at that intersection and then they could be moved down to the Chestnut and Franklin intersection where, if they made a left, then they could get in the Chestnut ‑‑ or Chestnut Street driveway.

  1. MR. SLOMIN: Thank you. I just have an overall ‑‑ from an overall planning standpoint related to this question, based on some statements you made in your testimony, one of the things you said is it appears that some analyses have not been done as you move farther east from there.
  2. MR. FERANDA: I think that was the off‑site intersections. Quite of few intersections were discussed tonight beyond the site and the off‑site intersections are not typically studied as part of an applicant's traffic study. They would be responsible for the intersections in the immediate vicinity, at the frontage of the site, for a site that generates traffic such as this site. If it were a larger site, if it were 1 million square foot shopping center, then you would go further down. But with this site because of the traffic that they're generating, it dissipates as it goes out to the distant intersections and those intersections weren't studied that's part of this application, but I believe it was studied, as part of a traffic study, impact study that was done for the Village a year ago.
  3. MR. SLOMIN: Now nevertheless it seems like there's some changes related to this applicant since that study a year ago; is that correct?
  4. MR. FERANDA: Correct.
  5. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. So they were not necessarily part and parcel of that study a year ago because it wasn't anticipated?
  6. MR. FERANDA: I believe they did anticipate this development. I believe there were several different scenarios that were anticipated for this development, if I remember correctly, from reading that study. I would have to check.
  7. MR. SLOMIN: With the ingress and egress points as they are?
  8. MR. FERANDA: Yes. I believe that study was done for these residential developments that are coming in. I think there were four or five that were discussed and they were part of that impact study.
  9. MR. SLOMIN: You also said, you said, "I'm confident it will be safe based on," I guess, some standards.
  10. MR. FERANDA: Well ‑‑
  11. MR. SLOMIN: In reference to pass‑through traffic by the light there ‑‑
  12. MR. FERANDA: It will be as safe as a traffic signal can accommodate pedestrians. There's no guarantee. There's no guardrails or crosswalk for pedestrians to prevent a vehicle from hitting them. If you're out in the roadway as a pedestrian, you certainly follow the signal messages cross when it says to cross and don't cross when it says don't cross.
  13. MR. SLOMIN: So, I guess, per your testimony tonight, it appears from your responses to the questions, that some of ‑‑ a good amount of planning for this is still in the planning stage as far as how to handle the signals, what will be developed as far as the lights to be used, the timing. It's still in the discussion phase, I guess, what my question is, is ‑‑
  14. MR. TUVEL: I would just object to that statement. I don't think that was a correct ‑‑ I think that was a mischaracterization of what his testimony was. It may be what you believe, but that's not what he said. He didn't say that there was unresolved issues with respect to anything.
  15. MR. SLOMIN: I would say that that's what I heard tonight.
  16. MR. TUVEL: Okay. I'm just ‑‑ I don't think you accurately depicted what he said, that's all.
  17. MR. SLOMIN: I would disagree with you.
  18. MR. TUVEL: Okay. That's fine. That's fine.
  19. MR. SLOMIN: That it's an inaccurate depiction of what I heard.
  20. MR. TUVEL: Okay.
  1. MR. SLOMIN: Sir, I guess what I'm hearing is ‑‑ I didn't hear tonight a plan that is fully founded yet; that is a plan that I can visualize, listening to the statements tonight. I guess my question is, I guess my number one, am I wrong in that is everything fully flushed out and a well‑rounded plan for traffic going up and down Franklin, going through Garber, through Garber up West Ridgewood Avenue? If there is one, fine. If there is not, from a ‑‑ I guess a traffic engineering design and planning perspective, is it prudent for the planning board to base a decision on actuals of a more fully flushed out plan and should that plan be more fully flushed out first before we approve a building, approve egress and ingress, approve lights, before we know, okay, we really studied some of these intersections and may not have been studied yet. I'm looking at this from a reasonable planning standpoint. My question is from that standpoint, as a whole, starting at one end of town going to the other, I recognize ‑‑ as discussions about this, but this doesn't just impact Ridgewood, all of it impacts Ridgewood, so I guess my question is, it ‑‑ would it be prudent, before a decision is made, to have this more fully flushed out?
  2. MR. FERANDA: I think my response that you're referring to came from the off‑site intersection discussion that we had on Franklin Avenue where I mentioned a corridor study would be appropriate to figure out how to coordinate the different signals and make things work more efficiently. That can be said for many corridors, many traffic signals along the roadway. I --- the applicant has agreed to pay fair share contribution or contribute towards improvements that are directly impacted by the site. I ‑‑ that is the limit, I believe, of what can be asked for by a certain applicant. Should a bigger corridor study be done? I would think that's something the county would have to undertake and/or the Village in participation with it, to understand what the problems are and how to solve them. What the appropriate way to address it for this application, gets back to the fair share contribution.
  3. MR. SLOMIN: But, again, I guess, my ‑‑ going back to what COUNCILMAN VOIGT had said earlier that we have this light here, but what about the time ‑‑ how do the timing of these two lights impact and there was a discussion about it, and it wasn't a fully defined discussion. Yes, we can have ‑‑ we have to see what happens here and look at this. I'm not asking necessarily for a full ‑‑ a full corridor study, but this is not the application board. This is the planning board. And I guess that's where my question is: Do you rush into this and then get the traffic right after; or do you try and get the traffic right, slow it down a little bit, get the traffic right, and then look where we're at. And I don't know I'm asking the question, so...
  4. MR. FERANDA: In my opinion, we're looking at an application. I, myself, review an application. I'm not part of the planning process for the overall ‑‑ I can only focus on what this application involves. I can certainly give opinion when questions come up, but they are not based on my full knowledge and data collected and those other off‑site locations. So I don't know how much further I can comment on ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can I ask you one more question. So it seems to me that these two intersections that we can fix, is going to force us to fix three other intersections and it's going to cost us money to do that. And while the applicant can pay their fair share, it's going to probably be de minimis, we're going to be stuck with very large sums of money to fix three lights in order for this ‑‑ in order for this application to go through.

And that's what I'm concerned about and they ‑‑ you know, that's ‑‑ you know, a lot of money. And I just think as a ‑‑ I don't know what we can do as a planning ‑‑ I don't even know how that ‑‑ what we can do about this, Chris. I mean, I'm concerned from the Village's standpoint, all the money we're going to have to spend on traffic fixes, traffic light fixes, in order for this development to go forward. And I don't know ‑‑ I don't know when we can do about that.

  1. MR. MARTIN: It's a fair comment, Councilman. I think Andrew can answer the question as to based upon this application, and on‑tract issues. And that's an off‑tract issue, as a nexus to this application, that you feel comfortable with that requires improvement. I believe that's the question.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

  1. MR. MARTIN: I personally am not aware of ‑‑ I've heard of the traffic studies, I believe a member of the audience said it was a number of years. I believe that there's a greater question that MR. SLOMIN raises on the Village corner I view that as beyond us that's a county road issues outside the Village too. The question is: What relationship is that to this application because Mr. Voigt raises a good point. For these two improvements, is there going to be a domino effect based upon this application as to the necessity of other improvements, or is that something that is a greater study that is beyond the scope of this application?
  2. MR. FERANDA: When you say, "impact on the other intersections," are there necessarily safety impacts that will be ‑‑ there will be volume impacts. There will be more traffic traveling through. Will the safety change from the current conditions of those intersections further down? Probably not significantly, unless there is a substantial increase of pedestrians using the intersections off‑site four or five intersections down, that could necessitate, not necessarily vehicular volume, pedestrian volume, but I'm not sure how to account for that. I'm not sure if your master plan has the formula for accounting for pedestrian crossings of intersections. Typically, the fair share formula follows a vehicle volume to an intersection formula. As for the impact volume‑wise, would it be a slight increase in delay? There would be, but that happens with every development anywhere that it would slightly degrade upstream and downstream intersections. Usually, the improvements that are necessary and I'm focused on are in the proximity of a development.
  3. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Voigt, that might be an interesting segue into our last witness for the board which is the planner.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Can I ask just one more quick question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Just before we move on, very quick. I just want to clarify one thing he asked about the ingress coming from west to east at that ‑‑ where he just ‑‑ where it's just making a left at the underpass, making the left, and you said ‑‑ you said that he had re‑time or some signalization changes that could help with that. But, eventually, that does become a problem which I have ‑‑ I have to imagine it could get tricky. But ‑‑ so even without that stuff, some people move down Franklin and Chestnut to make the left to go then make the left into the development. That backs up. I mean, we're not talking more than ‑‑ what is it eight cars, six car lengths? I can sit there for six car lengths any day of the week, any time of day, for ‑‑ I don't know. I can sit there. So we're going to have people unable to make a left at Broad Street under the underpass, then they go down to make the left on Chestnut, that's going to be backed up and there's no light there. And you have a light at that intersection and then you've got people turning in and then you got the back up, the constant and continuous back up that exists on Chestnut already going to turn in and out of Chestnut, how do you ‑‑ you then get to a point where really, like, somebody coming from the west side cannot make a left anywhere.
  2. MR. FERANDA: Maybe I can help with this, in my experience as a consultant for other boards, some of the board's request that a traffic study be done after the development comes in. And I think in this case, because there are these questions and because there is some unknown, the potential is to go back and study that intersection after the improvements are made. And if there's additional mitigation that needs to be done, it could be done based on real impact at that intersection. A condition could be placed on the approval that says the traffic study be done at this intersection to determine how it's functioning. And if there are improvements that could be made at that point, that they be made by the applicant so that the signal will function as efficiently as possible.
  3. MR. MARTIN: It's fairly common in applications to have to look back, is what I call it, and you represent boards and applicants, I would imagine, yes?
  4. MR. FERANDA: Correct.
  5. MR. MARTIN: And MR. TUVEL is one of the tops in the state. And he's actually done this, so that's potentially something that we can do.
  6. MR. TUVEL: I think this is the quietest ‑‑ for the longest period of time, that I've been quiet at these meetings. We can't keep going down this road of a global discussion of traffic for the entire village. These are ‑‑ not only is this not a use variance, it's completely compliant as to all aspects of the site design. And I would just say, first of all, Franklin's a county road, so it's under county jurisdiction. So whatever we agree to may even be subject to further review by the county. That's number one. And number two is: We agreed to pay our legal pro rata share of any off‑tract improvements that are necessitated by law, but we can't take this project and fix every single light within the village because there's some trickle-down effect that everyone thinks may occur. All the ‑‑
  7. MR. MARTIN: I happen to agree. That's certainly not what I had in mind.
  8. MR. TUVEL: I just feel that's where we're going.
  9. MR. MARTIN: Just tie it to the application, the actual application, in close proximity. I wasn't talking about the other stuff that ‑‑
  10. MR. FERANDA: I think right now our discussion was that one intersection ‑‑
  11. MR. MARTIN: Yeah.
  12. MR. TUVEL: That's ‑‑ that's perfectly ‑‑ that's perfectly acceptable.
  13. MR. MARTIN: Okay. That's where I was going.
  14. MR. TUVEL: Okay. That's fine. I just think ‑‑
  15. MR. MARTIN: Maybe the board feels differently. But that's what I'm talking about.
  16. MR. TUVEL: Yeah, no, I was just saying as to the overall board some of the public discussion about we're getting, I believe, way ‑‑ no pun intended ‑‑ off track with respect to a lot of ‑‑ a lot of these ‑‑ a lot of these questions and comments. And I know that they may be important to the board and to the public and they might be ‑‑ some of them might be concerns that are legitimate. I don't know. But they're not germane to this application or the purview of the board under the law. Okay. That's all.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: MR. SLOMIN was asking questions. 

Were you done, MR. SLOMIN

  1. MR. MARTIN: You can take a minute if you'd like.
  2. MR. SLOMIN: I guess the last question is: Have you given thought to the movement of school children, you know, as far as this to get to Ridge School, which I assume would be the district that elementary pedestrians would have to cross Broad. You have to cross Franklin, Broad, Garber Square, just as far as safety. That's, you know, as far as putting your kid out the door and saying, "Have a nice walk to school." It's scary.
  3. MR. FERANDA: There are sidewalks. There's pedestrian provisions that would be improved, but as for the full path to the school by these residents, they would follow the path that current residents along Chestnut, I assume, would follow. I'm not sure how many would follow that path or be driven. I'm not sure.  
  4. MS. McWILLIAMS: If it helps, Dave, I asked this, because I think that they go to Ridge by a bus. I'm not sure if that ‑‑ if the development down there actually qualifies for busing, but the Oak Street apartments get bused. And I've asked where will the bus stop be. And I don't know that I've ever been given an answer, if it helps at all. So...
  5. MR. SLOMIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from the public have a question?

  1. MR. GLAZER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address?

  1. MR. GLAZER: Dana Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue. I'm ‑‑ I'm certainly not as well schooled as MR. SLOMIN is in terms of the issues here, but it was just ‑‑ it was just something I was sort of listening to, there was an expectation from ‑‑ from a previous statement about the amount of people who would be shopping and going forth from that development to the supermarket with groceries and coming back. Is that something that you have considered ‑‑ put into your consideration when the question being about how many people ‑‑ how much traffic, foot traffic, would be going up and down the street as it will impact traffic?
  2. MR. FERANDA: It is something that we considered and we did make recommendations for sidewalk improvements and certainly the signal improvements allow the appropriate time for pedestrians to cross at a signal certainly would help that condition. In a traffic opinion, it's ‑‑ it's never good to be crossing at a non‑signalized intersection. My recommendation would be all pedestrians pads when they can press the button and get across. But there are crosswalks available for pedestrians. There are a lot of pedestrians and that's a movement that' done at Chestnut and Franklin. So that the important thing to do is make the crosswalks and pedestrians as visible as possible. And we've made some recommendations to improve the handicap ramps and improve the ‑‑ to redo the striping in the roadway so that there's more visibility for those pedestrians.
  3. MR. GLAZER: That's good. I'm assuming you're very aware of the homicide ‑‑ not homicide I mean ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ from the car accidents and people have been hit in that area of asphalt. They have flags and everything. And I am very concerned about how this will impact, you know, pedestrians crossing the street there and, you know, is there ‑‑ in terms of ‑‑ this may have been answered already, but in terms of students going to the busses and such, is there ‑‑ would it be appropriate to have ‑‑ to hire crossing guards in certain areas just to make sure they're extra safe in that area or is that ‑‑ have you ‑‑ is that a part of this?
  4. MR. FERANDA: My understanding from reviewing those things is if there's a certain area where students are likely to cross in numbers, then typically they would have crossing guards of some form put at those locations so that they can manually assist traffic, assist with the pedestrians crossing the roadway.
  5. MR. GLAZER: And if that ‑‑ if that is needed, is that something that's on ‑‑ that's expected to be paid for by the city or is that something that can be ‑‑ that can be subsidized in some way by the developer because of the ‑‑
  6. MR. FERANDA: I'm not sure if that's a function of the board of ed or the ‑‑
  7. MR. GLAZER: Okay. All right. I was just wondering about traffic, that traffic, that's not in your ‑‑
  8. MS. McWILLIAMS: Dana, I had asked them that at a public meeting for all the developments and the same thing they would ‑‑
  9. MR. GLAZER: They would ‑‑
  10. MS. McWILLIAMS: Yeah.
  11. MR. GLAZER: Fair enough.
  12. MS. McWILLIAMS: That both the developments and these units they would bring in crossing guards.
  13. MR. GLAZER: Okay.

Thank you very much.

  1. MS. McWILLIAMS: That's all measured.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address.

  1. MS. LOVING: Ann Loving, 342 South Irving Street. You said that you would have those two traffic lights coordinated, just the two, right? But if a pedestrian pushes the signal so that they can activate so they can cross, does that immediately screw up the coordination of the other light?
  2. MR. FERANDA: It does for that cycle, but then it re‑syncs so that cycles after that ‑‑ the signals can handle getting back into sync with the other, after that one push button call had been made for the pedestrians.
  3. MS. LOVING: So if there's a lot of pedestrians, let's say, you know, all crossing to go to the train station at one of the busiest times of the morning or all crossing from the train station to go back to the development in the busy evening time, it's going to be possibly no coordination between those lights, because ‑‑
  4. MR. FERANDA: Correct. With every pedestrian call, the signal will accommodate a pedestrian and the pedestrian needs enough time to cross the street based on the street width and then the 3.5 feet per second that has to be allotted for each pedestrian to cross the crosswalk. So, yes, time has to be allotted for that and, yes, that will slow up traffic during those times when pedestrians are pushing the button.
  5. MS. LOVING: So really the coordination of the lights would be only working when no pedestrian's pushing the button. Otherwise, the backup that people have talked about going up around the bike lane is just possibly going to be much worse. I totally agree ‑‑
  6. MR. FERANDA: You can only have pedestrians or vehicles. You can't have them both working optimally. So, yes, it will hold up vehicles while pedestrians are crossing.
  7. MS. LOVING: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any further questions from the public?

  1. MR. MARTIN: MR. TUVEL, may I ask a clarification on your part?
  2. MR. TUVEL: Sure.
  3. MR. MARTIN: I think the only remaining professional for the board will be the planner. Just to get back to the village engineer and this is another, I believe, it's a softball type issue, but just to be clear, because I was looking back at my notes, if there's any increased capacity shown related to the particular project for sewer and/or water infrastructure, those things are generally paid for whether they be a single‑family developer, a single house, or a developer that would be something that the applicant would pay for in terms of requirements to upgrade pipe or ‑‑
  4. MR. TUVEL: You mean the things that are on the property would be the applicant's responsibility?
  5. MR. MARTIN: Well, not on the property but relating to capacity of sewer flow.
  6. MR. TUVEL: I would need to check, but, like, for example, if you connect to Bergen County Utilities Authority, there's usually ‑‑ or West Bergen Utilities. So my experience with them, I don't ‑‑ Chris, they don't have jurisdiction here. The Village has its own?
  7. MR. RUTISHAUSER: No, that is correct. We have our own wastewater facility.
  8. MR. TUVEL: Right. So my ‑‑ typically in those situations, what you would do is you would pay a connection fee based on your usage, you know, whether it be water gallons, sewage gallons, whatever that is.  
  9. MR. MARTIN: I'm ‑‑ I'm not asking this correctly. Ken Smith ‑‑
  10. MR. TUVEL: I'm sorry.
  11. MR. MARTIN: That's fine. Ken Smith ‑‑ it's my fault. Ken Smith probably had a large amount of cars on the property and they had a salesman or two, right, and maintenance people. In terms of this particular project, if there's a need for a greater capacity shown because of the individuals that are residing at the premises and use the 5500 square feet of commercial space, if there's a need to upgrade the pipe system, that will be something that the applicant ‑‑
  12. MR. TUVEL: That would actually apply with your ordinance of off‑tract improvements because I believe your off‑tract improvements, wouldn't only consider traffic, but it considers drainage, water, and other ‑‑ actually, I have the ordinance, but I believe it would fall under that specific pro rata share issue that we've been discussing, as it relates to traffic, it will also relate to any other utility that might be applicable.
  13. MR. MARTIN: I agree. Plus if there's a direct lateral to the property that would be 100 percent the responsibility of the developer.
  14. MR. TUVEL: Right. So, we would have to ‑‑ I think, what would happen ‑‑ and Chris could correct me if I'm wrong. We would have to come to the right‑of‑way where we would connect. So we would have to construct that and then connect to whatever utility was in the roadway. Am I wrong?
  15. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Almost right. The Village ordinance has the property owners' lateral, their responsibility to the main. Their responsibility does not stop at the right‑of‑way limit. It extends all the way to the "Y' in the main.
  16. MR. TUVEL: Okay.
  17. MR. MARTIN: And if there's a great surcharge in the main. How is that addressed in terms of a particular development issue?
  18. MR. RUTISHAUSER: That's something we would have to see how we go forward and discuss with a look at what the capacity is in the pipe currently and what their anticipated flow would be and whether it fits properly. And if there's improvements that need to be made, I would be looking for the developer for those improvements and have it as condition of any approval the board grants.
  19. MR. MARTIN: And I think that, generally, if the board is inclined to approve that would be something that I generally put in the resolution.
  20. MR. TUVEL: Yes.
  21. MR. MARTIN: That it would be the developer's responsibility, but we can talk ‑‑
  22. MR. TUVEL: Yes, Chris, I just checked the ordinance that I printed out on off‑tract so sewer ‑‑ sanitary sewer facilities and water supply are within the ordinance.
  23. MR. MARTIN: Just in case there's ‑‑ and I didn't know ‑‑
  24. MR. TUVEL: Correct. So if there's ‑‑ if there's a need for improvement based on our usage then we'd have to pay a pro rata share based on the ordinance.
  25. MR. MARTIN: Right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just wanted to ask Chris a question.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Sure.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And I know David Scheibner is here and, actually, he testified on behalf of the water department going back a few years ago. And it was something that was testified by Dave Scheibner back then that brings me kind of full circle to this discussion. Back then, there was a discussion about the 6‑inch, 8‑inch and 12‑inch capacity. And at the time when we discussed it, in order to take that 6‑inch capacity to bring it up to 12‑inch capacity, we would have to go through many other the properties to get that done; other properties, not just this street and property you're impacting. My question to you is, and this is new for me, I'm trying to understand this, how far would that ‑‑ what is the distance, the length of pipe potentially that would have to be upgraded?

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: At this very preliminary stage I'm looking for the length of pipe from Broad Street to Chestnut Street. I'd like to see what ‑‑ by analysis what the capacity ‑‑ the current capacity is and whether there's sufficient room for the anticipated flow generated by the development. Once we have those ‑‑ that information, we can see whether the pipe, the current pipe can accommodate their proposed discharge. Then we'll go a little bit further down the road to make sure we don't have any problems down the road or further down the pipe because it would make no sense to just fix a small segment and have a problem just further down ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So this is ‑‑ so this is the proverbial can of worms that potentially could just explode on everyone. If you have this ‑‑ from Broad Street to Chestnut and then you're not sure it's essentially down the road somewhere, who's obligated to that? When ‑‑ because at some point, it's the taxpayers that are addressing it. I mean, I ‑‑ I got to ask, you know ‑‑

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yeah. At some ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ it could be a big ‑‑ a lot of money.

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It can be. And it can be an obligation of the Village's taxpayers, correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So this is really concerning. So how do we know, in advance, the mapping of this infrastructure and what the potential impact, financial impact could be? Because I just have to tell you personally, my tax dollars, what I pay, I really don't want to have to pay for this. And I don't think anybody else wants to pay for it. I'd like to know the mapping on this and where's all the data and the information that tells us where we're going with this? 

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: What I'm referring to is I believe I wrote a memo on sewer capacity for the various multifamily housing developments.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I remember.

  1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I would want to refer to. Unfortunately, I don't have it committed to my memory.
  2. MR. TUVEL: The same issue would apply, as applies to the traffic statement that I made that when the Village considered these projects ‑‑ and I'm not just talking about this one ‑‑ traffic considerations as well as utility considerations were part of the ‑‑ were part of the analysis.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, we can call it part of the analysis, and I get it. And I know what the law is. And I know the ordinance was passed. Just for the record, it's not something I support because I don't even know that our due diligence was completed at that point. So I could tell you right at this moment, I'm not happy because it occurs to me that down the road ‑‑ it has nothing to do with your compliant application, I get it. But down the road, down the road, this is a problem for the taxpayers. And I'm not ‑‑ this is ‑‑ it only ‑‑ well, my memory has to go back to MR. SCHEIBNER' s testimony back then about having to go through other private properties in order to bring those pipes, the mains, up to the size and capacity required. And so, I'm not, you know, discussing this in context of the application. We're talking about the context of the impact of the Ridgewood ‑‑ the Village taxpayers, period.

  1. MR. MARTIN: Any easements that might be needed you would have to apply for.
  2. MR. TUVEL: Correct. That would be a very common condition of approval. If we need an easement from the municipality for some type of utility connection or something, or if the Village needs an easement for something, correct.
  3. MR. MARTIN: Chris, I know a little bit about this stuff. I'm sorry. Whatever the tie in is to a developer, okay, in terms of water and sewer infrastructure, that's kind of easy, that's on the developer. But once it gets to the main, then it would be ‑‑ if there's a change required there would be a pro rata share, I believe, that's defined under the law. I don't recall this particular memo. It was probably before my time.
  4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I believe it was, yes.
  5. MR. MARTIN: However, if hypothetically there were four developments in a zone and they all had unit's toilets and they were all flushing and they all required a surcharge on the system, whatever could be a nexus tied into that relationship for each of the four that would be a pro rata distribution of the value of that improvement, correct?
  6. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Very likely, yes.
  7. MR. TUVEL: Your ordinance, just as it does in traffic, it has a formula for how it's calculated.  
  8. MR. MARTIN: Quite frankly, Jason, it might be a little bit easier for me to understand than the traffic because I think this is not rocket science in terms of capacity and sewer flows and stuff like that. May I, before we go to the next, may I call for a brief break to speak with you briefly?
  9. MS. McWILLIAMS: Isabella has a question.
  10. MS. ALTANO: No, it's just a comment. If would be good if we could get an idea to find out how other municipalities have handled this particular case because developers go into towns all the time and, you know, build these structures that affect the infrastructure. And it's absolutely correct that it is a burden on the taxpayers. So I know in one particular case, one of the towns I worked on, the developer came in to build a police station and then they also put in ‑‑ well, they build a police station, if they could build, I believe it was in Edgewater, is there anything that this could be approved by the developers? I mean, how ‑‑ I'm curious to see how it's done ‑‑
  11. MR. TUVEL: I've actually worked on ‑‑
  12. MS. ALTANO: ‑‑ by other municipalities.
  13. MR. TUVEL: I've actually worked on much larger projects than this in terms of units and just area ‑‑
  14. MS. ALTANO: Yeah.
  15. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ and you ‑‑ the Village actually has a fairly detailed ordinance, compared to most municipalities, on how these types of issues are to be handled. So I actually think it's outlined extremely well, actually, in your ordinance on how to do it. But I understand the comment.
  16. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Blais.

Just briefly?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So we're going to go back on.

Michael, just call the roll.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?
  2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Here.
  3. MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?
  4. MR. SCHEIBNER: Here.
  5. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli ‑‑ Mr. Joel, rather.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?
  2. MS. ALTANO: Here.
  3. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?
  4. MS. PATIRE: Here.
  5. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. GIORDANO?
  6. MS. GIORDANO: Here.
  7. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. BARTO?
  8. MS. BARTO: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is there any interest in continuing on another date? This is getting kind of late. How does the board feel about that?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Honestly, I think that we can carry it to the earliest date possible and look at our calendars we can figure something that.

I think it's just entirely too late to continue this. This is very intense.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I understand.

How does the applicant feel?

  1. MR. TUVEL: I mean, the board is obviously going to do what it feels is in the best interest of the board. But what I said at the last meeting, is that we wanted to finish tonight. And I just feel like we went over a lot, the reason it took so long and the reason it is 11:40 is that we went over many, many extraneous issues that are now within the purview of the board. And there were a lot of questions asked by the public ‑‑ and I'm not saying it's anybody's fault ‑‑ questions that could have been asked at prior hearings when those experts testified on their specific field. So because of that and because of trying to be tolerant and respectful of everybody's opinions and questions, we're running late and the applicant just continues to have this process keep going. So what I would ask is: At the next hearing, we can't have this ‑‑ these filibuster‑type of issues and comments about the overall process of the Village and things of that nature because they're just not within the purview of the board. We have to focus on just the application because that's what this is all about. And I feel as though we got way off field and it wasn't right to the applicant. And I have to keep coming up here and objecting, and just ‑‑ it just doesn't make any sense and it's not productive.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Understood. I mean, we're sensitive to the applicant. We're sensitive to the public.

  1. MR. TUVEL: I understand.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So, you know, we hear you on that. But, you know, there is the other side for it. I mean the next would be the planner testifying for us and then it's kind of rounding‑the‑corner‑type thing. I mean, unfortunately, it got late. For other meetings, we didn't have much public participation on it. And it wasn't anticipated or by design.

  1. MR. TUVEL: It happens.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: But I guess the next date that we have ‑‑ Michael, I have the calendar here. Is that agenda very long?

  1. MR. CAFARELLI: No, but we're trying to get another applicant on that date. But we don't have them.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, because May's booked up, June 6th has an application on and June 20th.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah.

  1. MR. TUVEL: Can we do a special meeting on this one?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, how does the board feel for a special meeting? A special meeting will be for a date ‑‑ an off date from a meeting and, you know, depends on availability for this place and if it's not available, than it has to be at another venue. And usually the applicant would pay for that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I don't have a problem with getting a special meeting personally, but I think we would have to make sure that everyone else is available.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure. Is there a certain date you were looking for a special meeting?

  1. MR. MARTIN: Jason.

(Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion is held.)  

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just want to ask a question, this is for John is whether or not on the 16th we can do ‑‑

  1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So on May 16th is the Enclave property, so if we could start with this first and then we can hopefully finish it. And then we go into the Enclave.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you.

  1. MR. MARTIN: With no further notice, and no prejudice, I appreciate it.
  2. MR. TUVEL: Yes, so that would be May 16th, 7:30 in this room. No further notice will be given to the public.
  3. MR. MARTIN: And no prejudice to the board?
  4. MR. TUVEL: Right, correct.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Okay. Thank you.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for May 3, 2016 and May 17, 2016 were approved as written.

Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: March 20, 2018

  • Hits: 1671

COPYRIGHT © 2022 VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD

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

Feedback