Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20140819

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of August 19, 2014. For more detailed information, interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The following members were present: Ms. Bigos, Councilwoman Knudsen, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Joel, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, Ms. Peters, Mr. Thurston, Ms. Altano and Mr. Abdalla. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq., substituting for Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Mary Pat Porcelli, Recording Secretary. Mayor Aronsohn was absent.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board - There were no comments at this time.
Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics – There were no updates or reports at this time.
Correspondence received by the Board – Ms. Porcelli said there was none.
Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan – AH-2, B-3-R, C-R & C Zone Districts – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The next topic is the public hearing on the Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan, AH 2, B 3 R, C R and C Zone Districts.
And at the last meeting, I believe we had Mr. Currey from   
MS. RAZIN:  No, we had Mr. Jahr.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No?  Oh, Mr. Jahr first? 
MS. RAZIN:  No, I'm just saying he was at the last meeting. 
MS. RAZIN:  We're going to go with Mr. Currey first.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  So we have two elements:  One, we're going to continue with Mr. Jahr, the traffic engineer; but prior to that, we'll invite Mr. Currey back from the Open Space Committee to conclude with any comments that he might have and also to allow Mr. Bruinooge cross examination of his report. 
MR. CURREY:  Is this okay? 
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Currey, you were sworn in two meetings ago when you last spoke? 
MR. CURREY:  Correct.
RALPH CURREY, Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:
MS. RAZIN:  And your testimony will remain under oath this evening? 
MR. CURREY:  Correct.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you. I think Mr. Bruinooge might have stepped out for a moment.
Do you have anything you'd like to follow up on?  I know there were a couple of particular questions, one related to the population estimation, I think, that you made in your report that was marked into the record.  I'm sure Mr. Bruinooge may have a question, a particular question.  I don't know if you want to comment, but it might make sense for him to be here anyway, so...
MR. CURREY:  Okay.  I don't know if this microphone is on?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you    it's working.  Can you hear in the back, everyone?
MR. CURREY:  So we're waiting for, Mr. Bruinooge.  
MS. RAZIN:  Yes.  Let's wait momentarily.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
MR. CURREY:  Okay.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Apologize for the delay. 
MS. RAZIN:  No problem.
Mr. Bruinooge, we just reminded Mr. Currey that he's under oath.  And that there were some specific questions that you had, including, I believe relevant to the population estimation or the future population increase.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I have a number of questions.
MS. RAZIN:  I know you do.  I know that was one of the particular issues that was outstanding from the last meeting, so maybe Mr. Currey will address that first, and then you can proceed with the rest of your questions.
MR. CURREY:  I will just be happy to address his questions, whatever they are.
MS. RAZIN:  Great.
Q. So you'd prefer to just answer my questions; is that it? 
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Currey, for coming back; I appreciate your taking the time. 
How long have you been a member and/or chairman of the Open Space Committee? 
A. I've been a member of the Open Space Committee for 12 years, maybe 11.  I'm trying to remember exactly what it constituted, but 11 of 12 years.  Since the beginning of the Open Space Committee.
Q. Okay.  In 2014, July 10th, your committee, which I believe you're the chair of, issued a two page report with respect to the proposed Master Plan Amendment; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's what you testified to when you were here just about a month ago, I guess?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.  One of the recommendations in that report was a suggestion that the Board consider the use of pocket parks.  As I recall, you specifically made reference to a memo or a report prepared by someone at the Ramapo College with respect to that called "A Pocket Guide to Pocket Parks."
A. That was cited in a previous memo or statement that we had given.
Q. Was that the 2013 statement   
A. Yes.
Q.    of the Open Space Committee?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  Are you familiar with the property of my client, 257 East Ridgewood, that's at the corner of Maple and   
A. The Sealfons.
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes. 
Q. And the adjacent properties?
A. Yes.  There's the Hallmark Floors and the Brake O Rama.
Q. Well, we don't own Brake O Rama.
A. Okay. 
Q. Thank you.  The site, as you recall it from your personal experience, I mean, you're in the village and you're member and the chairman of the Open Space Committee, it's fully developed, is it not?
A. It's    well, except for the    for example, the parking lot, the Hallmark Floor Company.
Q. Yes. 
A. I don't    to tell you the truth, I don't know what's behind.  There's another lot behind the Hallmark Floors.
Q. The public park that's at the center of Ridgewood Central Business District, the Van Nests Park is what, two blocks away?  Is that a fair statement?
A. If you say so.
Q. Well, from Maple on Ridgewood Avenue, the Van Neste Park up the street is two blocks, two and a half blocks, three blocks?
A. Something like that.
Q. Is that, in your opinion, a proximate public open space that would be available to both the public and the residents of The Enclave, should such a building ever be built?
A. I think we made the recommendation for pocket parks as the way to:  A, provide additional open spaces in the Central Business District as a potential way of reducing density.
Q. Thank you, but that wasn't my question.
The question was is Van Neste Park, as a public open space, a public park, owned and operated or owned and available to the citizens of Ridgewood, is that one which, in your personal opinion based on your own experience, would you say that that open space is available to the public as well as residents of The Enclave, if it's ever built?
A. I think it depends how you define "proximate"; I mean, if you lived in a single family residence in Ridgewood and had to walk three blocks to get to your backyard, I think you would say that wasn't proximate.
Q. But we're not talking about single family houses in the Central Business District, are we?
A. Well, but the pocket park performs kind of somewhat the same function for residents and people   
Q. In fact   
A. Residents or people in the Central Business District, as open space does for people who have backyards.
Q. Okay.  You rely in your presentation or presentations to the community and to the Planning Board in particular on SCORP.  What is SCORP?
A. The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Q. And is it fair to say that you are familiar with it?
A. I was not the original author of the open space report, but I'm generally    I'm somewhat familiar with SCORP, yes.
Q. Have you read the SCORP report?
A. I have read some SCORPs; they're put out every five years.
Q. Have you read the most recent?
A. I have read the    I wouldn't say that I've read it page by page, but I have perused the most recent one.
Q. Does it or does it not form the basis of the reports that you have submitted to the Planning Board?
A. I don't think it forms the basis of the reports that we    our Open Space Plan, but:  A, I don't think it was published at the time we produced it; and, second, as I say, I can't testify as to personal knowledge because I was not the author of the open space report.
Q. Well, you're the chairman of the Open Space Committee, and you submitted two reports to this Board, and you cite to SCORP as a significant resource available to the Village, available to the residents of the State of New Jersey, published by the NJ DEP; isn't that correct? 
A. That's correct.  But there have been probably    I don't know the exact number, but there are multitude of SCORPs published since the late '60s or sometime in the '70s.
Q. Well, we're here in 2014, and the question is, have you read the most recent SCORP report published by DEP, NJ DEP?
A. I think I answered that I perused that report.
Q. Perused it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  SCORP refers to two separate methods to calculate open space and recreational land use, does it not?
A. It depends on SCORP you're referring to.
Q. I am referring to only one, the one most current published by NJ DEP. 
A. The most current one   
Q. The one that you perused, sir.  The most current one refers to only one method; is that your testimony?
A. That's what the SCORP says.
Q. That's what your testimony is, is that what you believe the SCORP says?
A. The most recent one, the 2008 to 2012 one, I believe it refers to one method.
Q. Okay.  As a matter of fact, doesn't your committee's report conclude that Ridgewood should have 115 acres of open space dedicated to active recreation?
A. That's what the report says.
Q. And isn't that, in fact, an opinion that you have formed and a recommendation that you have made based on your "perusal" of the SCORP report?
A. That's based on our understanding of the Balanced Land Use method, which is that 3 percent of the area, developed and developable area of the municipality, should be set aside for active recreation.
Q. Now, in order to come to that conclusion, that approximately 100    not approximately, that 115 acres, as your report states, is what the active recreation component of open space in Ridgewood should be, didn't you have to determine the total area of Ridgewood based on acreage?
A. Yes, we did. 
Q. And how did you do that?
A. Ridgewood is approximately six square miles; that's 3,840 acres.
Q. Isn't it a fact that the most current census report indicates that Ridgewood is in fact 5.75 square miles, not six? 
A. If you say so, sure.  If that's what the census report says, sure.
Q. Did you not look at the census report as part of your preparation of the reports that you submitted to the Board? 
A. I did not.
Q. I see.  Did you, in preparing the report and making the determination of 115 acres of dedicated active recreation open space, include all areas in the community?
A. We did include all areas.
Q. So you didn't exclude any particular areas, having looked at SCORP, perused it, as you say in coming into this conclusion that 115 acres is the right amount of open space?
A. That's correct. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Let me mark this for Identification.
THE COURT REPORTER:  Mr. Bruinooge, do you know what exhibit number you are up to? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Ms. Razin?
MS. RAZIN:  I believe it's E 6.  If it's not E 6 we will correct it, but it looks like it's E 6.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Thank you. (Whereupon, Document E 6, 2008 to 2012 SCORP Report, Pages 54 to 56, is received and marked as Exhibit for Identification.)
Q. I'm going to show you what has been identified for identification purposes only at this point as E 6, and I'm going to represent to the Board and to you that this document, which is with the cover sheet, four pages in length, and is a true copy of pages 54 through 56 of the SCORP report that you referred to as having perused. 
A. Okay.  Is this the 2008 to 2012 SCORP?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.  Okay. 
Q. Take a look, if you will, at    I believe it's the second page   
A. Uh huh.  Uh huh.
Q.    and it sets out the criteria, does it not? 
A. Correct.
Q. Would you mind reading the criteria to the Board?
A. For the Balanced Land Use? 
Q. Yes, the Balanced Land Use. 
A. For the municipal level? 
Q. The whole thing. 
A. Okay.  "Municipal level is 3 percent of the developed and developable area in the municipality; county level is 7 percent of the developed and developable area of the county.  Developable areas excludes acreage with slopes over 12 percent, wetlands, low density areas of pinelands, federal and state owned open space."
Q. So are you aware of any federal or state owned open space in Ridgewood?
A. No. 
Q. Are you aware that Ridgewood is not in a pinelands, as it's defined by state law?
A. I am    I feel very confident.
Q. I would agree that you're confident in that conclusion?
A. Correct.
Q. However, the other two points that were referenced in your recitation of the criteria are that in doing the SCORP calculation based on this density, two exclusions were required.  One, wetlands in the community. 
A. Uh huh.
Q. And two    what was the other one? 
A. Slopes over 12 percent.
Q. So when you concluded in your report that 115 acres of open space was required, can you please show me or present to the Board and tell me how you came to the conclusion of 115 acres, if you did not, in fact, exclude sloped areas with the slope of 12 percent of more, or wetlands that might exist in the community?
A. To my knowledge, we did not make that calculation.
Q. Would you agree, then, that your calculation is not, in fact, consistent with SKORP?
A. I think it's substantially consistent, but it's not entirely.
Q. I think the answers, as well as the document, speak for itself, your conclusion is without foundation.  You know it's interesting that you come forward and make a presentation, and I accept your dedication and your many years of experience in the community with this particular issue, but you're asking the Board to trust, it's their job and mine as an advocate for this particular client, to help verify the facts that you put before the Board.  And I suggest to you, sir, that your calculation is woefully inadequate. 
A. I would not agree with that.
Q. Well   
A. Even if we excluded 500 acres from    which I think it's quite generous, even if we did this calculation, that takes the acreage down to only 100, which still leaves a deficit of nearly 50 acres.  So I don't think   
Q. Well, let's   
A.    I don't think it's   
Q. Well, let's   
A.    it's woefully inadequate.
Q. Let's explore that a little bit.  You say that in calculating the suggested standard, that is to say the SCORP suggested standard, that excluding the two exclusions that are required according to SCORP, the 12 percent or more sloped areas and the wetlands, is insignificant; is that correct?
A. I believe it would be, yeah.  I mean, I actually    I mean, obviously I acknowledge we haven't done the calculation, but given that 500 acres would represent nearly 15 percent of the land area for Ridgewood, that's a fairly generous exclusion.
Q. All right.  Isn't it a fact that SCORP also goes further to say that these Balanced Land Use guidelines    which you may or may not have, and in my opinion, have not adhered to, as a means of calculating or estimating the amount of recreation land.  And I emphasize the word "recreation" land.  Is there anywhere in the SCORP report as you've read it, as you've perused it, any differentiation between active and passive recreation? 
A. As a matter of fact I spoke to someone in Green Acres    
Q. No, no, the question was   
A.    I spoke to the author   
Q. No, no, no, excuse me, please answer the question.
A. I spoke to the author of this report   
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Mr. Chairman, may I have the witness just answer the question.  
A.    and he confirmed that it was active recreation, intended to cover active recreational space.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Excuse me.  I'd like that stricken from the record as pure and utter hearsay.
MR. CURREY:  I don't think it says one or the other, whether they mean active or passive.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Currey, just answer Mr. Bruinooge's question.
Just repeat your question.
MS. RAZIN:  Please repeat the question.
Q. Mr. Currey, from your perusal of SKORP, is there any differentiation in the SCORP document, which you apparently relied upon, after your perusal of the record, whether it was accurate, complete or not, does SCORP differentiate between active and passive recreational opportunities in the report? 
A. It is not specific on that point to my knowledge.
Q. Okay.  That's an answer.  Thank you for the answer. 
Is it fair to say, from your perusal and reading of the SCORP report, that what SCORP is really seeking, under the Balanced Land Use guidelines, to speak of recreation lands?
A. The way we have interpreted that and the way others have interpreted that is to say it refers to active recreational use.
Q. Well, that's convenient, I think, for the conclusion that you would have the Board adopt as your opinion, an opinion based on what I'm uncertain.  But nonetheless, let me show you    here's the complete copy of the 2008 through 2012 statewide comprehensive recreation plan.  And I refer you to page 16    I think it's 16.  Hold on a second; new trifocals, having a difficult time adjusting.  Sorry. 
I believe that if you could take the time the read the entire page you'll be able to see that the report says, and I quote: "Both active and passive recreation activities are needed to satisfy the state's diverse and growing population." 
Now, is that a statement that you, as the chairman of the Open Space Committee, could agree with?
A. I would agree with that.
Q. Okay.  Would you agree that recreation takes many forms?
A. I would agree with that.
Q. Not all these recreational activities such as walking, bird watching, sitting and just enjoying the open space, are active per se; would you agree?
A. Correct.  Yeah. 
Q. And not all of these recreational activity are suited to playing fields? 
A. Correct.
Q. SCORP's Balanced Land Use guides don't really require, in my opinion, and I'm going to tell you that's my opinion, to have 114 acres of playing fields and playgrounds, does it? 
A. That is the way we interpreted the guidelines when we wrote our report. 
Q. Well, don't the guidelines speak of recreation land?
A. They do, yes; the Balanced Land Use means a way of estimating   
Q. But your   
A.    recreation land.
Q. I'm sorry.  But your report speaks to active recreational facilities such as softball fields?
A. That's correct.
Q. Isn't it a fact that Ridgewood actually has 88.02 acres of Village and Board of Education owned parks?
A. I believe that's the figure in our report, yes. 
Q. That's the figure in your 2010 report, which is reflected as well in '13 and '14?
A. Yes.  We haven't updated the report, but yes.
Q. Isn't it a fact that the playing fields, playgrounds, and the parks owned by the Village of Ridgewood and the Board of Ed total approximately 140 acres    actually, it's 139.72 acres.
A. That's what? 
Q. 139.72 acres of playing fields, playgrounds, and parks owned by the Board of Education and the Village in Ridgewood?
A. That's what our report says, correct.
Q. It's more than 3 percent of Ridgewood's land masses, if you exclude the wetlands and the slope, is it not? 
A. As I say, I haven't done that calculation, but I think that's probably correct. 
Q. I think it is correct.  And I would represent to the Board that if they do that calculation they'll see that the number comes out, it's less than 3 percent? 
Isn't it a fact as well that Ridgewood, within its boundaries, has or contained    pardon me    contains 52.65 acres of county owned parks as well as 1 acre of a county owned playgrounds?
A. I believe those are the numbers in our report.
Q. Are you aware of any prohibition, statutory or otherwise, that would prevent a citizen, resident of Ridgewood, from using the county parks or the county playground?
A. Nope.
Q. You chose to exclude county parks from calculating open space and recreational lands available to the citizens of Ridgewood; isn't that correct?
A. The Balanced Land Use guidelines are applied separately for the municipal land and county land.
Q. That's a matter of your interpretation?
A. That's what the State DEP told me so, and that's    I believe that's    it may be what it says, but they did tell me to apply it separately.
Q. Okay.  Your 2014 report also uses New Jersey Green Acres population method for calculating open space and recreational lands; true?
A. Correct.
Q. Based on that methodology, the Open Space Committee concluded that Ridgewood should have approximately 2 acres of playing fields, playgrounds, and parks; is that correct?
A. I believe that was our    what we    we adjusted that for school, I think the actual guideline is 1.5 acres.
Q. Okay.  So you've good the SCORP analysis, which you perused SCORP, and you chose to ignore the deductions or the exclusions, but beyond that    
A. And we didn't   
Q. Excuse me may I finish the question?
A. You know, first of all, you should understand we are a volunteer committee.  We don't have the professional staff to make    and we don't have any budget to make calculations. 
Q. And I recognize that and I respect that, and I respect your involvement. 
A. So we needed approximations.
Q. All right.  You're asking a board which takes an oath, when they sit in this board, to administer the law and to deal with the issue of Master Plan issues consistent with the Municipal Land Use Law.  And you have taken the time to prepare a report, and you've made conclusions and statements in the report.  But what I am pointing out to you is that the analysis and the logic and the use of the reports that you cite to, appear to be patently short of accomplishing your goal.
A. I don't agree with that because one thing that's very clear; if you read the SCORP, and you read any other    I mean, the main point of our memo is that population growth is a significant factor to take into account   
Q. Well, let's   
A.    in assessing the need for    and demand for open space.
Q. Let's take that   
A. And an increased population will or could increase demand for open space. 
Q. Okay.  Let's   
A. That's    that's the main part of our memo. 
Q. So in other words, Ridgewood should stop growing.  Ridgewood shouldn't invite any more people to live here   
A. No. No.
Q.    and, therefore, the open space resources   
A. They should    they should   
Q.    would be greater   
A. They should just, before taking steps to    that may lead to a growth in population, they need to consider the open space resources that would be available, not only to the new residents, but the additional demands that new residents will place on those that could affect the use by the existing residents. 
That's all we're saying. 
Q. As a matter of fact, what's available to Ridgewood now and will be available without any additional inclusion of additional open space is 193.37 acres    193.37 acres of both county and village owned playing fields, playgrounds, and parks.  That's a fact, is it not?
A. That is, I believe is    I think you're reading the number in our report, so if that's correct, that's correct.
Q. Thank you.  You've chose to make a differentiation between Ridgewood and other communities in the county by saying that Ridgewood has a higher percentage of school age children; isn't that so?
A. That's correct.
Q. As a matter of fact, I think you were questioned by Mr. Brancheau and perhaps others on the Board with respect to what you chose to describe, I believe, as a personal adjustment that you decided to make to those numbers?
A. I don't recall being questioned about that, but...
Q. I see.  Well, the record speaks for itself.  I know your professional background in terms of what's generally available online, but you're not a planner by professional standard, are you?
A. Not by any stretch.
Q. I didn't think so. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I have no further questions of the witness.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge. 
Are there any questions from the Board for Mr. Currey? 
MR. WELLS:  One follow up.
MR. WELLS:  I obviously concluded my cross examination at the last hearing    
MR. CURREY:  Excuse me, I forgot your name. 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
MR. CURREY:  Who do you represent? 
MR. WELLS:  My name is Thomas Wells; I represent 240 Associates they are developing The Chestnut Village Apartments.  I also represent Dayton Homes who is developing The Dayton project   
MR. CURREY:  That's the Brogan Cadillac site?
MR. WELLS:  Yes, it is.
MR. CURREY:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  I've rarely seen a witness so thoroughly discredited.  But    and I compliment my fellow counsel on that. 
Q. Just in terms of the presentation, there was one question that I left you, you had promised to get back, do you have the information that I asked you for?
A. I believe the question I had answered, and I am sorry I forgot    
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Mr. Bruinooge. 
MR. CURREY:  Bruinooge? 
A.    (continuing) I believe that I did check with    double checked with the State DEP.  So the person who I was told was responsible for the preparation of the SCORP, and he did confirm that the municipal requirements and the county requirements were calculated separately. 
Q. Okay.
A. I believe that was the question you asked.
Q. Well, no, actually there were a couple of questions, it was the actual acreage of county land, in particular the duck pond, Saddle River and so forth that was within the Village and you indicated it was 56 acres.
A. Well, it's 52 and change    
Q. Okay.
A.    it's what's in our report.
Q. Okay.  And I also asked you what was the amount of land that was in the right of way, the railroad, that runs through the Village?  You were going to get that information?
A. I am sorry.  I do not recall that you asked me that question, but I do apologize.  I mean I think that should be readily available from the tax maps of the Village.
Q. Well, the fact that you think it could be readily available it's less relevant than the fact that as a committee you didn't feel it was important because I intended when I asked you the question that as a long term resident of the Somerville School area that I used that   
A. You mean the    you mean the PSE&G right of way or the railroad right of way?
Q. Both the railroad right of way and the PSE&G   
A. I believe the PS    I have looked at that issue before, and I apologize; I don't recall you asking that question.  I believe the PSE&G right of way is approximately 17 acres in total.
Q. And the question was   
A. Because I mean I    I just knew that from recollection, because I do recall looking at that issue   
Q. Okay.  And   
A.    at some point in the past.
Q. And as Mr. Bruinooge has caused you to re think the numbers a little bit, what I had asked you to do was to come back this evening and tell us what the full acreage of open property, recreational property, in the right of ways and the county parks    just let me finish the question?
A. Yes, sure.
Q. County parks system and the school and Board of Education property, what was that?  What is that full acreage?
A. Well, it would not be appropriate in any Open Space Plan to include the right of way because that's private property.  And as you're well aware, when you approach that property, it says "No Trespassing".  It is not under the control of the government, whether municipal or county or state or otherwise.
So we would not count that in any way, shape or form. 
So the total municipal and the county acreage is in our report.
Q. I'm also aware having personally both ridden my bike and jogged on those areas hundreds of times with thousands of people that are there it's readily used all the time.
A. Well, we've recommended in our plan that the right of way be incorporated into the open space of   
Q. So I'm going back to the question  
A.    of Ridgewood.
Q.    and ask you to tell us what the full acreage, the full acreage in Ridgewood, of available land is for recreational purposes?  You    by my definition, which is everything that's open and being used?
A. Well, the    the total is    is in our report.
Q. No, I'd like to hear you say it.  Just tell me what the number is; that's what I asked you to do.
A. I guess I'd use the numbers cited by Mr. Bruinooge, 17  
Q. Does that include the right of way?
A. That is not include in the right of way.
Q. Okay.  So what would the number be?
A. If you add    I mean, as I said, I am just testifying from recollection.
Q. Well, just take a look at your papers; tell us the number.
A. I don't    I don't have the number for the right of way in my paperwork.
Q. I think you just said 17 acres?
A. I said I looked at that a long time ago, and my recollection is it's approximately 17 acres.  And that was just adding it up from the tax maps and the tax records.
Q. Well, okay, I would add to Mr. Bruinooge's comments compliments to you and your group for what you do because it is important.  But I would honestly say to you that the way that you have dealt with facts and the way you presented your report is clearly not fair or appropriate, and, quite frankly, not good evidence for this Board to take into account.  And we'll argue later on whether or not it's the right conclusion. 
But the problem I have is I don't feel that proper and appropriate facts and even the appropriate percentages have been presented to the Board.  And I think that's a problem with your testimony. 
Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Wells.
MS. RAZIN:  Ms. Knudsen has a question.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  Mr. Currey, I just wanted to ask, relative to the    all of this acreage you're speaking about, there's a certain percentage of this acreage that would be exclusive access to Ridgewood residents and then the balance of the acreage that would be accessible and open the others.  Some of the acreage that we're discussing was purchased through open    Green Acres, so that necessarily would be accessible to county, anyone within Bergen County; is that accurate?
MR. CURREY:  Well, depends if it was purchased with State Green Acres money, it's accessible to anyone in the State of New Jersey.  And I believe that Ellie Gruber, our secretary, testified at the prior hearing that all of the parkland becomes subject to that, if you accept Green Acres money for any part of it. 
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  So when you're doing your analysis of the amount of acreage recommended for the Village of Ridgewood, does the number change if some of the land is accessible to other county and/or state residents, and not necessarily exclusive to Village residents?  Does that change that number? So in other words, what Mr. Bruinooge is suggesting is that the duck pond be included in this number.  And so what I am wondering is if that duck pond were included, but it's open to county, state, it's everybody who chooses to go there, and anyone actually can use our parks as well, but necessarily it is Ridgewood property. 
So does that change that number at all, the ratios?
MR. CURREY:  To my knowledge, no.  It wouldn't    it wouldn't affect    it wouldn't your analysis of your need.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  So then why would you have excluded those from your   
MR. CURREY:  Well, as I said, there are separate criteria for municipally owned and  controlled property versus county, versus state; there are separate criteria there. So you would exclude    I mean, you don't exclude it necessarily from your overall assessment of what's needed, right? 
So, for example, the Ridgewood duck pond is a large    largely passive recreational space.  So in terms of assessing regional needs for that, you could take that into account. I mean, as a practical matter, you would take that into account.  In terms of applying any sort of standard, though, the standards are applied separately for municipal property versus county property. 
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  In terms of    would you just give me a couple of examples of the wetlands we're discussing?  Like, what would your   
MR. CURREY:  Well, Mr. Rutishauser would probably know better than I, about wetlands, you know, next to the HoHoKus Brook and possibly some other areas. 
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  But is some of that private property?
MR. CURREY:  Some of it is, I would think, private property.
MR. CURREY:  Okay. 
Are there any other follow up questions from the Board.
MS. DOCKRAY:  The SCORP    am I saying that correctly?
MR. CURREY:  Uh huh.
MS. DOCKRAY:  The SCORP report, that's not limit on what   
MR. CURREY:  No, that is a    that is a "minimum" requirement. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Minimum.
MR. CURREY:  It's not a limit; it's also not necessarily dispositive of what a community needs.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  So a community could say we would like more.  We would like a higher quality of life in terms of recreation, both active and passive, if it so chooses there's    it doesn't discourage that, I assume?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Not at all.  So we could make our decision   
MR. CURREY:  Right.
MS. DOCKRAY:     whatever way, that we so choose.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  So it's just a baseline minimum.
MR. CURREY:  Yes, it's a baseline.  The Balanced Land Use standard is the baseline.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you.
MS. PETERS:  This I'm just trying to be a little bit clearer on this.  If we   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Use the microphone. 
MS. PETERS:  I can project.  If we had had, if    okay.  There you go.  Thank you. 
If we add in the 17    I think Mr. Wells, did we determine there are approximately 17 acres or the equivalent for all of the right of way areas? 
MR. WELLS:  Well, that's his testimony.
MS. PETERS:  I'm sorry? 
MR. WELLS:  He testified, not me.
MR. CURREY:  I did not recalculate that number. 
MS. PETERS:  It's approximately 17 acres, so if we added the 17 to your overall number, how does that affect the overall picture, if we increase the acreage available by approximately 17 acres?  
MR. CURREY:  Well, we can use the 140 that's Ridgewood Village owned and Board of Ed and adding 17 acres will take it to 157. 
MS. PETERS:  Okay.  And what was the number that you said that Glen Rock had?
MR. CURREY:  According to their environmental resources report, they have 140 acres.
MS. PETERS:  Okay.
MR. CURREY:  Of borough owned and Board of Education owned recreational property.
MS. PETERS:  Okay.  And then they would have their right of way acreage on top of that number? 
MR. CURREY:  Yes.  We don't count that; as far as I know.
MS. PETERS:  Okay.  All right.
MR. CURREY:  That also does not get included in the county land. 
MS. PETERS:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Kevin, do you have any questions for Mr. Currey? 
MR. REILLY:  No.  Just to clarify one thing, there is a lot of heat in some of it cross examination.  These are guidelines, I take it, right?  
MR. CURREY:  Correct. 
MR. REILLY: You're asking us to give it the weight we deem appropriate to take into consideration to committee's   
MR. CURREY:  That's correct.
MR. REILLY:     the committee's recommendations.  There's nothing hard and fast required about these documents?
MR. CURREY:  No, it's up to the governing body of Ridgewood and the Planning Board to determine, you know, how much open space Ridgewood should have.  We're just advising; these are just guidelines, just recommendations.
MR. REILLY: Right.  You're making a recommendation; we take this into consideration, along with any number of things we are to take in consideration.
MR. CURREY:  Correct. 
MR. REILLY: Okay.  Thank you.  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Reilly. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Can I ask one other question? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  In terms of open space and parkland, this distribution of that land, is that a consideration as well?  You know, I think of myself, before Habernickel Park, I live on Alpine Terrace, there wasn't really a park I could walk to; and now we have Habernickel Park.  Is that   
MR. CURREY:  Well, absolutely, if you look at the    you know, the National Recreation and Park Association guidelines.  They have guidelines about, you know, your category of neighborhood, community parks, and those should be within a certain    I can't remember what it is    but within a certain distance of the population. So if you live if Ridgewood, you should have a neighborhood community park within a certain distance of where you live.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.
MR. CURREY:  Also, I mean, distribution is relevant, too, you know, because Bergen County has you know, a lot of    a fairly significant amount of open space, but obviously a big chunk of it is    is concentrated in Mahwah.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  Right.  Ramapo Mountain or whatever.  Yeah.  Right.
MR. CURREY:  Okay.  As a matter of fact, a very large chunk and the Meadowlands is another big chunk, so distribution   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  Okay.
MR. CURREY:  So distribution is   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Is a consideration.
MR. CURREY:     is relevant.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. THURSTON:  I have    you're finished with the fellow?
MR. THURSTON:  What is the relevance in excluding the county land to the city of    to the Village of Ridgewood and the use of the land? Because to me I don't care if it's owned by Ridgewood or the county of the state; what relevance in that    in the SCORP does the exclusion of that county land have?
MR. CURREY:  Well, I mean, the    I'm not    to tell the truth, I'm not quite sure I understand your question. I mean, in terms of the overall picture, I suppose if we apply municipal guidelines separate from the county guidelines, then, as I think Wendy pointed out, you know, the county is the    I mean if the county    even if the county land were evenly distributed, which it isn't.  But even if were evenly distributed, which I guess would be ideal to your point, according to the SCORP guidelines, 3 percent of the municipal area, developable area, should be set aside as municipal open space, and 7 percent of it should be set aside as county open space. 
But obviously the county, you know, is not evenly distributed among all of the municipalities of Bergen County, so...  I don't know if that answers your question, but, yes    and in terms of you and the Planning Board or the Village Council or anyone else, you know, assessing the need, right, I mean, if you, you know, live if Mahwah, for example, you may decide in terms of municipally owned passive recreational space we don't need a lot since we already have several thousand acres of county owned space.  So it's relevant to that    to the extent in terms of    because there's, I think, as Wendy or someone said, I mean, these are guidelines and they can have practicable reality, right?  Which is, you know, which elements of these guidelines are the most critical to address and which are less critical, right?  So in terms of making those determinations    other pieces of open space, even private lands, for example, in some towns, private open space facilities would be relevant.
MR. THURSTON:  Thank you.
MR. CURREY:  Does that answer your question? 
MR. THURSTON:  It does.  Thank you.
MR. CURREY:  Okay. 
MS. ALTANO:  I have a question.
MS. ALTANO:  Okay.  Well, did I understand correctly before that SCORP does not differentiate between active and passive, in terms of population? 
MR. CURREY:  It just uses the term "recreation lands". 
MS. ALTANO:  Right.  So then how do we differentiate, how do we find the right balance?  I know there are guidelines for that, and do we have a deficiency here in the Village as far as providing passive, which is a word I take the just walking, but walking is not passive, it's very active to me, and also what you consider active which is recreational and is included playgrounds as well in that; am I correct? 
MS. ALTANO:     you could walk into, and not just a playing field.  How do we differentiate, how do we find the right balance; I know there are guidelines for that.  And do we have the deficiency here in the Village, as far as providing passive, which is a medical word?  We would think that's just walking, it's not passive; it's very active to me.  And also, what is considered active, which is recreational activity?  You included playgrounds as well in active; am I correct.
MR. CURREY:  Right. 
MS. ALTANO:  So how do we find the correct balance?  What do we    you know how do we know    what is the guideline for that?
MR. CURREY:  Well, I mean, I think finding the right balance is clearly left for each community to decide within their, you know, within their own needs and desires and wants and fiscal restraints and other things to find what the right balance is.
MS. ALTANO:  But there are   
MR. CURREY:  I mean, there are certainly ideals; you know, there are    are publications that indicate what those ideals might be, and you could imagine what they might be as a neighborhood park or the playground within a certain walking distance to their house. 
But then you obviously run up against the reality of available open space, fiscal restraints, other things.
MS. ALTANO:  Right, but I believe the last time you    on July 13th, I think you gave us a percentage of what something    what we have as active and what we have as passive, what should be, I don't remember   
MR. CURREY:  I don't believe I did.
MS. ALTANO:  It wasn't a percentage but I think you mentioned about what is the guideline.
MR. CURREY:  No, I don't recall.  If I did, maybe it's in the record.
MS. ALTANO:  Then I can go back and check on that.  Yes.  I need to go back and check on that.
MR. CURREY:  If I did, I don't recall what it was.
MS. ALTANO:  All right.  Thank you.
Okay.  Any other questions? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No further questions.  Okay. Ralph, thank you.
MR. CURREY:  Okay.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And also thank you for the Open Space Committee, to all the members for their time and effort in preparing the report.
MR. CURREY:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you for coming back again tonight.
Okay.  The last meeting we also continued the cross examination with our traffic expert's report.  And also I believe there was some board members that will have some questions who were absent at that meeting. Katie, you can ask Mr. Jahr if he would be    that he's still under oath.
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Jahr, hi, you were sworn at the last meeting.  You remain under oath this evening. 
JOHN JAHR, 331 Newman Springs Road, Red Bank, New Jersey, having previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:
MS. RAZIN:  And I believe Wendy, Kevin, and Richard were the three absentee board members, if you have any questions. And then we were going to proceed to Mr. Bruinooge.  And Mr. Steinhagen advised that he just had a few questions.  So he'll proceed after that.  And then we'll be finished with Mr. Jahr for now, hopefully. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  We'll start with the Board.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, we'll start with the Board.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Richard, you have any questions? 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I reviewed the transcript and the exhibits, and thank you for your testimony, Mr. Jahr. I don't have any questions for you; it was very enlightening going through.  And I think my colleague asked a lot of good questions on it, so I really have nothing further to ask of you because I heard you in work session, and then I read this and it kind of reinforced things, and I went through it and it was very helpful. So I have no questions for you. 
MR. JAHR:  Thank you very much.
MR. REILLY:  We have a lot of information on this.  I have no questions either.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Well, I do.  And I    excuse me    I did read the report a couple of weeks ago and the transcript yesterday.  I have a few questions about the reports and then two questions based on your testimony. In estimated the parking requirements, the report qualified the area as urban, you mentioned "urban" a number of times. In fact, the Village may be also described as a suburban community.  In the resources you've used to estimate the parking requirements, was that distinction made, or is it just one number for multifamily housing? 
MR. JAHR:  Is this working?
MS. DOCKRAY:  No.  I can't hear you.
MR. JAHR:  Hello?  Now it works.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.  There it is.
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  For suburban or urban, there would be no difference from the ITE standpoint.  The ULI would have some slight differences between suburban and urban.  They would be lower numbers, depending on how I approached it. We took a conservative approach, so we would estimate the higher parking or I tried to estimate the highest parking demand possible, looking at each individual site.
MS. DOCKRAY:  So you    what would have been the suburban numbers, if that differentiation would be made?
MR. JAHR:  It was in the ULI codes.  Ultimately the ITE provided the more conservative or RSIS.  So you have a number of different    it's kind of a Chinese menu of parking, so to speak. 
I think that it's something that we have to carefully look at, and I think, ultimately, I will provide a solid recommendation with Blais together.  I think that the traffic parking recommendation and the planning parking recommendation need to come in the same.  So I think ultimately he and I will have to compare numbers, and we'll have to make some sort of recommendation to the Board as far as what parking should be required for each one of these sites.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Thank you. 
In one of the reports, in assessing the need for parking, you made reference to: 
"Off street parking is provided in spots available to the development." 
Can you comment on that a little bit further? 
MR. JAHR:  Well, that would mean there are many places for parking on their own individual property.  All right?  Off street; in other words, not on Village owned property, off street.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  But    off street    oh, so you weren't saying that people would park on the street.  You were saying   
MR. JAHR:  Absolutely not.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  So you didn't account for anyone parking on the street? 
MR. JAHR:  Right.  We are not allowing    we do not give them any credit for street parking in our analysis.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  Okay.  All right.  I'm sorry; I got that confused. 
Okay.  With reference to Chestnut Village and the walk to school, you mentioned the children crossing Franklin at Chestnut, and I know you know there's no light there.  And it's a highly problematic place to cross; it either turns east or west as you're coming towards the CBD from where Chestnut Village would be built. Did you study that intersection in your analysis?  I know you referenced it a couple of times, but did you take a close look at that one. 
MR. JAHR:  Which intersection? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Chestnut and Franklin.
MR. JAHR:  One second.  I'm looking in my notes here.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay. 
MR. JAHR:  Yes. 
Chestnut and Franklin was actually studied in The Dayton report provided by the developers, so Chestnut and Franklin is definitely one of our study locations.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  But you didn't    what did you find there?  I'm sorry; there are so many numbers and dates and    
MR. JAHR:  Chestnut and Franklin is a very challenging intersection, as is Oak.  We find that to be a very difficult place to navigate both for vehicles and for pedestrians.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.
MR. JAHR:  We think that improvements are necessary at all of the locations along Franklin. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  I have stopped driving, making a left going east out of Chestnut Street on Franklin because I found it way too hazardous.  I would worry terribly about children, adding children to that mix or any additional pedestrians to that mix without something being done there. 
Would you agree with that? 
MR. JAHR:  I am not sure I understand your question.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Oh, okay.  Meaning unless there's a light or some other improvements made at that intersection.
MR. JAHR:  What about a crossing guard? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  You know, I would have a problem with adding additional people or cars to that intersection.
MR. JAHR:  One would hope that the children would come down Chestnut and then proceed up Franklin to cross safely at Broad, where there's a traffic light. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  All right.  Okay.  Moving on.  There was a sentence in one of your reports that I didn't quite understand, but I    you mentioned that analysis of each individual proposed development within the CBD may not be beneficial to the developers or to the Village. Now, I can understand how it wouldn't be beneficial to the Village because we want to get the whole perspective of what's going on, but why would it not be beneficial to the developer? 
MR. JAHR:  Because for the same vein, if we focus    we focus just on one location and the next one over is the one that's failing or having unacceptable service, it's not going to work for the developer either.  You know, it doesn't matter    if we don't look as this wholistically, and look at more than just the one of two locations each developer looked at, I mean, my role was to look at the bigger picture.  Okay? If that affects the developers as well, because if the next light up backs up, it's going to back up to that one as well.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  The intersection of    I wrote these down two weeks ago; that's why I'm reading this. The intersection of Ridgewood and Maple will need to be traversed by children walking to Somerville and Ridgewood High School.  This is an intersection that has been a subject of pedestrian fatality, which I just find so incredible that we have any pedestrian fatalities here in Ridgewood, given the size. How much of that intersection can be improved to make sure pedestrians are safe; did you look at that? 
MR. JAHR:  No.  Our analysis at this point is not that specific. 
But I will state that the Village engineer is already working with the county at looking at both Maple and East Ridgewood and North Maple and Franklin it's on it    on the list that he's already had the Council adopt ordinance and it's currently on everyone's radar for improvements. 
As far as specific improvement that will fix those, this study did not go to that level.
MS. DOCKRAY:  It did not go to that level.  Okay.
Two more questions; these have to do with the testimony which I read.  In your testimony    this is a little bit of a complicated question, so... at least it's hard for me to express. In your testimony, you cited as an example the traffic that would result from the construction of the supermarket at The Dayton site as an example.  When you did this analysis, did you consider the secondary impact on traffic resulting from fewer shoppers at the other three supermarkets in town? Do you understand that question?
MR. JAHR:  No.  That would not be    that would not be a good practice. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Why is that? 
MR. JAHR:  The good practice would be to assume that all of them, all the other retail uses have their full traffic complement, and we would only add on top of that the additional traffic from our new use. If I try to    it would not be a conservative approach.  It would be    not being fair to    because it's very difficult to predict exactly how something like that would happen.  And it also would be unfair to the Village.  My analysis has to take special care to make certain that we're evaluating the highest traffic impact.  If I were to do traffic impact at the other sites, it may give me a false reading at the locations by this other    by the The Dayton.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right, but the problem we have here is you said the supermarket would generate more traffic than, you know, high density multifamily housing at the location.
MR. JAHR:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  When, in fact, there is some good probability that a certain percentage of that traffic will not be new traffic to the Village of Ridgewood; it will be traffic taken from another location, another supermarket. 
MR. JAHR:  But they're still going to be in our CBD.  They're still going to be downtown.  Whether they're two blocks away or they're at this particular location, they're still going to be in our downtown.  They're going to cause impacts within that area.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I mean, it is even possible that    I mean it may be a very small amount, in which case it would generate potentially less than the new residents, if it were a very small net new amount.
MR. JAHR:  I would find that that's a very, very large step to make that assumption.  There has never    in my experience, in over 27 years, I've never seen any type of a grocery store that would generate less traffic than a residential development. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Even in a town with three other supermarkets? 
MR. JAHR:  Yes, even in a town with many more supermarkets.  So, for example, okay, I analyzed the Pathmark in Edison.  Okay.  There are, within a 5 miles radius 14 supermarkets, okay, of various size and stature.  Okay?  Now, that study goes back some many years.  Okay?  Within less than a mile radius, there were five old supermarkets to that Pathmark; this is when we first came on board over 20 years ago.  Okay? The amount of traffic that's still generated there because of their location being so good on Route 1, they still had a tremendous amount of traffic. So if you're hinting that we put a    a supermarket would be a better use there, from a traffic standpoint, I couldn't agree with that.  I think that the    clearly, a lower traffic generator would be something not retail, or something not commercial. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  In total.
MR. JAHR:  What you do mean by "in total"?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Well, I mean, I look at it not only at the particular site, but I think about the total amount of traffic in the CBD.
MR. JAHR:  Yes.  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  And, you know, I am having difficulty, I'll think some more about it, you know, with the thought, well, we put a core supermarket and it's going to generate as much new traffic as if there was no supermarket in downtown Ridgewood, you know    
MR. JAHR:  No, that would not be a safe assumption.  It would clearly   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  I think there's got to probably be a middle ground there, but I don't know where to cut it.
MR. JAHR:  You do understand that    that we're doing an as of right analysis comparing what could be in one case or the other. So to try and drill this down to that level is nearly impossible.  All right?  I understand what you're saying, well, if you have two supermarkets two blocks from each other, you know, won't they both, you know, share some of the traffic. It makes common    I agree from a common sense perspective, if you have two supermarkets close to each other, they're going to share some of the traffic. However, they also could draw additional traffic from out of town and from other locations that you can't anticipate. So our analysis has to be, it has to say, okay, this is what it could do.  Remember, this is a what if analysis.  Okay?  And the supermarket is only one of the what ifs that I used.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yeah, I know that, but I just picked    I picked the supermarket because I know there's three here and, you know, I'm not going to go any further with this, but just    I'll move on to my next question.
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  I wanted to try to answer your questions, so I understand your concern.  And I wanted to give you some little level of comfort   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes, I know.
MR. JAHR:     that what I'm predicting or the analysis I'm giving you, you know, it does    you know, there is a good amount of validity to it.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  And then just relative to The Enclave, could you explain to me how a parking space is shared?  Just give me an example.
MR. JAHR:  A shared parking is, for example, when you have a residential development and a retail development.  And let's say the retail operates from ten in the morning to ten at night.  Okay?  And the residential is    you know, you know how residences work, you know, some people leave for work in the morning, sometime between six and nine in the morning, most people leave for work.  And most people come home between six and, you know, between six and nine at night.  Okay? In the case of The Enclave, they have mixed uses.  Okay? 
So, for example, if a parking spot    they have a number of parking spaces    and let's say a parking space is in the same pool of spaces that you're sharing with, say, a restaurant and a housing unit and, say, general retail, say maybe a five and dime or, you know, some similar type of small retail.  It is conceivable that after you leave for work in the morning, okay, that that space is now empty.  So let us say that a luncheonette's there.  And the luncheonette would use that sort during lunchtime.  It wouldn't be being used by the resident; he is off and about.  Okay.  Then in the evening, you know, let's say that the person comes home from work and, you know, now they fill their parking space.  So that space is no longer counted. But we have done studies that tell us when people come and go, when the retail needs it, when the restaurant needs it.  So we can predict, with a relatively high level of accuracy, when the spaces are going to be available for the different kinds of uses. So depending on the mix, we can have a pretty good prediction of when spaces are going to be empty. So, for example, we know that the space is going to be available in the morning for retail because it's a residential that was parked there.  We know that late at night, after ten o'clock at night, he's definitely going to be in that spot, because pretty much everybody's home from ten o'clock at night until six o'clock in the morning.
Does that help you to answer your question? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Sort of, but it makes me wonder if we need to think of about what the retail mix would be at that location, if we were to proceed with this, to make sure that, you know, that there wouldn't be any conflicts.
MR. JAHR:  That would be part of this.
MS. DOCKRAY:  But I'm also thinking in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, well, you know, the argument has been made that people here would take the bus or the train, so maybe those cars aren't going to go anywhere    
MR. JAHR:  Right.
MS. DOCKRAY:     as they would in another situation. 
So anyway, that's it.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you, Wendy. 
MS. PETERS:  Charles, I have one follow up. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Follow up questions; yes, Michele, please. 
MS. PETERS:  I'm so sorry.  I'm so sorry.
MS. PETERS:  There was a question that I forgot about    whatever, whatever    there was a question that I forgot about. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, use the microphone.
MS. PETERS:     at the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Use the microphone. 
MS. PETERS:  At the last meeting and, Katie, I think this is a site plan question, just let me know, okay, because I feel it's kind of like borderlines on it. Because I feel    I always have in my mind with rentals we have turnover of the tenants, and I haven't heard a discussion about the moving trucks that are going, and the impacts that that will have on traffic.  I know, in terms of each one of these developments, they're going to have to have that in mind in their site plans and making consideration for that, but how on these busy intersections is that going to impact traffic? 
MS. RAZIN:  To me, that probably gets closer to a site plan because then   
MS. PETERS:  That's what I   
MS. RAZIN:  Because if and when it ever gets to that point, each particular applicant would, again, have to go through some analysis, and I am sure we want to work with Mr. Jahr or whoever else on that too.  Unless you have a very short answer, to me that's    I mean certainly now it deals with them on the individual sites; I think is absolutely a site plan    
MS. PETERS:  Yeah.
MS. RAZIN:     because we're talking about truck movement. 
MS. PETERS:  Right. 
MS. RAZIN:  If there's a general statement you have about trucks moving through the intersections, generally, you could comment on it maybe.
MR. JAHR:  I would say that at this point, that detail of level of analysis is not where we are.
MS. RAZIN:  But I think truck deliveries certainly are going to be a relevant issue? 
MS. PETERS:  I'm talking about the moving in and the moving out    
MS. RAZIN:  I know.  I know.
MS. PETERS:     you know, which you have a greater turnover when you have renters and those are large trucks that are having to, you know, maneuver at these intersections, which will affect traffic. So it's something that I felt I missed from your report. 
MR. JAHR:  That was not covered in my report, and typically, this is a    this happens once in a year or once every two years or once every five years, so it's    other than the initial movement, which will probably be many movements at the same time, all right, which would be a measurable thing.  It's not really a measurable    the moving in and moving out, over the course of a year or a number of years, there's nothing we can really model or provide analysis for to the Board. 
MR. THURSTON:  As a follow up, let me ask, in that same context, would a shopping center have more truck movements than a multi family unit would? 
MR. JAHR:  Excellent question.  That I can measure because a shopping center will have trucks on a very regular basis every single day. 
MR. THURSTON:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Khidir, did you have any    were you finished?  I'm sorry.
Michele, were you finished? 
MS. PETERS:  Thank you.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Khidir, no further questions?  Great.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  John, I had one    is it on?  I had one last question, during the week necessarily, I've never had a problem at 10:00 a.m. on a Monday through Friday getting a parking space downtown. So I wondered how your shared parking analysis works on the busiest day of the week, Saturday, because    I don't know if it works on a Saturday because those people necessarily aren't leaving for work, coming and going.  And there are restaurants involved and retail space, so those parking spaces are not freed up for the purpose of those retail, perhaps office, or restaurant spaces.  So how does the shared parking work on the busiest day of the week, where we do have parking issues?
MR. JAHR:  And that is where they have to provide the most parking. So, in other words, their analysis indicates that Saturday, they    you know, they don't have spaces empty, so that's the number of spaces that they've provided.  Excellent question, that    ultimately, for that    that is really the most difficult of the developments to figure out. And as I explained to the Board in my report, Saturday is exactly that.  They do not have the benefit of very much shared parking credit, so that is the biggest demand, and that's the number of spaces they have to provide, and that's what they did.  They provided the maximum number of spaces required based on their analysis of the different retail they have, the proposed residential, and the ITE recommendations as far as, you know, what credit, which wasn't very much they could take.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  So on the parking that they provided, there was no exemption from the residential standard on that particular project?
MR. JAHR:  Well, the RSIS doesn't apply to that project because it's    because of the    basically because it's retail, residential, you know, it's a mixed use, the RSIS really doesn't really apply because it doesn't account for having this mixed use. So what they did is they used the ITE, which has an    I don't know if you noticed it in the report that there is like many, many, many pages, and it was just, you know, lots of those tables and charts and whatnot, and I had to go through and check them to make sure that the numbers were right.  And they used the, you know, literally an hour by hour analysis, all right?
MR. JAHR:  For every day of the week, including Saturday and Sunday, to come up with that magical, maximum number. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Susan.  Nancy? 
MS. BIGOS:  No more questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Blais?  Chris?  No questions? 
Okay.  At this time, I guess we'll continue with Mr. Bruinooge, and then Mr. Steinhagen will follow. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Q. Mr. Jahr, even though I wasn't present, but I've had an opportunity to take a look at the transcript as well as some notes taken by one of the attorneys from my office.  As I understand it, given your charges and your responsibilities to the Village, you examined not just the properties of the three petitioners who are seeking Amendment to the Master Plan, but you basically familiarized yourself with the Central Business District as well, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In answer to the question that I just had posed a few minutes ago, it seems as if you studied the traffic reports submitted by the experts with the    potential petitioners, I should say, that's what they are?
A. It's actually four because one petitioner has    has rescinded their application.
Q. And do I understand it, from looking the transcript, that you also did some number of independent traffic counts, traffic counts done by you at certain intersections, and I believe that was done as part of your overall analysis to check the accuracy of the information that you were reviewing?
A. Yes, sir, that's standard practice.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you have attended most, if not all, of the hearings conducted by the Planning Board with respect to these petitioners seeking Amendment to the Master Plan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you looked at the three    four sites, I guess    four reports, the four sites.  You just told me that you had some general understanding of the uses and the nature of the uses and the activities in the Central Business District.  You have some understanding of the traffic conditions at the various locations that are significant in this Central Business District.  You had your observations based on your attendance at the public hearings in the last year and a half or two, whatever it is.  Did all of that impact your choice as a professional, professional traffic engineer, in selecting certain permitted uses that I believe you described last month as realistic uses when you compared to residential proposed uses if the Amendments were granted to the as of right analysis? 
A. Yes.
Q. So based on your education, your training, your experience, and your familiarity with the Village of Ridgewood and its Central Business District, would you say that the permitted uses that you selected in your as of right analysis were representative of the Central Business District?
A. Yes, I would.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge. 
Mr. Steinhagen? 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Good evening, members of the Board.  For the record, my name is Dan Steinhagen, Beattie and Padavano, representing the Citizens for a Better Ridgewood. 
I wasn't here at the last meeting; I know Ira Weiner of our office questioned Mr. Jahr extensively, so if I ask    and I'm going to be brief, but if I ask any questions that Mr. Weiner delved into with detail, please let me know, and I will move on.  I don't to take up too much time. 

Q. Mr. Jahr, Board Member Dockray was asking you about    I think it was Board Member Dockray who asked you about parking particularly in    or the different methods of calculating parking; do you recall answering that?
A. Yes.
Q. You spoke about the Land Institute, ITE, Residential Site Improvement Standards; is that correct? 
A. Yes.
Q. And are any of those standards controlling in the State of New Jersey?
A. Well, it depends on the development.  If you have just a residential development, then RSIS is the guidance. 
However, RSIS has an awful lot of exceptions and variations to the rule.
Q. I understand that.  But the RSIS is the baseline, it's not the ITE; is that correct?  For residential projects?
A. Yes.
Q. So we're not    so a project should    the goal should be to comply with the RSIS in general, the ordinance    
A. When the RSIS applies, yes.
Q. Okay.  So would it be fair to say that it's not appropriate to make a recommendation that parking should comply with some other standards because the RSIS does control?
A. Well, in this case, there is a specific exemption in the RSIS for when you have, you know, in this condition we have a train station, you know, mass transit hub, which has a significant effect on how these developments will work.
Q. Well, we're not   
A. So RSIS actually provides in its text that a local study or local knowledge trumps their    the guidelines provided there.
Q. Sure.  But are you proposing that a recommendation be made that we comply with something other than RSIS as the baseline and then working off of that or are you using those numbers to say this is what we actually need?
A. If it's in the best interests of the Village of Ridgewood, I will definitely propose a different parking recommendation than RSIS, with the proper backup as required and dictated in RSIS.
Q. Would you conceptualize it then that the ordinance is going to recommend something other than RSIS, if an ordinance does eventually get adopted?
A. I can't say at this time, as the Village Planner and I have to decide on the appropriate recommendation for the entire CBD, the entire downtown with regard to this matter.
Q. Your reports, all three of them, identify that there is ongoing congestion throughout the day in the Central Business District; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it states that the cause of the queuing delays principally are limited roadway capacity and outdated signals?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that correct?
How do we go about fixing that?
A. That's a very, very big question to answer.  How about I'll give you the simple answer, okay?  Significant resources need to be applied to both pedestrian, bicycle and traffic improvements throughout the Village.
Q. And do you think that those improvements should be made?
A. Pardon me? 
Q. Do you think those improvements should be made if the opportunity is available to make them?
A. Definitely.
Q. So any recommendation that this Board makes in the Master Plan document, assuming it adopts one, should include those recommendations; is that your professional opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know which specific recommendations are appropriate?
A. No.  We're not at the stage where specific recommendations were    if you're saying specific recommendation, as far as adding a left turn lane at the intersection of Franklin and Oak, we're not at that stage.
Q. When do we do that?
A. That would be    that would be after the Village decides that they would like to go down this road, and they're going to make these changes, okay?  My recommendation to the Village is that they adopt a TID which includes a significant traffic impact study that goes the next steps past the study I have done now, and will actually refine right down to changing the timings by five seconds, adding lanes, widening sidewalks, narrowing sidewalks, all that would be done during the TID phase.
Q. Is there any reason why that TID phase or this process can't    or why those two processes can't be combined? 
A. The TID phase would have to happen at a later date.  It's extraordinarily expensive and would require a significant amount of resources from the Village.
Q. And is it possible that that TID phase could happen after a site plan application is filed and possibly approved for any one of the developments, should they be recommended and an ordinance be implemented?
A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Q. The question is, wouldn't it make sense to consider what roadway improvements are necessary before we do any    before any changes are made so that we ensure that the Village is adequately protected?  The reasonable way    let me restate the question. 
Can we make those recommendations now before any zoning is changed, so as to protect the Village from any potential negative or further negative impacts?
A. I'm completely confused; I'm sorry.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm not getting it.
Q. You said the process is expensive, time consuming.  We're in a time consuming and expensive process, is my understanding, I haven't been here every time.  Why do we have to do that process later, in your opinion?
A. Because unless there's changes made, why?  Why spend the money?  Why put the effort? 
Q. Wouldn't it make sense, then, to do it together?
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Jahr, I don't know    I mean, Blais is the author of the Master Plan at this point, so I am not sure if Mr. Jahr is going to comment on what Blais generally included or didn't include in    I mean, this is the plan before us right now, it may change.  But I don't think Mr. Jahr can opine as to why or why not Blais included something and didn't include something which is a huge undertaking in this particular plan.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  So    okay, I understand that.

Q. So it's your recommendation to put off figuring out exactly what traffic improvements are necessary for Ridgewood until a later date? 
A. Well, I've already given the Board a significant amount of testimony and reports on the overall existing traffic and future traffic conditions in town if something doesn't change. 
So there's been a significant amount of information given.  I don't see how it makes any difference when the TID process takes place.  I would think that it would make more sense for it to take place after the Village has found a way to fund it, either through the use of developers' monies or through the use of their own money.  For example, if they were going to develop some of these places into something, let's say, a public works garage.  Well, then they may need to look at that, you know, from that point of view, but until there's a reason to do it, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend all that money or put all that effort in.
Q. Have you explained to the Board or    because I haven't been here; I don't know.  Have you explained to the Board what the difference is between a TID and a general off tract improvement ordinance that's contained in the Village's land development ordinance?
A. No, I have not.
Q. What   
A. I have it; I have given significant testimony in the handout on the TID and how it works.
Q. Could you, just for my benefit, could you explain what the significance  
MS. RAZIN:  Go ahead.  Sorry.  Ask your next question.
Q. What are the salient points of a TID ordinance and how does it protect the Village?  Or excuse me a TID, how does it    how would it protect the Village more robustly than the general ordinance?
A. Okay.
MS. RAZIN:  Can I just    I mean   
MR. JAHR:  Well, I'll actually answer the question shortly.
MS. RAZIN:  I mean I don't know if that particular question goes to anything that he testified to, besides the fact that he said that a TID was generally appropriate.  He commented that that was going to be    that he recommended that be done.  I don't know; I am just saying I feel like we're stretching into areas that may have him opine as to things that he has not discussed in detail with Blais or Chris, and I just think that   
MR. STEINHAGEN:  The reason I'm asking is   
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, maybe we can get to what you're getting at.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  The Board is being asked    I'll speak into the mike.  The Board is being to make a significant recommendation to change the zoning.  The traffic expert has just indicated that he recommends that a significant study be done, and I want to know what that study is, what it potentially could lead to.  Why should the Village of Ridgewood implement the TID Ordinance? 
MS. RAZIN:  But the TID Ordinance is not before this Board at this particular time, so I think he's made a general recommendation.  I think, at a time when it's more appropriate he can elaborate on that.  But I think his testimony focused on the analysis of the CBD and the Amendment that is currently pending.  And he's made his recommendations; he made his statements.  I just    I don't    maybe...
MR. STEINHAGEN:  I understand.  I understand your point.
MS. PETERS:  Katie, I agree with you.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
MS. PETERS:  Because his testimony    his testimony is not about this.
Q. When you did a    when you did a Master Plan   
MS. PETERS:  His testimony is not about this.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Excuse me.
MS. PETERS:  I'm sorry. I agree with what Katie said because Mr. Jahr's testimony was really looking at what is being proposed to us.  And what he has stated is that when he is looking at the current uses is    correct me if I'm wrong, but what I heard was that our current uses in the commercial zone, out of all the choices in front of us and what we're currently permitted, what I am hearing from him is that the proposal of the multi family use would have less an impact on traffic than what is currently permitted in these zones. I do know that I spoke, and Charles commented, that if this is true and we're looking at what this    may be we should be discussing the current uses of the commercial zone.  That's a whole another question. But his testimony is going to that, the uses.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  I understand. 
MR. JAHR:  Agreed.
Q. Now, Mr.    forgive me, two or three more questions.  When you're    you're the Planning Board engineer or the traffic consultant for the Borough of Mahwah; is that correct? 
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Excuse me.  Montvale.  Excuse me.  
A. Yes, I am.
Q. When there was a Master Plan Amendment proposed about a year ago, did your office cite specifics intersections in connection with the Master Plan Amendment?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And you're not doing that here?
A. No, that    that was a    that's a different process in Montvale.
Q. I understand.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Steinhagen. 
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  Could I ask a question.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes. Mr. Steinhagen, just hold on. Katie, continue.
MS. RAZIN:  Susan wants to go first.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  Actually, no, it's not for you.  I just wanted to make a point to Michele's point.  You stated it's a commercial zone, and what's permitted in a commercial zone.  And, in fact, the property that we're discussing right now, The Enclave, is not in a commercial zone; it's actually   
MS. PETERS:  Right, a CBD.  Thank you for the correction.
COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN:  It's in a B 1/B 2 zone, so I don't want to have any kind of confusion over that.  It's a very different animal.  Thank you.
MS. PETERS:  Yes, thank you.  Thank you. 
MS. RAZIN:  I just have a couple of quick questions.
John, that statement that you did not conduct any analysis of particular intersections, you, in fact, did do particular analyses   
MR. JAHR:  Yes, we   
MS. RAZIN:     of multiple intersections throughout the Village. Understandably, that there are recommendations that are not specific at this point. 
MR. JAHR:  Yes.  We've done specific analysis and at this point I don't feel comfortable making specific recommendations until I know what the traffic's going to be.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  Right now, I can only go on assumptions, and that would not be in the Village's best interests.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  And going back to the RSIS, assuming that the RSIS applies, which you've indicated, and we all understand that it would apply in general, though not in all cases, for residentially developed properties.
MR. JAHR:  Yes.
MS. RAZIN:  That would likely or could be the recommendation contained in the Master Plan.  And if    
MR. JAHR:  The RSIS could end up being the recommendation that Blais and I provide to the Board for the ultimate parking solution.
MS. RAZIN:  And assuming that that were the case, if a particular developer wanted to seek an exception or a waiver from an RSIS standard, they would do so as part of their plan   
MR. JAHR:  Right.
MS. RAZIN:     it would not necessarily have to be included in a Master Plan because the Board would have to comply with whatever the state standards are. 
So if the state standard says RSIS applies, it applies in the Master Plan and each individual applicant could seek waivers.  Is that your general understanding?
MR. JAHR:  Yes, I agree. 
MS. RAZIN:  Based on things such as proximity to transit and other things that you mentioned? 
MR. JAHR:  Yes, I agree.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  I guess that's all I have for right now.
MR. WELLS:  I was going to recross, but Counsel did it for me.  Thank you.  I just wanted to make sure we were clear on what RSIS is.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. Wells.
Thank you, Mr. Jahr. 
It seems at this point, we're finished. 
MS. RAZIN:  I think so. Blais?  Do you have anything else?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Chris, questions? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  For the Board's clarification, where is RSIS codified in the state's statutes? 
MR. JAHR:  That's a question for the attorney. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Madam Attorney?
MS. RAZIN:  What are you     
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Regarding the RSIS, where is RSIS codified in the state's statutes? 
MS. RAZIN:  Under New Jersey Administrative code? State statute?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yeah.  Where is it? 
MS. RAZIN:  It's in the regulations.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  New Jersey State Administrative Code.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, Correct.  Right.  It's not in the statute, it's a regulation. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  I have nothing further.
MR. JAHR:  I have my book in the car. 
MS. RAZIN:  It's in the New Jersey Administrative Code.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, all right.  Great. Mr. Jahr, Thank you.
MR. JAHR:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes tonight's discussion with regard to Item Number 5. 
Let me just say that tonight's meeting, by the way, will be carried to September the 16th, which is a Tuesday. Will that be here in the high school? 
MS. RAZIN:  I don't know where.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We have to post the venue because I don't have that information.
Please note the posting for the venue because we do not have that information.
MS. RAZIN:  No. 
MR. WELLS:  Can I be heard on that point because I think it's relevant.  I happened to look at the letter from the escrow today, which came in today, it comes in on a regular basis and all the applicants pay the escrow for all the expert fees and included in that is the Board's charges for everything from police to the fire that are here, sound and so forth.  Probably better than $10,000 for these various meetings outside the meeting room.  And by my count for at least the last six meetings and definitely the last four, there has been no reason to be outside of the Village Hall. So I'm going to ask you to think about that a little bit.  I recognize there's always a risk that if you go to Village Hall, then a larger crowd would come.  And we might have a delay. But, you know, we're half a dozen meetings passed needing to do this.  It's inconvenient for everybody.  It's expensive.  And I don't understand why we keep meeting off site? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We actively think about that for each session, and we will again prior to the next meeting.  Please expect that we will do that. Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  That would be my request. 
The other thing that I was going to ask, I do note from communications from counsel that we perhaps will now have that long awaited cross examination of Ms. Bogert, but do we have other things planned that evening?
I also note we are still awaiting a legal memorandum from Counsel as well. 
MS. RAZIN:  Correct. 
MR. WELLS:  I'm just trying to   
MS. RAZIN:  I believe we anticipate it, and we will consider that request about returning to Village Hall.  I think we'll discuss it and likely we'll have to renotice because if the location is not set and our board secretary is not here at the moment, so... 
MR. WELLS:  Can I suggest that we notice tonight for Village Hall and then if you have to change it you can renotice. 
MS. RAZIN:  That's up to you.
(Whereupon, an off the record discussion is held.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All right.  Just to bring it to conclusion, we will call it for Village Hall for the 16th.
MS. RAZIN:  We will renotice as necessary if that location is changed.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  After we have a discussion about that. 
MR. WELLS:  And I know   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The thing is also, just so that you're aware, during the summer months, perhaps, you know, we're extra conservative, but coming back after Labor Day, we do need to take that into account, based on where we are.  So we will discuss that. 
MR. WELLS:  It's not just the summer, it's the months prior to that. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We'll conclude that, but... 
MR. WELLS:  It's been a long time since the numbers have been here. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Understood.  We will take that under consideration; it's a good point. 
MR. WELLS:  Again   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I'm not disagreeing with you, but we also had a circumstance where we didn't have enough room there as well    
MR. WELLS:  The Board   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     so we just want to make sure that we give the public ample opportunity to participate.
MR. WELLS:  Understood, and I would rather not see us hit a night where we overflow the room, and then we have    that makes everybody uncomfortable. 
MR. WELLS:  So that needs to be avoided, but doing this for an extended period of time outside of there is not the results here. So I wondered, again, we always    and my role three years into this process to talk about what we're doing to move to it a conclusion. 
I know Mr. Brancheau needs to testify.  The Board intends to have the public have an opportunity.  Are either of those things scheduled for the 16th? 
MS. RAZIN:  Ms. Bogert's testimony is   
MR. WELLS:  That's going to be   
MS. RAZIN:     scheduled for the 16th, assuming she's confirmed.
MR. WELLS:  But that’s going to be very short so.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes. And then the Board is intending to have some discussion on how to proceed with the    if there is going to be any changes to the Master Plan. And following that, although not that evening, Mr. Brancheau, I believe, will be testifying. It's my understanding is he's not planning on proceeding at that meeting, but will likely, I would imagine, would be    why are you shaking your head already I just said the following meeting, which would be    
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm agreeing.
MS. RAZIN:  Oh, fabulous. 
I would imagine the first meeting in October or so.  So we know that he is shortly testifying, but we would like    the Board would like to discuss some of the potential issues, and just make sure that everyone is on the same page.
MR. WELLS:  Well, I commented on another evening when you were here.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, I recall.
MR. WELLS:  Deliberations among the Board makes sense.  It’s just from where I sit, representing two of the applicants, in the process move to conclusion this is something that I'm going to have to fearlessly advocate for.
MS. RAZIN:  And following Mr. Brancheau, I believe the only thing left I believe was if any of your particular representatives want to do a closing piece.
MR. WELLS:  We did. 
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, then I   
MR. WELLS:  We had suggested that.
MS. RAZIN:  Then I don't believe there will be    and the public, beyond that, there should not be any other witnesses, so...
MR. WELLS:  Right, and the public, but in the case of my two applicants, both of them are going to want to give some testimony. 
MS. RAZIN:  Right.
MR. WELLS:  Then I will do a legal closing, and then I think we could conclude the conclusion of the process. 
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  Well, again, I apologize but that's my job to just move this along so thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Wells. 
MR. WELLS:  It's the middle of the summer but we'll all be here.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date.  Time noted 9:13 p.m.)
The hearing was carried to September 16, 2014 without further notice.

Resolution – Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H-Hospital Zone – Chairman Nalbantian announced that this matter will be carried to September 2.

Discussion re: 438 VanBuren Subdivision – Mr. Brancheau explained that several years ago this subdivision was approved by the Board and at that time a developer’s agreement was required. Mr. Brancheau and Mr. Rutishauser are recommending at this time that the requirement of a developer’s agreement be waived and the resolution be amended to delete that condition. The Board members had questions as to why the developer’s agreement was required at the time. Mr. Rutishauser described the subdivision and explained that there were no major issues that required a developer’s agreement. After Board discussion Chairman Nalbantian moved that the Board accept the recommendation from Mr. Brancheau and Mr. Rutishauser that developer’s agreement be deleted from the resolution, Mr. Joel seconded and the motion passed with six yes votes, two no votes and two abstentions.

Approval of Minutes – The minutes from January 29, 2014 and March 10, 2014 were adopted as drafted.

Lester Stable, 259 North Maple Avenue, Block 3209, Lot 1 – Proposed addition/renovation for the implementation of new bathrooms, multi-purpose room and storage area – Tom Wells, Esq., was present on this matter which he explained was before the Board for a courtesy review. Mr. Wells introduced the project and provided the history of the stable building. Mr. Wells said that the Bolger Foundation is the applicant here and that the Foundation is funding the project. Mr. Wells described the proposed addition. Mr. Wells said the property is in the flood plain and required DEP approval.


Board members expressed a concern that there may be a conflict of interest if the Bolger Foundation is funding the project while 240 Chestnut Street, LLC, is before the Board on a request for a master plan and zoning amendment involving 240 Chestnut Street. Mr. Wells explained that the Bolger Foundation and 240 Chestnut Street, LLC are separate entities. Ms. Razin explained that the Village had already accepted this gift and that they are here before the Board for a courtesy review only.

Peter Raymond Wells gave his qualifications as an architect. Mr. P. Wells described the proposed floor plans and façade elevations. Mr. P. Wells said that the plans were shown to the Historic Preservation Commission, who made suggestions that are reflected in the plans being reviewed by the Board.

The Board members had questions regarding the security measures for the bathrooms and other safety concerns which Mr. P. Wells addressed. The Board had concerns about issues with being in the flood plain.

Mr. Rutishauser described the site improvements which will be done in regards to the sidewalks, walkways and ADA compliance.

The Board requested Mr. Brancheau to draft a letter to Council recommending approval of the project.

There was a brief discussion regarding the September 2 agenda.

There was further discussion about the courtesy review for Lester Stable being done while the applicant is currently being heard by the Board regarding a proposed amendment to the master plan.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved:


  • Hits: 1480


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