Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Whitey

Pages: 1 2 [3]
31
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Education/Charter Schools/Testing
« on: June 13, 2011, 06:25:24 PM »
This racist flyer is being distributed in certain areas of Hackensack..  Those involved should be ashamed and the rest of us should be disgusted.




32
Hackensack History / Re: E. Frederick Morrow
« on: October 05, 2010, 09:08:04 AM »
I told you it was worth reading.

33
Mr. Morrow wrote a book "Way Down South Up North" about growing up in the somewhat segregated community of Hackensack.  His sister was the first African American school teacher to obtain a teaching position in Hackensack (Nellie K. Parker).  Interesting reading if it is still in print.

34
Hackensack Discussion / Re: city employees
« on: August 16, 2010, 10:35:33 AM »
There is a State website

http://php.app.com/NJpublicemployees10/search.php

that lists all individual employees in the pension fund(s) as of 2009.  The total
on the list is 445.

35
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Circle Brake Broken
« on: May 25, 2010, 09:02:12 AM »
I believe that a bank will be built on the site.

36
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: May 11, 2010, 09:04:52 AM »
April 29 LTACH Highlights:

The meeting concentrated on traffic issues.  An attorney for objectors cross examined the applicant’s traffic expert.  One specific issue was the basis or foundation for the information used in the applicants study.  The expert testified that the basic information (number of employees, deliveries, etc.) was provided by the applicant who “had experience in the business”.  The attorney questioned this claim and the expert was forced to admit the applicant did not have experience with such a facility and he could not identify a stand alone LTACH from which to obtain operating information.  In addition, the attorney pointed out that the applicant also provided the basis information for the Prospect Heights facility and that wound up with little or no on site parking for employees.

The cross examination was put on hold so the Board’s traffic expert could testify.  His findings were that the applicant had underestimated the traffic and the parking requirements.  The highlight of the testimony was a computer generated traffic simulation which showed the traffic flow in the area (the four primary intersections) as the traffic lights changed to permit cars to move.  The simulation showed that under the present conditions, traffic on Summit Ave, for example, would back up from the light at Passaic Street past Berry almost to Golf.  Those who frequent the area know that this is now the case.

The hearing will continue on Thursday May 27 at 7:00 PM.  Traffic discussions will continue.  It appears that the hearings will continue until after the summer.


37
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: January 11, 2010, 11:21:04 AM »
The Board of Adjustment hearing on the LTACH was devoted to questions about the impact of traffic and parking.  The public questioned the applicant’s traffic expert and there were several issues of concern that were raised.

The traffic engineer testified that he was not able to find a comparable facility, LTACH, dialysis and adult day care all in one building, and that required information dealing with number of employees for each activity and their shifts, hours of operation for each facility as well as number of deliveries, vans, ambulances, etc was all provided by the applicant.  This raised concerns because the applicant’s facility, Prospect Heights, has significantly less parking than necessary and delivery vans have limited access to the building on Prospect Avenue.  There was also concern that Prospect Heights’ employees that now park off site will utilize the LTACH garage reducing the available parking.  The traffic engineer had not considered this anticipate problem.

The other major issue was the impact of the additional traffic on the existing situation on Summit and Prospect Avenues.  The engineer had never visited the site during the morning hours and was apparently unaware of the long lines of traffic at the traffic lights at the four controlled intersections studied.  The engineer was clearly of the opinion that there was so much traffic already on Summit and Prospect Avenues that the additional traffic projected from the new facility would have little impact.  Questions raised by Summit Avenue residents who testified there were times they could not exit their driveway because of the continuous line of cars in the street were not addressed.  The ability of delivery vans to access the LTACH were of concern to the residents on Prospect Avenue because it would require traffic to be stopped to allow the vans to enter the driveway.  Stopping traffic on Prospect Avenue, which is used by many emergency vehicles, was of no concern to the engineer.

The Board of Adjustments expects to have an additional traffic report by their traffic expert available for the next meeting in February.

38
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: October 07, 2009, 09:40:52 AM »
I think it is too late to review the traffic report before the October 15 meeting, even if it becomes available.  As the Board Chairman stated, this is a very important issue.  Since the applicant did not meet his commitment to a 2 week window, I would hope the Board will not accept testimony from the traffic expert at the next meeting.

39
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: April 16, 2009, 02:37:48 PM »
Highlights of Bergen Passaic LTAC April 15 hearing

The hearing was limited to testimony by the applicant, Mr. Richard Pineles and to questions from the zoning board and the audience.  The hearing ended at 10:30 PM and will be continued at a special meeting on May 14.  The first order of business is expected to be continued questioning of Mr. Pineles.  Some highlights from the meeting:

The proposed LTAC would occupy 12 stories and would accommodate 144 inpatient beds.  The applicant presented a certificate of need to the board.  It was noted that the certificate was for 72 beds and not for the 144 beds proposed.  This issue was not resolved.

The top 4 stories would house an 84 patient dialysis center.  The center would operate from 6:00 AM to 5:30 PM, 6 days per week and could handle about 250 patients a day.  Assuming that as many as 20-25 patients per day are residents of the LTAC facility, that leaves some 225 patients per day to be transported to the facility.  Logistics of the transportation have not yet been discussed in detail.

In addition to these activities, the facility would have a medical adult day care facility with a capacity of 250 clients at any time.  This program would operate from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, 6 days a week.  Logistics of the transportation of these clients remains to be discussed in detail.

The applicant indicated the facility would employee some 500 people, both on day and shift work and that these employees would be assigned to park in the on site 5-story below grade garage.  When questioned about employee parking at Prospect West (336 Prospect Ave), the applicant admitted that there was insufficient parking and that employees were required to park nearby on the street, but that would not be the case for this facility.

I encourage others to add their observations.

40
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: February 14, 2009, 11:24:49 AM »
I understand that this application will NOT be heard at the February 18 meeting of the Zoning Board.  There are other applications on the agenda to be heard.

Pages: 1 2 [3]