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 - Prospect Avenue Coalition

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12
46
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: October 26, 2011, 08:36:44 PM »
25835 We just arrived at the Special Meeting. Mr. Basralian has been and continues to cross examine Mr.Polyniak. The Zoning Board has just announced that Thursday December 8th at 7pm is to be the LAST meeting to hear this application.

47
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: October 24, 2011, 07:58:50 AM »
25736 We have a copy of a letter which requests that Mr. Richard Pineles be made available for renewed cross examination. This request stemming from Mr. Pineles' initial responses to a number of questions asked during previous Special Meetings which were deferred to his experts and were subsequently not answered by the expert.

During earlier Special Meetings several residents have asked the Zoning Board when they will receive responses to questions they had asked and were still unanswered.

Email: ProspectAvenueCoalition@yahoo.com if you would like to receive a copy of the letter.

REMINDER - WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 26, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

48
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: October 20, 2011, 08:25:24 AM »
25541 The next Special Meeting will focus on the testimony of the City of Hackensack's expert, Mr. Polyniak, which is excerpted in the prior post. The applicant's counsel will cross examine Mr. Polyniak's testimony. If there is time the public may be invited by the Zoning Board to question Mr. Polyniak. Even if residents are satisfied with Mr. Polyniak's testimony they should ask questions which may validate the testimony or support it.

REMINDER - WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 26, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

49
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: October 04, 2011, 05:04:56 AM »
24862 Previously our sources informed us that the last special meeting to hear testimony from the expert witnesses was to have been on July 26, 2011 and a decision would be made by the Hackensack Zoning Board with regard to the Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital application – to build or not to build. No decision was made on July 26th and a special meeting was scheduled for September 15th. At the end of the September 15th special meeting we asked the Zoning Board on which date the public would be invited to comment (no date set) and how many more meetings would be scheduled (at least 2).

SAVE THE DATE - WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 26, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

During the special meeting on September 15th the applicant’s traffic expert was again questioned by opposing counsel about whether or not any independent research was conducted or if the applicant’s traffic expert simply copied the report of another traffic expert or if any notes were taken during meetings with the applicant. This traffic testimony has been cross examined to the point where I wonder how useful it will be to anyone reading the transcripts.

For those of you who could not stay all the way thru to the end of the September 15th special meeting, you missed the reading of excellent report prepared by Mr. Polyniak (expert witness hired by the City of Hackensack). A copy of the September 15th transcript is attached.

Here is an excerpt from the transcript:

MR. POLYNIAK: For a use variance application such as this, one must look at both the positive criteria, or special reasons, and the negative criteria. There are three separate criteria to be applied as it relates to the positive criteria. One is that the use is a proposed inherently beneficial use, which the proposed Bergen LTACH facility presumptively satisfies for grant of the use variance. Although this proposed use does satisfy this criteria as an inherently beneficial use, there are still a series of questions that exist with the proposed use.

The first is related to first question is, is the use that's inherently beneficial, if a certificate of need has not been acquired for the total bed count requested for the LTACH component of this building, is the use considered inherently beneficial, still.

And another question is, with respect to it, should this proposal be considered three separate uses, which is in the LTACH, the adult daycare, and the dialysis, instead of one use, which the Applicant's looking at this application to be, when each use does function independently.

When considering the negative criteria, the granting of the use variance can only occur without substantial detriment to the public good and that will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Since the use has been established as inherently beneficial, the satisfaction of the negative criteria does not depend on the enhanced quality of proof, it instead depends on the balance of the negative and positive criteria.

And for this inherently beneficial use, the Board needs to look at the four- step test per the Sica case. And it must identify the public interest at stake. It must identify the detrimental effects that would ensue from the granting of the variance.

And the Board may reduce the detrimental effects by imposing reasonable conditions. And then the Board should weigh the positive and negative criteria and determine whether on the balance, the granting of the variance would cause substantial detriment to the public good.

When looking at the overall neighborhood, Summit Avenue contains mostly one-family residences having the requisite lot area and lot size.

Prospect Avenue is predominantly high rise residential with, again, the requisite living area and lot size. When considering the project as a whole, it's my opinion that the following detrimental effects are created through the implementation of the proposed LTACH use.

The first relates to the increase in traffic when you compare it to the permitted uses. And that was discussed and disclosed within Mr. Miskovich's report. Portions of the site are zoned, on the Prospect Avenue side, as high–density multi-family. The Summit Avenue portion of the site is zoned R-75, which is single-family with the permission of 30 percent being a building or professional use.

Traffic testimony has been provided, that there will be a significant increase in traffic as it relates to the roadway system, when comparing it to the permitted uses for the subject property.

There's an increase -- the second item is there's an increase in lengthening of the peak of the traffic on both Summit Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The testimony has been provided, by the Applicant's experts, that employee shifts will be timed to not coincide with the roadway system's peak hours. Although this is an attempt to create traffic -- to reduce the traffic issues onsite during the peak hour, the employee traffic patterns will actually negatively impact the site and the surrounding area during off-peak hours.
It can be said, when you look at overall traffic impacts, that they'll be lengthened, thereby increasing the lengths of time for the overall traffic impacts, and this creates quality-of–life issues for the entire neighborhood, specifically between 11 and 7 p. m., 11 p.m. and 7 p.m., at the shift -change hours.

There's an overall change in character of the neighborhood along Summit Avenue as a whole, along the frontage. When you look at this project, there's a creation of the passive park. Nowhere on Summit Avenue does a passive park exist.

When you look at the drop area and loop area along the frontage of Summit Avenue, nowhere along Summit Avenue is there a drop-off loop that exists for a building of this scale. When you look at the driveway/garage access to Summit Avenue along the frontage, nowhere along Summit Avenue does a below-grade garage exist which contains 413 parking spaces.

There's an overall change in character to the neighborhood with respect to the Prospect Street frontage.

Again, there's a creation of traffic and also impediments with respect to garage traffic and traffic with respect to the loading dock located on Prospect Street.

Again, the loading dock will create a situation, as the expert's testimony has stated, where traffic will be blocked on a highly-utilized roadway for a series of minutes.

In addition, with respect to the plans that were submitted for the traffic, as part of the site plan package, the W B-40 vehicle, which accesses this loading dock, is actually going to block traffic in the opposite lane traveling southbound and both northbound which is going to create sufficient and substantial traffic concerns with respect to vehicles traveling along Prospect.

There are also other series of safety issues that are created through the implementation of the proposed design. Again, the loading, the backing up of vehicles in and out of the loading area. The driveway from the garage on Summit's frontage has no notification that the access to the garage is not permitted by larger vehicles, other than a hanging block which extends deep into the site and deep into the garage area.

Should a larger vehicle turn into this garage area, a vehicle would need to back out onto Summit Avenue or make a multipoint turn within that exit driveway to exit the site, as stated by the Applicant's professionals. This too is a significant safety issue. The safety of the vehicle which cannot access from the Summit Avenue driveway is blocking it and other vehicles follow into the Summit Avenue driveway, there's going to be a significant safety and stacking issue that would occur at this driveway location.

It should be noted that the clearance, as designed, would create access issues for common SUV vehicles such as vans, such as Econoline vans, which exceed the height of 6 -foot 6- inches which is the height of the bollard system that's located along the frontage.

The Summit Avenue below-grade access drive and loop drive roadway, that are directly in front of the Summit Avenue frontage, conflict with one another entirely. If two vehicles are present at that location, sight distance issues will exist as you'll have two vehicles, located at the same location, attempting to make right-hand turns at that same location.

In addition, there's going to be conflicts with respect to those two vehicles, as with respect to the knowledge of who turns first and what safety issues would be created with respect to that knowledge of not understanding what movement and who to be making the movement at that point in time.

When you look at the garage with respect to the Prospect Avenue garage and access related to it, and the sloping o f the driveway, there are a series of concerns.

Although this isn't a Bergen County roadway, when you look at Summit Avenue as a whole, the application of design standards require a 50–foot section with two percent slope or less to provide adequate acceleration for vehicles that would be exiting that driveway and entering into the Summit Avenue roadway system. In addition, the driveways don't illustrate any vertical curves which would require reduction in slope so that vehicles wouldn't bottom out neither the top of either the garage and/or the lower area of the garage.

Added onto that, if one reviews the Urban Land Institute, the Dimensions of Parking, 4th Edition, speed ramps and non-parking ramps, which are the entrance drives off of Summit and also the entrance drive off of Prospect, that manual basically states that those ramps should be limited to 12 and-a-half percent slope at their max.

The Applicant's provided slopes which are 16 percent slope in those areas and that steep condition should be eliminated a s basically this manual states that 12 and-a-half percent slopes should be utilized.

When you look at the site as a whole, there are significant issues related to the overall development and its effects with respect to the surrounding neighborhood and to the above. There's a shadowing effect, with respect to the building, as it relates to both Summit and Prospect. It could affect adequate light and air and open space o f the buildings in the adjoining lots and the adjoining properties. There are issues with respect to lot area, lot width, height ratio with respect to front yard, rear yard, lot coverage, height ratio with respect to side yard and buffer zones, which all impinge on the adjoining properties.

When you look, again, at items that I discussed with respect to safety, what it does illustrate, and also these requested bulk variances, that the development scope and scale is just too large for the surrounding neighborhood, based upon these bulk variances, and that the site is too small to support this development as designed and that substantial change would be needed to eliminate these site safety conditions.

There's been significant testimony, by both Mr. Keller and Mr. Miskovich, as it relates to the overall parking. And it appears, with respect to some of the testimony and some of the answering with respect to questions that the public and some Board members have had, that there's discrepancies as it relates to the potential accuracy of the surveying information provided. The Applicant's traffic engineer assumed that the long-term care, acute care, dialysis and adult daycare facility, were comparable with the Prospect Heights facility. Questions were asked of the project owner to gather info, as it related to the report and the analysis and the calculations, and when you look at the two facilities, if this comparison is not valid, the entire analysis and all the assumptions that are provided, related to parking, fails.

The Applicant did not use similar ITE rates, which I'll discuss further, and they didn't use the Hackensack Zoning Ordinance, with respect to parking, to perform their analysis. A lot, again, of the testimony related to the Prospect Heights facility and assumptions that were utilized as their basis of design.

In previous testimony by the project owner, there was discussions that he had wished that the parking garage for the entire existing facility at Prospect Heights was larger, and then through further testimony, with respect to an adjoining parking lot, the statement was further that the Applicant was renting approximately 30 parking spaces from a synagogue in the vicinity of the building.

This, to me, illustrates that some of the assumptions that may have been made with respect to this facility, may not be applicable for this project as a whole.

MR. BASRALIAN: If this is a written report that he has, instead of reading it, why don't I get the report instead of reading it in? It seems that it's a prepared text, that's what he is utilizing.
If there's been a report that he was going to submit to this Board --
CHAIRMAN GUERRA: I'd like t o hear it.
MR. BASRALIAN: I'm not objecting to hearing it, because I do want to hear it, but if there's a written report, shouldn't I be entitled to it?
MR. MALAGIERE: He's put his notes in place, that he's reading from. There's no written report.
Your objection is on the record. The record is clear that you characterize it as reading from his prepared statement.
MR. BASRALIAN: That's what he's reading from. You can ask him.
CHAIRMAN GUERRA: He's going to continue to read. Mr. Basralian, sit down.
Thank you.

MR. BASRALIAN: I'd like a copy of it as part of the entirety.
MR. MALAGIERE: You're going t o get a transcript.
MR. BASRALIAN: But I'll make my objection on the record after he's done.
MR. MALAGIERE: You did.
CHAIRMAN GUERRA: Go ahead.

MR. POLYNIAK: Based upon the statement and the need of additional off-site parking, the question that needs to be asked is, how could the same analysis be utilized for the Bergen LTACH facility when a facility that has an insufficient amount of parking is being utilized for the design and analysis and it's been proven to be incorrect with the insufficiency of parking.

It's my opinion that the assumption inputted to determine the number of required parking spaces, based on review of this facility, are flawed.

When reviewing the Zone Plan and Master Plan, there's no reference to the medical use on the subject property. In particular, the site is not located within the healthcare services zone, which is bound by Prospect Avenue, Essex Street, Atlantic Street, Railroad Avenue, which would specifically permit this use.
The development as a whole, when you look at it, would substantially impair the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance. And a series of applicable goals and objectives, with respect to the Master Plan, are going to be violated. In addition, a series of general plethoras of the MLUL will also be violated as part of this project.

As a whole, the third prong of the criteria relates to reasonable conditions with respect to the proposed development. I testified to a series o f safety issues with respect to development. I'd like to discuss them a little bit further and I think that all of the safety issues that I've discussed should be considered to be eliminated a s part of this project.

Again, to go into them further, no vehicle should be permitted to back in or back out of the subject loading area. A new loading area, eliminating this condition, should be required as part of this development. We have heard testimony that other facilities in the area make the same backing out movement onto Prospect Avenue and that the number of vehicles is insignificant. This is really the only justification that we have heard throughout this proceeding, to permit this movement. This reasoning, in my opinion, is unacceptable when considering the safety aspects of the development.

To add on, with respect to some of the traffic engineer's testimony tonight, the Applicant's
traffic engineer could not think of a design, in his 30-year career, where a driveway of this type has been proposed or designed as part of any proposal that he' s looked at, reviewed and/or designed.

When looking a t the conflicts of the driveways on Summit Avenue, again, an entirely different access arrangement should be proposed.

Again, we have a condition where we have confusing traffic movement, sight visibility issues with respect to those two driveways, and a series of conflicts that create safety conditions at the driveway locations.
The driveways in those locations should be designed and/ or eliminated to limit those issues.

Again, as I testified, there are applicable manuals with respect to driveway sloping.
They haven't been utilized a s part of this application. We would recommend that those driveways be redesigned accordingly with respect t o the sloping of a 12 and- a- half percent sloped driveway.

Again, that could affect the headroom with respect to the driveway and could require substantial design changes with respect to the sloping of the parking garage.

We would also want to see the creation of that acceleration or flat spot along the top of the driveway when attempting to enter and exit the traffic flow on Prospect Avenue. Being that you will have single-unit or smaller truck vehicles accessing the driveway, having a truck exit the driveway underneath, on a slope over the 12 and-a–half percent, would create significant issues for a vehicle or truck exiting the driveway and entering the traffic flow pattern on Prospect Avenue.

Again, vertical curves should also be required on these driveways to eliminate any bottoming out of roadways -- of vehicles on these roadway systems and driveways.

Again, no access drives restricting traffic should be provided without sufficient notification. And that relates to the Summit Avenue access drive where we have high bars that would create situations where we could have stacking or queuing and no turnaround areas available for vehicles exiting and entering back onto Summit Avenue should they not be able to enter the driveway in this location. If this safe turnaround area isn't provided, again, we could have vehicles backing out onto Summit Avenue, which entirely is an unsafe condition.

In the end, as I mentioned prior, all these unsafe traffic movements must be accommodated through a site redesign and all these issues actually are created as part, again, of an overdevelopment of the site.
With respect to the quality-of–life issues concerning the development, it's my opinion that the building height and size and scope should be reduced to address the light and air issues with respect to open space and the violations of the height ratio and setback violations.

The parking spaces, in my opinion, should be increased to address offsite impacts with respect to parking onsite.

Again, the testimony has been provided that the leasing of parking spaces, of approximately 30, is occurring at the synagogue offsite.

Assumptions, with respect to surveys, when designing and analyzing the parking needs of the Prospect Heights facility, created this deficiency with respect to that facility. And the same assumptions, with respect to the design and development, have also been applied to the Bergen LTACH facility. And when you look at it with respect to the need to at least these parking spaces, it illustrates erroneous assumptions and surveys which potentially could create additional offsite parking issues with respect to the LTACH facility. This additional parking, that potentially could be needed for the Bergen LTACH, would further tax the neighborhood with respect to offsite parking and the potential, again, need for leasing of parking spaces for this facility at other locations. When looking at the parking demands of this facility, the Applicant should either look at and utilize the parking analysis with respect to the Hackensack Zoning Ordinance and/or the ITE rates which are very similar to those uses which are being applied for as part of this application.

When you look at the hospital use within the Bergen LTACH facility, and you look at the Hackensack Zoning Ordinance, 3.9 spaces are required per bed. With 120 beds being proposed, that's 468 parking spaces. When you look at the ITE rates for a hospital, at the 85th percentile, the ITE rates per parking generation require 4.92 parking spaces per bed. So, in actuality, when you look at the
Hackensack Zoning Ordinance compared to the ITE rates for hospital use, they're more restrictive and actually Hackensack is a little more liberal with respect to the parking spaces of a hospital onsite, which, again, is a very similar use when you look at the LTACH facility.

When you look at the Hackensack Zoning Ordinance with respect to the dialysis, there's nothing that compares to it, so what we have looked at is we have looked at it as an office use and in comparing it w e have also looked at ITE rates with respect to a medical /dental office use for the dialysis center.

In looking at that, a parking ratio of four spaces per 1,000 gross floor area square footage would create a need, for the square footage within the building, of 100 parking spaces.
When you look at ITE rates, again that medical/dental use, 4.27 parking spaces is required for the 85th percentile.

When you look at the medical daycare facility that's proposed or adult daycare facility that's proposed on the subject property, again there's no use that specifically is characterized within the Hackensack Zoning Ordinance.

What has been applied and what we feel is a similar use, with respect to the medical adult daycare facility, relates to a community center. And when applying that use, you look at the need for an additional 40 parking spaces. In comparing the two, looking at it, the total parking spaces that would be calculated would be 800 - - I mean 608 parking spaces being required when only 413 parking spaces are provided.

Using this analysis, potentially would eliminate any possibility for an on-street parking deficiency and onsite parking deficiency and the need for satisfying that deficiency somewhere else within the City.

It's our opinion that one of the conditions is that the Applicant should be required to reduce the overall size of the facility, to address the parking constraints as presented. Again, the site provides a new, below-grade garage with access points on Summit Avenue, with none existing along Summit Avenue. Garage access points shall be eliminated as they're a quality-of-life issue and again the safety conditions. The loop driveway should be eliminated and, again, the significant traffic impacts that occur, with respect to the subject property, should be reduced through the size and scale of the building.

To address these reasonable conditions, it's my opinion that the application presented would have to be dramatically revised and that there's the possibility that the facility could not be accommodated on the subject property without significant program revisions and without substantial reduction in the program entirely.

And it should be noted that all the safety and quality-of-life issues that are created are entirely due to the scope, scale, and intensity of the development. And that it's my opinion entirely, that the site is too small to accommodate all of these safety/ quality-of-life issues and parking issues for this development.

(Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excellent report.

50
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: September 13, 2011, 11:04:59 PM »
24148 Attached is the transcript from the July 26th Hackensack Zoning Board Special Meeting.

REMINDER - THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

The Hackensack Zoning Board has invited the public to comment on this application during the September 15th Special Meeting.

51
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: September 08, 2011, 01:51:12 AM »
23949 @ just watching, prospectavenuecoalition applauds your significant contributions in the area of community activism and wishes that everyone living in Hackensack would be so civic minded.

For over 2 years we have actively and continuously rallied, recruited and coaxed residents to go up to the mic to say at least “I oppose this application”. As you can see from the Zoning Board transcripts posted on this thread many members of prospectavenuecoalition have done their part by asking numerous questions and getting important testimony on the record. Many have stepped up to the mic, some repeatedly, to voice their opposition to this LTACH application but getting people to participate has been no easy task.

Initially, our primary goal was to pack the room and in this we succeeded. Our secondary purpose was to feed the queue during the public comment section and to direct residents to the media to get their quotes in the newspaper. As the special meetings seem to be never ending our refocused goal is to pack the room again so thus the revamped flyer created courtesy of a recruited resident. Seeing how you disagree with our tactics we have attached our standard flyer which does not recommend bringing reading materials.   

We hope that your post encourages more residents to step up to the mic to voice their opposition to this LTACH application.

REMINDER - THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

52
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: August 24, 2011, 09:29:19 PM »
23450 Attached is our revamped flyer.

SAVE THE DATE - THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

53
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: August 19, 2011, 08:26:14 AM »
23190 @just watching, the applicant may have the inherently beneficial card in the back pocket but this time there is no handful of of local residents testifying. We are hoping for a 0-7 vote in favor of Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital. And if we are successful in appeal court then perhaps the applicant can take the LTACH and build it in an area in Hackensack specifically zoned for this type of use. Thank you for your continued support.

SAVE THE DATE - THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

Attached is our new flyer.

54
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: August 14, 2011, 06:15:57 PM »
22982 ProspectAvenueCoalition would like to thank the residents of Hackensack (100+) for attending what we had hoped would have been the final Zoning Board Special Meeting re: Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital application. We were as disappointed as you that July 26th was not Decision Day. Through our sources we learned that the Zoning Board was ready to vote on the Pineles application in October 2010 and we had it on good authority that the Zoning Board was expected to vote on July 26th.
 
It appears that Mr. Stan Lacz, a highly experienced architect, engineer and planner, who was brought in to testify by Mr. Chris Ditkas (objector counsel retained by a Prospect Avenue resident) must have been such a credible expert witness that the applicant’s counsel needed to take another crack at either knocking down his testimony and/or his credentials. It seemed like both to me. I guess when you bring back an expert witness to cross examine you should try to avoid questions which open up issues that you do not want to go on the record like -- why the applicant had not already conducted geology testing at the proposed site or why the public has not yet heard the findings on the 300 Prospect Avenue garage collapse.

At the end of the Special Meeting on July 26th, no decision was made so the Zoning Board scheduled the next meeting date for Thursday September 15th at 7 pm and invited the public to come to comment on the Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital application. Comments from the public may be limited to 3 minutes per person depending on the queue.

One of the applicant’s expert(?) witnesses will return to the hot seat for more questioning. There will be a secret special rebuttal witness (Mr. Pineles). If Mr. Pineles gets up to the mic again this may be your last chance to tell the applicant what you think of the Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital.

In the end if the Zoning Board turns down this application and the applicant is not happy with the outcome the applicant may appeal the Zoning Board decision. The appeal judge who hears this case will look at all of the transcripts and read the expert witness testimony as well as the comments made by the public. If the public has no objection to the application then the judge may send the application back to the Zoning Board with instructions to build as was done with the Prospect Heights application.

Regarding Prospect Heights, a few weeks ago I met a nurse and thought to inquire as to whether or not nurses would welcome any new job opportunities that Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital might present and also asked if they were familiar with Prospect Heights in Hackensack or if they knew anyone who worked there. I was told that Prospect Heights is known as not a good place to work, should be avoided when seeking employment and the level of care there was not up to standard. Yikes.

Meeting flyer attached. Transcript from July 26th Special Meeting to follow.

SAVE THE DATE - THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AT 7 PM
CITY HALL 3RD FLOOR AUDITORIUM AT 65 CENTRAL AVENUE
BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

55
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: July 26, 2011, 07:04:20 PM »
22394 DECISION DAY

The Zoning Board Meeting was scheduled to start at 6:00 pm but did not begin until about 30 minutes ago. There are over 100 people here and they are still coming in.

Come to the 3rd floor auditorium at 65 Central Avenue.

56
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: July 24, 2011, 08:03:40 PM »
22323 Attached is a revamped flyer.

FINAL MEETING DATE - TUESDAY JULY 26, 2011 at 6 PM
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING
RE: BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION


57
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: July 10, 2011, 06:31:49 PM »
21933 The transcripts from the April 2009 and April 2010 Hackensack Zoning Board Special Meetings were attached in an earlier post dated May 21, 2011 and the December 2009 transcript was attached on January 27, 2010.

In 2009 the meetings began in April and there were no meetings scheduled in the months of August, October and November. Attached here are the remainder from 2009: May, June, July, September.

We have it on good authority that the Zoning Board will make its decision on July 26th as to whether or not to build this hospital on Summit and Prospect Avenues on a site zoned for residential and multi family dwellings. The meeting starts an hour earlier (6pm). Please come when you can.

FINAL MEETING DATE - TUESDAY JULY 26, 2011 at 6 PM
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING
RE: BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

58
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: June 28, 2011, 07:23:50 AM »
21584 THERE IS NO MEETING TONIGHT.

The JUNE 28, 2011 HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO TUESDAY JULY 26, 2011 AT 6 PM.


FINAL MEETING DATE - TUESDAY JULY 26, 2011 at 6 PM
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING
RE: BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION


59
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: June 26, 2011, 11:10:28 AM »
21543

FINAL MEETING DATE - TUESDAY JULY 26, 2011 at 6 PM
HACKENSACK ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING
RE: BERGEN PASSAIC LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL APPLICATION

60
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: June 12, 2011, 11:30:18 AM »
21227 My emphasis highlighted by bold red:

SeekingAlpha.com

Hackensack hospital sells hospice program

Tue May 10, 2011 10:57 am | about: AMED
NEWS PROVIDED BY: McClatchy

May 10--Hackensack University Medical Center has sold its hospice operation to a Louisiana company that had purchased the hospital's home health care program in 2009.

Amedisys Inc., which specializes in home health care and hospice services, announced the purchase of the hospital's eight-bed inpatient unit last week for an undisclosed sum.

The unit, housed in the top floor of the for-profit Prospect Heights Care Center on Prospect Avenue in Hackensack, will remain in the same location with its current staff, said Hackensack spokeswoman Nancy Radwin.

"This transition of care will proceed over a period of time and is subject to customary closing conditions and approvals," Radwin said.

The Baton Rouge firm has not determined whether it will expand the unit, said Jacqueline Chen Valencia, Amedisys' senior vice president of marketing.

"Providing high-quality patient care is one of our company's main operating tenets, and we are excited about the opportunity to extend our high-quality hospice service into New Jersey, said William F. Borne, Amedisys' chief executive officer.

"We have worked closely with HUMC since acquiring their home health operations in 2009 to provide patients a seamless transition of care from the hospital to home. We are eager to expand this relationship to hospice services," he said.

For-profit corporations have been acquiring hospice programs nationwide, said Donald Pendley, president of the New Jersey Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. In New Jersey, about one-third of the state's 58 hospice programs are operated by for-profit companies, he said.

"For-profits normally focus on patients in nursing homes while the non-profits deal a lot with patients still in their homes," Pendley said. "It doesn't really matter whether it's for-profit or non-profit running the program. What's important is that if the patient or family is not happy, they have a federal right to transfer to another hospice program and both programs are required to assist in the transition."

Hospital officials said the sale will not change the quality of care for patients.

"At HUMC, our focus is always on providing the most advanced, top-quality care possible to the people we serve, either directly or by partnering with providers who share our philosophy," said Dianne Aroh, executive vice president, chief nursing and patient care officer at HUMC. "We believe this vision is shared by Amedisys, and by completing this transaction and working together to streamline the transition of care to our patients, we will strengthen the end-of-life care being provided to our community."

E-mail: williamsb@northjersey.com
___
To see more of The Record or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.northjersey.com.
Copyright (c) 2011, The Record, Hackensack, N.J.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com, e-mail services@mctinfoservices.com, or call 866-280-5210 (outside the United States, call +1 312-222-4544)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12
anything