Opposition Expert: Valley Expansion Will Adversely Impact Neighborhood

A group opposing a planned expansion by Valley Hospital that would nearly double the facility's size had its first opportunity to present testimony Monday night.

Peter Steck, a planning expert hired by members of Concerned Residents of Ridgewood, testified before the planning board and a packed auditorium at Benjamin Franklin Middle School that the proposal by Valley to amend the village’s master plan would negatively impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods and intensify use of the site well beyond the present facility.

Valley’s attorneys, challenging the qualifications of Steck, who has been accepted as an expert by the planning board in the past on planning matters, argued on several occasions that the opposition expert did not have the technical knowledge to testify on potential changes to the operations of the hospital.

Steck attempted to argue that increased floor space, even without a significant addition of beds, would increase the intensity of the facility’s use given trends in the healthcare industry toward more outpatient care.

“It’s conventional knowledge in the planning profession that just the bed count is not an [indicator] of the traffic impact,” Steck testified, over objections from Valley attorney Jonathan Drill.

Drill cited previous testimony by the hospital that found traffic around the facility would actually be lessened by the expansion and concurrent road upgrades proposed by Valley, to scoffs from hundreds of residents gathered in the room, who were repeatedly told by Planning Board Chairman Charles Nalbantian to refrain from outbursts and applause.

“We’re going to be moving the more intense uses offsite,” Drill said, referring to the hospital’s stated plan to relocate some outpatient procedures from the hospital to other health offices in the area.

Members of the public, as well as Steck, questioned whether the planning board would be able to enforce, through zoning ordinance, the hospital’s placement of less intense, traffic generating uses on the expanded site.

Village Planner Blais Brancheau noted that zoning ordinances regulate intensity of use in several ways, and the municipal code does specify permissible and prohibited uses within the village’s commercial zones.

Steck, however, argued that because zoning covers categories of use, it would be difficult if not impossible to legally favor certain high-traffic medical uses over others. Valley, he claimed, would be able to utilize its floor space for an array of medical procedures, and municipal planners would be hard pressed to enforce a mandate on low intensity medical practices on site.

In testimony to the board, the opposition planner also argued that renovations to the hospital, which abuts a school and is surrounded by residential zones, would have an adverse impact on residential life in the area, in what he called an “unusual” request to revise the master plan based on an applicant's proposal.

“This represents an improper balance of the hospital’s interests with the interests of the neighborhood,” he argued, urging the board that the master plan could be amended independent of consideration of Valley’s proposal.

Amending the master plan, he argued, would also increase the baseline development permissible under law at the site, and that Valley could come back for variances to expand beyond height and setback requirements adopted in a zoning change.

“If you adopt an amendment in accordance with what the applicant desires, and the governing body accepts the zone change, you’re upping the baseline,” he said.

Valley’s proposed expansion, which would increase its floor space to nearly a million square feet, nearly doubling its current size, is the second proposal to come before the board. The planning board approved a master plan amendment in 2010 that would have allowed slightly larger renovations to move forward, but it was voted down by the village council a year later.

Some officials appeared skeptical of Steck’s testimony, pointing to the already existing use on the site and other hospital renovations that have moved forward near residential areas.

Board member Cyril Grant said Steck’s “argument was flawed on various levels,” commenting that residents could not expect Valley to go indefinitely without upgrades.

“I think there is a middle line that both our residents and Valley can compromise on,” he said.

The board’s hospital planning expert, James May, also questioned Steck’s testimony, terming it “confusing” and challenging the opposition's premise that added floor space would translate into more intense uses of the site.

Steck maintained that the proposal represented a "one-sided" master plan amendment, and urged the board to consider a balance between the interests of the hospital and nearby residents in scaling back the expansion.

Continued testimony by CRR - originally scheduled for Tuesday - which will feature a presentation by Peter McKenna, the president of the group, and its land use attorney Michael Kates, has been scheduled for Oct. 22 at BF.