Category: Urbanization

Posted on

Dissatisfied residents begin to mobilize opposition to the proposed changes in the master plan

Village Council Special Public Meeting

November 16th 2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Resident dissatisfaction has been magnified by the Village council majority attempt to renege on the deal reached and voted for on the Speedometer 30th meeting . There was an outpouring of resident sentiment against the high density housing proposal on the evening of September 30th.

Out of the roughly 600 residents who packed the Village Hall only 5 spoke in favor of the proposal and all of them were either developers or friends of the developers.  The council was then forced to put off the predetermined approval vote . Michael and Susan supported the residents of Ridgewood who called for a VOTE NO to the proposal.

There are now serious trust issues being compounded by the failure to act on the Sept 30th vote and move forward with NEW comprehensive traffic, school and infrastructure studies along with a financial study.

Almost everyone who attended the September 30th meeting was satisfied that Paul, Gwenn, Michael and Susan had voted with the best interests of Ridgewood residents. Now however Paul and Gwenn appear to be reneging on their vote.

So residents all over of the Village have been talking , organizing, looking at options  to change the current direction of the Village and stop the urbanization and destruction of everything that makes Ridgewood so special.

Posted on

Ridgewood’s affordable housing obligations discussed

Projects_theridgewoodblog

NOVEMBER 10, 2015    LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2015, 9:51 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Affordable housing obligations have been a hot topic in municipalities all over New Jersey in the wake of the state Supreme Court’s decision in March to return jurisdiction in cases on affordable housing to the courts.

DSCF7229

photo by Boyd Loving

Like many other municipalities, Ridgewood is in the midst of litigation on the matter while attempting to clarify its exact affordable housing obligation.

The village is preparing a plan to submit to a judge by December on how it will meet its obligation.

DSCF7232

photo by Boyd Loving

Jeffrey Surenian, an attorney whose practice focuses exclusively on representing municipalities in affordable housing matters, gave a presentation at last Wednesday night’s Village Council meeting in order to shed some light on the issue.

The council was expected to discuss the issue further as part of its work session later in the meeting, but postponed talks as a public hearing pushed the start of the regular agenda past midnight.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/coah-guidelines-detailed-in-ridgewood-1.1452217

Posted on

Residents Dismayed over Village Council Attempt to Renege on High Density Housing Impact Studies

3 amigos

November 10,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, “We’ll see…” was Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s answer when asked about the the September 30th agreed to studies . The Mayor did at lest confirm his commitment to the Financial Impact Study.Residents felt betrayed and reminded the council that you cannot renege on any of the approved studies and maintain our trust.  Residents deserve and demand the comprehensive overlook you voted for before you consider any sweeping  changes to the Central Business District.

At the Monday night meeting several of the Council Members indicated that they could not recall exactly what they voted on, and “committed” to, on September 30th before an audience of hundreds of residents.  The video and Heather Mailander’s clarification of the motion immediately before the vote from the September 30th meeting set the record straight :

It is clear that ALL Councilmembers were fully aware of the motion put to the vote and  all parties were given the opportunity for further clarification, prior to the vote.

The Vote then occurred as follows:

Heather Mailander:  “So this is the amended version which we just read which is multiple studies.  Traffic and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study.  And it’s a comprehensive traffic study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village.  Correct?  Okay.  So that’s the motion on the floor.  Any more discussion?

Susan Knudsen:   “And that would be to table everything until this?”
Heather Mailander:  “Correct, correct.”

The vote, was then taken with the following result:

Hauck:  Yes
Knudson:  Yes
Pucciarelli:  No
Sedon:  Yes
Aronsohn:  Yes

It could not be clearer as to what the Council voted on. The council committed to multiple studies.  a comprehensive traffic study and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study. That’s now what residents require .

Residents clearly indicated that they need a better answer than,  “We’ll see.”  The High Density development issue is simply too big of an issue ,fundamentally changing the nature of the Village of Ridgewood forever.

Posted on

Ridgewood Planning Board Meeting tonight November 9 Reexamination of the Master Plan and development regulations

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

Planning Board Meeting – Cancelled November 17 – Scheduled November 9

PLANNING BOARD

AMENDMENT TO MEETING SCHEDULE

Cancelled: November 17, 2015, Public Meeting

Scheduled: Work Session & Special Public Meeting: Monday, November 9, 2015

In accordance with the provisions of the “Open Public Meetings Act,” please be advised that the Ridgewood Planning Board has scheduled a special public meeting and work session for Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the Annie Zusy Room on the ground floor at the Village Hall, at 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood. Formal action may or may not be taken. The meeting scheduled for November 17, 2015 has been cancelled.

The agenda for the meeting includes the following, subject to change:

1. An executive session to discuss pending litigation, beginning at 6:30 p.m. and concluding at approximately 7:30 p.m.

2. Continued discussion of the reexamination of the Master Plan and development regulations, pertaining to the topics of circulation and community facilities.

3. Discussion of the preparation of the housing element of the master plan.

4. Adoption of minutes.

With the exception of Executive Sessions, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work session meetings, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings which are always open to members of the general public.

Michael Cafarelli

Secretary to the Board

Posted on

Ridgewood Central Business District : Are these signs legal?

parking signs cbd

November 5th 2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ , Seen in front of the old Brogan Cadillac property on South Broad Street.  Looks like something you’d see at the Jersey Shore , Jersey City or Paterson  to us . Voting in favor of a new parking garage does not imply people are looking to turn the CBD into a “slum district”.
These signs are clearly out of keeping with the character of the Village , so lets leave Tito’s alone , stop playing favorites and focus on preserving the historic character of the Village .
DSCF4136
Nice to see the downtown littered with garbage .

Posted on

It’s with a healthy dose of skepticism that I’ll vote NO on Garage-zilla

godzilla

I can add one point/question – why do all of our major choices about development projects in Ridgewood come down to a yes or no on something that is just too big? Valley – needs to modernize, not double in size. Sealfons, Ken Smith and Brogan sites – need to be developed but not at triple the current density. Schedler Property – can be improved to serve the people of the village that owns it but without cutting all the trees down. Parking – we need to improve the parking situation in town but not with a multi-story structure that will be as big as the churches across the street and around the corner.

It seems that both the Planning Board and Council have failed to “get it”. Valley has been shot down on multiple occasions. The apartments are on hold because an angry mob showed up to shout the Council down before they could vote on it. The neighborhood east of 17 is resolved to vote any Council person out of office as they come up for re-election. And now this parking behemoth comes before us.

Our Council bears a healthy dose of the blame for all of this. In each case they appear to have made up their minds far in advance of finishing any impact or financial studies and even farther in advance of weighing public opinion. In addition there always seems to be some cozy relationship between one or more Council members and the applicant. Our Mayor is sending out personal appeals to vote “Yes” on the parking structure just as the (less than complete) “studies” are released. I always feel like the Council is rushing to get things pushed through and approved before the public has a chance to digest what’s being decided.

It’s with a healthy dose of skepticism that I’ll vote NO on Garage-zilla. Back to the drawing board folks – please present us with some smaller options.

Posted on

Ultimately CBR was holding our council responsible and paying a fortune out of pocket for what our elected officials should do as standard operating procedure

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

Clearly you are not aware of the backstory. If you were, I am sure you would understand that CBR had to pay a lawyer for almost 3 years to attend every meeting for every hour to represent their and ultimately our interests as residents. I am sure you understand how much lawyers charge per hour and the amount they bill when they are doing research aside from meetings. I am sure you realize they did fundraise but ultimately there is a big gap that they filled personally for years. How much did you contribute?

Ultimately CBR was holding our council responsible and paying a fortune out of pocket for what our elected officials should do as standard operating procedure. We are at the point now with the clock running out on this council. Hopefully residents are now paying attention and will be putting pressure on so the right studies are done and responsible decisions are made.

I assure you there is nothing beyond that. No promises of anything else.

Posted on

Why I’ll Just Say “No” to the Parking Garage

parking garage cbd
October 28,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, With the prospect of being out of State on Election day, I mailed my absentee ballot in so that my voice will be heard on the parking garage “referendum” question. My vote was a resounding NO for some very obvious reasons.

–        The property is not suitable for such a large structure

–        Cost overruns are inevitable

–        On street parking rates will escalate to $1.00 per hour and enforcement will be until 9PM

–        Cost of meter enforcement is drastically understated

–        A single structure at the west end of the business district will not relieve the parking issues on lower Ridgewood Avenue. Those attending the movies will not scramble up to Hudson Street to park

–        The restaurants will cut “deals” for valet parking in the garage thereby skewing the cost justification estimates presented

–        We, the taxpayer, will subsidize any and all shortfalls in revenue to pay the multi decade debt service
So what is the real answer to the “parking issue”….. those of us who have been in the Village for many years and have seen the constant drone of ” Oh my God, I had to walk a least a block to get to my pedi/mani  appointment and it started to rain on my freshly painted toes on the way back to my car…..OMG my day was ruined because of the parking situation in Ridgewood”

The answer… one level above grade open parking structures at Cottage Place, Walnut Street and Hudson Street. No fancy 4 story facades. Do the numbers…we can have 3 simple structures for the price of one 4 story behemoth on Hudson Street. And, parking will be readily available for the ENTIRE business district not just the few well connected restaurant owners. If this plan moves forward get ready to present your 8:49 PM parking tickets to the three amigos…. Maybe they can chip in to pay them for you…it’s a good thing at least some of them have a day job!

Posted on

Readers Not Impressed with Friday’s Ridgewood News “Enclave” ad threatening to sue the Village

keep-calm-and-sue-everybody-6

Now if only the builders would stop threatening lawsuits every time they fear they won’t get their way…

Notice that John Saraceno took a full page ad in last Friday’s Ridgewood News essentially threatening to sue us if he doesn’t get his way. This is going to end up in court one way or another. What a failure of leadership by our Council majority. The only reason that they “did the right thing” was that they were getting shouted down by hundreds of people vowing to vote them out of office if they didn’t listen.

I thought that the full page threat from “The Enclave” was over the top.Coward who paid for it did not ise his name. Threat came from a yet-to-be-built complex.Warning the town that if they don’t get their way there will be hell to pay. Yea, this is going to court.

Posted on

Reader Asks , did CBR SELL OUT TO THE THREE AMIGOS.

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can’t be brought back to court. A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It’s not dismissed forever.
What’s the Difference Between Dismissed With Prejudice
https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?…Illinois Legal Aid Organizations

Wonder what positions were promised the some of these members (CBR) in the Village of Ridgewood Hierarchy ?

Posted on

Readers call Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Conclusion on Hudson Street Parking Garage Questionable at Best

Hudson Garage

Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Concludes Hudson Street Parking Garage can be funded entirely by parking revenues. Well maybe they would like to sign a contract that they will be financially responsible for any shot falls of the garage for the term of the bond. That board both past and presents members are all tied in to the 3 amigos.

Timing alone of this released opinion is more than questionable.let them release the Data or withdraw these Statements.NO ONE GETS CALLED OUT ON ANYTHING IN RIDGEWOOD.We are talking Millions in underfunded liabilities including New village Emoloyees and associated Liabilities also for their Employment and Benefits Costs.

The scary issue is what utilization the garage has to achieve to cover its fixed cost ( salaries, debt service, etc.). If it covers with 50 % of spaces occupied during the day that might be OK, but if it takes 90%+, then we’re probably looking at a money pit.I don’t see where this issue was addressed by the FAC. As others have said, “can” is not the same as “will” or even ” will probably”

Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Concludes Hudson Street Parking Garage can be funded entirely by parking revenues
This title is misleading. Maybe it “can” be funded by parking revenues, but maybe it cannot. Maybe it “can” be if the rates go up town-wide, if the hours of paid parking are extended, if the lot is occupied 24/7…….or maybe even then it cannot be.

“We recognize that while parking revenues should cover the cost of the garage, funding the garage still creates an additional financial obligation for the Village, which would need to be met by other sources in the unlikely event that parking revenues fell short. However, we think the substantial benefits offered by a garage support taking on that obligation. * * *”

SHOULD is not the same as WILL. “IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT PARKING REVENUES FELL SHORT” – If the economy tanks as it did in 2008, parking revenues WILL FALL SHORT and taxpayers will be stuck paying for this money pit.

Why wouldn’t they recommend a public private partnership (PPP) between the Village and business owners in the CBD? If it’s so beneficial to the Village’s core, wouldn’t business owners want to contribute to the cost of the garage? Village taxpayers will get better cost oversight from private business people than if it’s just the Village engineer overseeing it… $500,000 golden toilets anyone?

Posted on

Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Concludes Hudson Street Parking Garage can be funded entirely by parking revenues

PayByPhone_Meter

Statement of the Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Hudson Street Parking Garage

The Financial Advisory Committee (the “FAC”) of the Village of Ridgewood strongly supports the proposal to construct a parking garage at the site of the existing Hudson Street parking lot.

Members of the FAC have carefully reviewed the proposal, including discussions with Village management and a thorough review of the financial analysis prepared by Walker Parking Consultants (the “Walker Study”). Based on that review, we believe it is in the best interests of the Village to move forward with the project.

We would like to highlight the following points: The Walker Study substantiates the long-held belief of many of our residents that there is insufficient parking to adequately serve the Village core.

While there is ample anecdotal evidence that parking is difficult in downtown Ridgewood, the Walker Study provides factual confirmation based on observations of parking usage at different times and days of the week. We believe the methodology used in the Walker Study is reasonable and its findings accurate.

While there is excess capacity in parts of the Village, parking demand in the central core exceeds practical supply at nearly every key time of the day. As set forth in the Walker Study, the costs of the parking garage can be supported entirely by Village parking revenues, assuming small increases in parking rates and the extension of metered hours to 9 p.m.

The FAC conducted its own independent analysis of the costs and revenues associated with the proposed parking garage. Using very conservative assumptions (no new revenues, construction costs as high as $14 million and interest rates as high as 4%) the garage can still be funded entirely by parking revenues.

A new parking garage will have a significant positive economic impact on the Village. The new parking garage will enhance the attractiveness of existing stores and restaurants, encourage new businesses owners to choose Ridgewood, and modernize our parking infrastructure.

We recognize that while parking revenues should cover the cost of the garage, funding the garage still creates an additional financial obligation for the Village, which would need to be met by other sources in the unlikely event that parking revenues fell short. However, we think the substantial benefits offered by a garage support taking on that obligation. * * *

In its last annual report to the Village Council, the FAC stated that “addressing the Village’s parking problem is probably the single best thing the Council could do for the central business district.”

Parking has been an issue in Ridgewood for decades. Finally, we have an opportunity to address the parking problem, and thereby safeguard Ridgewood’s appeal as a destination for dining and shopping, and preserve the vibrancy of our central business district.
The FAC encourages you to vote “YES” for parking on November 3.

Posted on

Pending projects in Ridgewood call for compromise

20151022_115458

Calling for compromise

OCTOBER 23, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print

Calling for compromise

To the Editor:

Pending projects in Ridgewood call for compromise.

1. Development in the Central Business District: So many people have weighed in on this issue and the overwhelming majority want to scale back the proposed housing density change from 35 units per acre to approximately 24, when 12 is currently allowed. At a low estimate of 800 total people speaking out at recent meetings, sending emails and signing petitions, multiplied by 20 (a standard political statistic for surveying public opinion), 16,000 people spoke against the higher density change.

That number represents just about every adult resident living in town. This is a mandate. No further discussion is needed. The council should take the vote off the table and revise the resolutions.

2. Parking Garage: The projected costs are huge and people are concerned. Former Mayor Pat Mancuso suggested two parking tiers at several locations throughout the CBD. Many thought this was a great idea.

This solution would be much easier to manage and possibly a benefit to those wishing to park a bit closer to their destination.

3. Schedler: This is not the place for a 90-foot baseball diamond. The neighborhood will be adversely affected for a multitude of reasons including its close proximity to Route 17. The integrity of the historical house is in jeopardy and we lose 4.5 acres of woods.

Friends of Schedler are in favor of a smaller field which will allow for the trees to be saved and protect the house with meaningful land abutting it. A playground similar to the one at Ridge School would be a wonderful addition for all of Ridgewood’s children. It is the right thing to do and the most practical.

In addition, I believe the compost facility should be considered as a location for the larger baseball field. The facility had been problematic and the neighbors might prefer a playing field. The site is level on land we own, it is on the west side of town, convenient to get to and we don’t have to remove acres of trees.

I also propose hiring additional people in the Shade Tree Division, which has been decimated over the years, and get back in the business of planting and maintaining our trees. We moved here for the schools, the town and the trees.

Linda McNamara

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-calling-for-compromise-1.1439342

Posted on

Readers debate Citizens for a better Ridgewood (CBR) dropping Law Suit

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog
Lawsuits cost big money, the Village Council is now going to do the appropriate studies. What would be the purpose of continuing to sue, have a judge order them to do studies? Regarding “trust”, I don’t believe it either. However, sometimes you have to give the other side some room if you hope at least one of them will vote your way in the future. Remember the changed vote on Valley.

This post leaves out the crucial fact that $100k has been spent by private citizens to fight against themselves [village runs on taxpayer dollars, we pay twice!] There is no way CBR can fight the spending power of debt funded developers. Remember, one of the developers has been fined MILLIONS of dollars for their inability to follow the law and still they spend more. How can we fight that?

Well if you believe that then answer this( 9:26). The CBR have a lot of smart people in their group you mean to tell me that no one anticipated the cost of their law suit? Why did they file it ( If they did ) so early? Why didn’t they wait till the council voted and then decide if a lawsuit was to costly. They fold like a cheap suit and the 3 amigos know it . Something stinks here.

While I don’t trust our Council majority to do the right thing here, they are kind of painted into a corner. The only way out for them at this point is to try to literally “pull a fast one” and wrap these supposedly comprehensive studies up in a couple weeks so that they can all vote yes before they get voted out in May.

It’s probably ok to drop the suit for now, but keep a copy handy in case we need to change the date and re-file.

I would not trust Aronsohn, Hauck, and Pucciarelli to do anything other than what would benefit them politically They are the most self-servicing bunch on the Council in a very long time..

I understand CBR. I wonder if your going to have enough money to fight the BOED when they redistrict after all isn’t this what it all about. You want to keep Ridge and Williard for your kids.

Whoever just discussed redistributing should read up on the topic. In 2012 fishbein said ridge, Somerville and Hawes are full. travel, Willard and orchard would lose the most. Ridge is already BY FAR the most diverse school in town. That isn’t even a question

One reason folks at ridge have been on this issue is because most of the current apartments are zoned for ridge We know how many children WILL move into the apartments and what the impacts of so many units will have on congestion in an already congested part of town. Ever drive west ridgewood avenue at 3?

Posted on

Ridgewood Planning Board accelerates master plan reexamination

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

OCTOBER 12, 2015    LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2015, 9:41 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

With just a few months remaining to complete and adopt its state-mandated master plan reexamination report, village officials acknowledged the need to accelerate the process and tackled its next subject at last Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting.

The master plan reexamination report, which is an evaluation of a municipality’s master plan and its development regulations, is required to be undertaken by the Planning Board at least every 10 years. Ridgewood’s reexamination report is due in early February 2016.

With Planning Board meetings often dominated by higher-profile topics, such as the multifamily housing hearings, which wrapped in June, the reexamination has appeared sparingly on board agendas this year.

Village Planner Blais Brancheau expressed his opinion to the board that, due to the compressed timeframe, a “minimum requirement” examination be completed to satisfy state requirements before delving in depth into the numerous issues that need to be addressed.

“I think it’s important we get this adopted,” Brancheau said. “It’s not intended to limit discussion. We can continue discussion once we’ve adopted the reexamination. In fact, it’s my personal feeling a number of sections of the master plan really should be updated and we’ll get into that more as we move forward.”

If Ridgewood fails to meet the state’s deadline, it will be opened up to possible exposure in a legal challenge involving the village’s regulations.

In litigation, a village’s regulations are presumed valid and the litigant bears the burden of proof to show otherwise. Without a properly adopted reexamination report, the burden shifts to the village, said Brancheau.

Chairman Charles Nalbantian asked if the board could simply note, as part of the reexamination report, where the areas in the master plan are that warrant in-depth work.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/board-accelerates-reexam-process-1.1430654