MAY 7, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015, 2:52 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Ridgewood residents and Planning Board members questioned Village Planner Blais Brancheau on the latest changes to the amendment to the land use element of the master plan as multifamily housing hearings resumed Tuesday night.
Two weeks ago, Brancheau presented a reworked recommendation to the board for its consideration, which featured reductions in density, height and floor area ratio along with some zoning tweaks.
All three zones now feature a maximum height of 50 feet and a density of 30-35 units per acre. Floor area ratios were reduced by 20 percent in the AH-2 zone and 10 percent for the B-3-R and C-R zones since the latter two allow mixed-use, but not purely commercial, development.
The C-R zone was also reduced in size as the West Bergen Mental Healthcare building and its adjacent properties were returned to the C zone. The southern end of the originally proposed C-R zone, which includes the Ken Smith property, was moved into the B-3-R zone.
MAY 6, 2015, 7:06 PM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015, 7:06 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — The executive director of an affordable housing agency has endorsed a proposed master plan amendment that, if approved, would clear the way for high-density, multifamily housing developments downtown.
A letter dated April 29 from lawyer Kevin Walsh from the Fair Share Housing Center, urges Ridgewood’s Planning Board to adopt the amendment, which has been under consideration for years.
The letter was read at the Planning Board’s meeting Tuesday night.
Adopting the master plan change “will assist the municipality in meeting its very substantial unmet affordable housing obligations,” which Walsh put at more than 1,000 units.
Four developers with plans for four different housing complexes initially requested the master plan amendment five years ago. Since then, one of the developers has backed out.
The three remaining developers have plans to construct a combined 208 apartments downtown.
The developments proposed are The Dayton, a 106-unit luxury garden apartment complex at the site of the former Brogan Cadillac dealership; the 50-unit Chestnut Village, which would be on Chestnut Street, and the 52-unit Enclave, proposed for East Ridgewood and North Maple avenues.
Citing the Supreme Court’s March 10 decision, Walsh’s letter contends there is a “renewed focus on ensuring that municipalities meet their obligations in an expeditious fashion.”
05/05/15 7:30PM Planning Board Public Meeting – Village Hall Court Room
Please join us on Tuesday, May 5th at Village Hall at 7:30 pm
Agenda: Public Hearing on the Revised Amendment to the Master Plan that was put forth on April 21st
We need your attendance at the next Planning Board meeting on Tuesday. We are close to the end, but we must still attend the meetings and continue to urge our Planning Board to act cautiously when altering our Master Plan.
At the last Planning Board meeting on April 21st, the Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, presented a NEW Amendment that takes a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing density — a risky approach that we do not support. In our opinion, Mr. Brancheau continues to plan for profit, not for the people of Ridgewood. The revised amendment is VERY different from the amendment that was proposed in November of 2013 and in our opinion, is looking more and more like spot zoning. (The revised amendment is attached.)
Thoughts:
Blais Brancheau, the Village planner, stated that the zones he identified as suitable for high-density housing in the first amendment were being considered because housing at these locations would be beneficial to the public at large. Why then, in the 11th hour, did the planner eliminate several properties (West Bergen Mental Healthcare and neighboring properties) that have been in consideration for more than two years? We never, not even once, heard any Planning Board member suggest this change. Yet this was one of the biggest changes in the revised amendment. We don’t get it.
In another significant change, the much larger Ken Smith property has been lumped into the same zone as the smaller Enclave (Sealfon’s) site. This move makes a bold statement. By combining these two sites into one zone, the Village planner has thrown all of the initial criteria he specified when identifying zones for high-density housing out the window. These are two very unique properties and their zoning benefits should differ. By lumping them together and labeling them as one in the same, Mr. Brancheau has basically set up every property in between these two sites to argue for the same zoning benefits. In our opinion, this is a reckless approach.
The new Amendment allows for up to 35 units an acre, with affordable for rent units included. While this is indeed an improvement from the 40-50 units put forth in the initial Amendment, in our opinion, this is still too big of a jump from the 12 units per acre that is permitted now and the 22 units per acre average that currently exists in our down town. Instead of establishing a maximum density up to 35 units per acre, why not raise the minimum and allow our village to examine each new development on a case by case basis? We recommend raising the baseline density to 24 units an acre, doubling the permitted allowance. Our Planning Board could then work to establish criteria that would allow for density bonuses, beyond the baseline. For example, if developers can provide for more parking, affordable housing units, open space, greater set backs, green building practices, etc… they would be allowed a bonus of more units per acre than the baseline. This cautious approach would be preferable to a one size fits all zoning change that could have irreversible repercussions.
Mr. Brancheau is capable of crafting this amendment differently, yet he continues to offer the same benefits across the board to all zones, regardless of the context or the surrounding location. We don’t understand why. From our vantage point, many Planning Board members seemed flustered by the changes to the Amendment and some even expressed question or concern. The only Planning Board member who seemed to embrace these changes was Mayor Aronsohn. He seems very eager to move forward and get this done.
CBR wants this process resolved as well, but we want it done RIGHT. We don’t want the Planning Board to rush to a decision. We just received a copy of the new Amendmenton Friday, and the Public Hearing is TUESDAY! We live here and we care about the future of our town. Long after politicians are out of office and eager developers have reaped their profits, we will still be left here, living with the consequences. Please join us on TUESDAY, May 5th at Village Hall at 7:30 pm. Let’s continue to urge our Planning Board to get it right!
Here are two links to Letters to the Editor that provide more detail about our position:
MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Many downtown housing questions still unanswered
To the Editor:
Having attended virtually all the Planning Board meetings on the proposed high-density housing master plan amendment for the past several years, and being as directly involved in the process as a concerned resident can be, I am left with one overarching question: Why? This notion of “Why?” relates to so many questions in this process that have yet to be answered, but need to be for the Planning Board, mayor and council to make the real right decision for the residents of Ridgewood. Here are some variants of “Why?” as related to this bizarre master plan amendment process:
Why did the original amendment contain the massive density number of 50 apartments per acre requested by the developers, when our current zoning only calls for 12 and the village average is 18-22?
Why hasn’t the board or the planner ever explained why 50 units per acre was used (except to note that it was requested by the developers and puzzlingly, as suggested by one board member, is necessary to incentivize the developers to build and profit)?
Why, as with so many important changes to Ridgewood, was the public not fully informed and educated in a proactive, openly invited manner and asked for opinion at the outset of the process years ago?
Why has the Planning Board failed to conduct and provide its residents with a comprehensive and necessary master plan review – that looks at all village-wide planning needs and impacts – prior to implementing such a monumental change to our village (and is actually required to be performed in 2016 anyway)?
Why do some members of the Planning Board appear to believe that the board’s and the village planner’s reactionary reviews of data provided by the developers constitute a thorough and responsible review?
Why are the opinions of so-called “experts,” hired by developers to sell the board on the benefits of this overwhelming change, given more respect than those of concerned residents, who will forever have to live with these changes?
Why is the Village Council separately looking at an additional large-scale assisted living complex development on the corner of Franklin and Walnut, without openly and clearly combining the master planning review with the high-density housing?
Why was the most recent amendment revision not provided to the public at last week’s Planning Board meeting, along with the revised zoning map?
Why does the Village Planner believe that the newly proposed density of 30-35 units per acre is now the correct number across the board, in all areas of the Central Business District?
Why can’t we go with what we know works in Ridgewood, 18-24 units per acre, which is still double the current zoning allowance?
Why isn’t the board more concerned with potential impacts on schools, parking, open space and village services?
Why can’t we keep Ridgewood as a village?
As a resident of Ridgewood who truly loves this town, I look forward to real answers to these “Why’s?”
MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Stop planning for profit
To the Editor:
Ridgewood is facing significant zoning changes that will forever change the character of our village. An amendment to the master plan that would significantly increase permitted housing density in downtown Ridgewood seems imminent. Public hearings have continued for more than two years, and more than 100 residents have gone on record to advocate for a cautious approach and to express concern about the size, scale and density of the proposed housing developments.
However, it was obvious at the last meeting on April 21 that the Planning Board is proceeding without any regard to public opinion and is tailoring our master plan to suit the needs of the developers. We expected Village Planner Blais Brancheau to come to the meeting with answers to questions and options for moving forward. Instead, Mr. Brancheau sat with his back to the residents, provided no handouts or visuals to help the public follow along and presented a revised amendment that appears to be a gift to the developers.
The revised amendment once again offers a “one size fits all” approach to housing that defies principles of sound planning and haphazardly groups parcels of land together in order to push through high-density housing. Mr. Brancheau has yet to provide any analysis or evidence as to why we need to increase the density from the 18 to 24 units per acre average that currently exists in our downtown. As far as we can see, the new amendment increases the number of units allowed per acre to 30 to 35 (still almost tripling what is currently permitted), realigns the zones (combining the Ken Smith property with the Sealfons building) and removes three properties on Chestnut Street from consideration as a means to cap development.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn said that the revised amendment “strikes that balance between everything we have been talking about.” There is something very wrong with this picture. The amendment is looking more and more like spot zoning and our Planning Board is forging ahead.
Why must density be the same for every zone? What exactly are the unique qualities of a property that would warrant residential versus commercial use? Why combine two very different properties? Why remove properties from consideration? Where is the guarantee that other property owners in town won’t argue for these same zoning benefits? Who is driving this process?
It is unconscionable that residents who deserve responsible planning have spent over $100,000 in legal representation and still have no voice in the process. Ridgewood deserves the best solution, and we are hoping wise minds prevail. We urge the Planning Board to please stop planning for profit and start planning for the people.
Please join us at the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5 at Village Hall as we seek answers to the many questions regarding the changes to the amendment.
Photo credit: Village of Ridgewood Tax Assessor’s web site
MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The First National Bank and Trust Company building is a Ridgewood landmark, one of the most recognizable sites of the downtown landscape. Erected in the early 1930s, its Classical Revival-inspired exterior is iconic to this day, while the indoor architecture and distinct features continue to stand the test of time.
But existing sans tenants for the past five years, the massive structure has become an unofficial symbol of the Central Business District’s (CBD) plights: several longstanding vacant storefronts, the struggle for adequate parking, underused properties and a drawn-out permitting process.
The building in the heart of the village’s downtown has been without an occupant since Bank of America closed its branch there in January 2010.
Real estate investment and development firm Onyx Equities, however, wants to return the building back to its heyday.
Onyx acquired the bank and property in April 2013; its principals paying nearly $2 million for the deed to the land.
According to the Village of Ridgewood website, the combined property and improvements were most recently assessed at more than $3.9 million.
MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
An application to redevelop a Franklin Avenue property into a full-service bank with a drive-through facility has been brought before the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Testimony from the developer’s professionals began on Tuesday.
Ivy Realty, LLC is proposing a modified version of what already exists on the property, located at 121 Franklin Ave. between Oak Street and North Maple Avenue, which is the former home of Atlantic Stewardship Bank. Most of the building will be demolished, except for the free-standing sign at the front of the building.
The lot is located in the B-2 zone in between two other banks – Valley National Bank and TD Bank.
The current existing structure at the site is a 450-square-foot building with three drive-through lanes for banking-related business and a fourth lane serving as a bypass to exit the property. The applicant proposes a 2,600-square-foot, one story building without a basement, featuring one banking lane and one bypass lane. There is no tenant currently lined up to inhabit the new development, and it is not being built with any architectural features specific to a certain bank.
APRIL 29, 2015 LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015, 10:15 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Representatives from the World Mission Society Church of God returned to the Planning Board on April 21 with a revised site plan for work that has already been completed, as well as proposed seepage pits.
Attorney Marc Leibman and Engineer Robert Costa previously appeared before the board on March 3 and discussion revolved around a revision of spaces in the parking lot as well as lighting and the seepage pits to aid drainage on the Godwin Avenue property.
At the end of that meeting, the board asked Costa and Leibman to touch base with the village’s professional staff to work out a safer parking setup and less impactful lighting scheme.
Parking spaces deemed unsafe by the village staff were removed and Costa said the entire parking lot will be restriped to better conform to the necessary aisle width to allow safe travel for vehicles.
Spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including one that was adjacent to a refuse area, were moved to the eastern side of the building at the request of village professionals.
Costa said that side of the building also provides handicap access to the church. The plans show a striped or painted crosswalk that forms a path into the building for those with special needs.
APRIL 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015, 9:24 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Proposed changes to the master plan amendment were presented to the Planning Board by Village Planner Blais Brancheau in an attempt to address some concerns discussed by board members at a previous meeting.
Ridgewood Planner Blais Brancheau discusses proposed changes to a master plan amendment that would allow multifamily housing in the Central Business District.
The new amendment features zoning changes as well as a reduction in density, lowering the total number of possible units to less than 300 if the zones contained in the master plan amendment were built out to maximum capacity.
Changes in the maximum height, floor area ratios and additional language to require recreation and social amenities as part of any housing project were also presented.
The board voted unanimously to formally prepare the changes for a public hearing at its next meeting on May 5, where both the public and board members will be able to comment and ask additional questions.
Key zoning changes include three properties in the area of West Bergen Mental Healthcare building being excluded from the C-R zone, moving the Ken Smith property and the area at the corner of Franklin Avenue and Chestnut Street into the B-3-R zone.
APRIL 26, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 2015, 4:24
BY KATHLEEN LYNN
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
In Montvale, land is being cleared for a new town house development near the New York State line. In Wood-Ridge, new town houses are rising on an old industrial site. And 150 new town houses are under construction in Allendale.
As the economy and housing market continue to recover in New Jersey and nationwide, these and other projects suggest a renewed interest in the attached, two-story homes. The construction of town houses and other for-sale homes still lags behind the much healthier pace of rental construction in the state, as tough lending standards and memories of the housing crash weigh on many households.
But builders see town houses as a more affordable alternative to single-family homes. Town houses also are more suited than detached homes to the type of development that is dominating North Jersey. Instead of the sprawling, single-family subdivisions of an earlier era, builders now are focusing on so-called infill construction, in walkable, transit-friendly areas closer to New York City.
APRIL 26, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 2015, 10:17 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — A final vote on a proposed amendment to the master plan that would clear the way for the development of high-density, multifamily housing downtown is approaching.
After five years of consideration, Ridgewood’s Planning Board could move to decide the long-simmering matter at a public hearing that has been set for May 5.
At the board’s meeting last week, village planner Blais Brancheau outlined several recent changes he had made to the master plan amendment’s draft language — modifications prompted by ideas from board members and the public.
In the revised amendment, Brancheau lowered the permitted height of high-density, multifamily housing complexes to 50 feet from 55. He also decreased the number of units allowed by acre, dropping it to 30 to 35, from 40 to 50.
Brancheau tweaked the sizes of some of the four zones, reducing the total acreage that would be affected by the proposed master plan changes by a fifth, thus reducing the maximum build-out for those four zones to 253, from 326.
The two Planning Board members (Thurston and Abdallah) in favor of the project,as is, are both involved in commercIAL real estate and development. Interesting…very interesting.
We are not sure industry experience automatically implies a conflict , but …
There’s a real conflict if he is voting on things or even commenting on things that could affect his clients or potential clients. He can add his comments from the podium along with the rest of us. Did the council know he was actively involved in real estate projects in Ridgewood when they appointed him? What the hell were they thinking????
Even if he currently does not do business with these firms he may hope to work with them in the future.
He should enter the discussions because of his experience but he should not vote.
Thurston is not afraid of developers . . . he IS a developer.
Mr. Thurston has been active as a Real Estate Professional for over 30 years. After graduating from Law School in 1982, Mr. Thurston spent two years in Dallas, Texas practicing real estate law. He then moved back east and spent the next four years practicing real estate law in Philadelphia and Manhattan at the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Shea and Gould. In 1987 he left legal practice and joined The Binswanger Company headquartered in Philadelphia where he managed the National Industrial Brokerage Group for four years and then the International Group for the next five years. He then joined NAI in New Jersey and managed the Corporate Services Group for two years. He was recruited to start up and manage the National Office Sales force at Equis Corporation. He moved to Marcus & Millichap in 1999 to manage the New Jersey office. He is a Director in the Company’s National Office and Industrial Properties Group and in it’s Net Lease Properties Group and specializes in the sale of Retail, Office, and Industrial Properties in New York, New Jersey, Northern New Jersey and Bergen County and in Single Tenant Properties Nationwide.
David Thurston’s background certainly gives him an interesting perspective in all of this. Since he is involved in the sale of commercial real estate in Ridgewood, should he recuse himself from these discussions? Is there potential conflict of interest” Or does he bring years of valuable experience to the table? Interesting.
“Marcus & Millichap has brokered the sale The Lincoln Building, an office property at 45 N. Broad St. in Ridgewood. The 24,000-square-foot multi-tenant property sold for $3.9 million. David Thurston of Marcus & Millichap’s New Jersey office represented the seller, a partnership, and secured the buyer, a local limited liability company.”
“Mr. Thurston has been active as a Real Estate Professional for over 30 years. After graduating from Law School in 1982, Mr. Thurston spent two years in Dallas, Texas practicing real estate law. He then moved back east and spent the next four years practicing real estate law in Philadelphia and Manhattan at the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Shea and Gould. In 1987 he left legal practice and joined The Binswanger Company headquartered in Philadelphia where he managed the National Industrial Brokerage Group for four years and then the International Group for the next five years. He then joined NAI in New Jersey and managed the Corporate Services Group for two years. He was recruited to start up and manage the National Office Sales force at Equis Corporation. He moved to Marcus & Millichap in 1999 to manage the New Jersey office. He is a Director in the Company’s National Office and Industrial Properties Group and in it’s Net Lease Properties Group and specializes in the sale of Retail, Office, and Industrial Properties in New York, New Jersey, Northern New Jersey and Bergen County and in Single Tenant Properties Nationwide.”
If Thurston or any of the others are afraid of the developers, then they have no place on the Board. The future of the Village is not a game of chicken, its either build appropriately or not at all. I would hate to see his vision of Ridgewood if we spend the next 40 years giving in to developers.
I have heard this chicken stuff from our council members as well — everyone is scared to death of the developers. If our officials can’t stand up to bullies, they have no place in the Village. Elected officials should have backbone or they should step down and let others take their place who will put the interests of Villagers first and profiteers second.
Shame on those who would abdicate their duties because it is too difficult to do the job properly.
Please join us tomorrow night for the next Planning Board Meeting Available
Tuesday, April 21 at Village Hall (not the HS)
Deliberations to begin at approximately 8:45 to 9 pm.
(The meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but the discussion on High Density Housing is not the first item on the agenda)
Agenda: The Planning Board will continue deliberating and Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, will provide some detail regarding issues put forth by Planning Board members last month. We are hoping Blais addresses concerns raised by several Planning Board members — concerns also shared by CBR.
To refresh your memory, below is a reprint of our reap from the 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting:
CBR’s recap of 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting
CBR Note:
The first condition of this amendment, aside from density and height issues, is changing the usage in the zones from commercial to residential. Keep in mind that when the planning board members state that they support the usage change, that does not necessarily indicate that they approve the densities that are proposed. Changing the zoning in an area of our CBD from commercial to residential is a big step in itself, as presumably once residential is built, there is no turning back to commercial usage on that site.
Once usage is addressed, the next issue is how much residential do you allow? Currently, most residential properties in the CBD have commercial usage on the first floor. Under this amendment, commercial usage on the first floor is no longer required. Allowing housing in our downtown at density higher than the 12 units per acre that is currently permitted makes sense, and anything over 12 units an acre constitutes “higher density.” Considering that the average density that currently exists in our downtown now is actually 22-24 units per acre, CBR would be quite comfortable with setting 22 or 24 units per acre as the new limit for density. We feel that doubling those numbers is too much, and that 35-40 units an acre and beyond would significantly alter the character of our Village. It is very important that our planning board finds the right balance in this amendment.
CBR ReCap:
We took notes on each of the Planning Board member’s comments and would like to share them here. Our notes are not direct quotes.
Absent from this meeting was Nancy Bigos. She has yet to weigh in.
Charles Nalbantian, the Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees that the usage (housing rather than commercial) is good, but said the “devil is in the details.” He expressed reservations about the height and RSIS (state mandated parking requirements), and indicated that he is not sure yet about the density.
Richard Joel, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees with the usage (housing in our CBD) and believes it will promote the general welfare. He feels that we need to develop these under-utilized sites and there is a need for a variety of housing. He said that he doesn’t know what the right balance between height and density should be.
Kevin Riley, supports the use of housing in our downtown but is concerned with height and density. He said he would like to see the density reduced from what is currently put forth in the amendment.
Wendy Dockray, thinks concept of multifamily housing is a good one but has her “yellow flags” or reservations. She is not sure this is actually what seniors are looking for in terms of space and affordability. She is concerned that the height and scale will negatively impact the historical character of Ridgewood. She said going from 12 units per acre to 40-50 is a “huge jump” and she is not sure if building 40 – 50 units an acre is necessary or appropriate to achieve housing. She is also concerned with the fiscal impact and noted that our schools are “at capacity.”
David Thurston, supports the amendment AS IS. He doesn’t want to “play chicken” with developers by giving them less than what they want. He said this is his business and if the Planning Board comes back with less than the amendment, it may not be “economically sound” for the developers. He is in favor of the 40 – 50 units in our CBD and is worried about what our town will look like in 40 years if we don’t allow the developers to build.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, not in favor of the amendment as it is written. She is concerned with the density, height, impact of adding more pedestrians that will impede traffic, open space and the changing character of Ridgewood. She said the she would like to see developers move forward with something, but would like to see a balance.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn, feels this is an opportunity for Ridgewood. He feels like we have enough information to make a decision and we should move forward soon. He said that people who don’t want their big houses could move to these apartments, but we need to strike the right balance. His stated that his issues are 1) density, 2) amenities (he would like to find a way to incentivize the developers to build high end apartments), 3) housing for special needs residents, 4) parking (he wondered if developers not providing sufficient parking could be forced to pay money into a fund to use for public parking), and 5) can separate amendments be crafted to address each zone individually?
Michele Peters, concerned about the density. Not in favor of the current amendment. She questioned whether the parking that was being considered as part of the proposals in the redevelopment zone on N. Walnut would alleviate some of the parking deficit in Ridgewood, but was told the deficit is beyond what could be added in the redevelopment zone.
Isabella Altano, (1st alternate on PB) wants to see more consideration given to the impacts. She feels we need a lower density. She asked about the potential costs to our infrastructure, if projected school enrollment could be provided that included approval of 400+ new apartments and what could be done to address our open space deficiency.
Khidir Abdalla, (2nd alternate on PB) said that we shouldn’t be afraid of change and supports the amendment. He is not concerned with the density and scale and feels that this type of housing fits in well to an URBAN downtown. He feels we need increased density in order to get pedestrian traffic that is needed to revitalize our downtown.
April 13, 2015 Last updated: Monday, April 13, 2015, 9:24 AM
By Darius Amos
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Already mired with the downtown multifamily housing public hearings, the Ridgewood Planning Board has taken on the state-mandated task of reexamining its master plan.
For the next several months, board members will be expected to review the municipality’s current master plan and a list of corrective action items created during the village’s previous reexamination, which took place in 2006.
Their objective, according to Ridgewood Planner Blais Brancheau, is to identify areas that require change and any outdated language within those planning documents.
The board is not necessarily required to rewrite the master plan, but members must complete their review and adopt an official reexamination report, to be drafted by the municipal planner, by February 2016.
In part, the report should evaluate major problems and objectives related to land development at the time of the adoption of the previous report, determine the extent to which problems have changed, and propose any recommended changes to the master plan.
“It’s a report that will say this is what we looked at … this is what we think going forward,” said Brancheau, who detailed the reexamination process during last Tuesday’s Planning Board work session.
