Category: village of ridgewood

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Many Residents feel Ridgewood Garage Referendum was compromised by misinformation campaign

pro garage signs
January 13,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ , Discrepancies in the interpretative statement and contradictory statements made by Various Council members  served only to confuse voters and obfuscate the council majority’s intentions.

Readers have echoed  “The electorate was also PROMISED that the sign and scale could be negotiated. The electorate was lied to and misled. Furthermore, there is not disagreement on funding so why go to BCIA? only to get the design the three want…how is that reasonable??”

Other readers repeated the sentiment, “the electorate voted for a garage in a “Non-Binding Referendum”.The actual vote for the bond failed 3-2. That was the only vote that was binding. ”

While most who spoke at the Council meeting on January 6th , believed there was some measures were needed to ease peak parking issues in the Central Business District (CBD) most of the 100 plus people who showed at the meeting came to the conclusion that a super sized garage was an over kill.

The crux of the misinformation issue circled around the fact that the garage is built into Hudson street . Jetting out at least 10 feet into the street. That is not building a garage on the lot. Many felt they voted for a garage on the lot. Not street.

While others thought that the council majority , “grossly and intentionally withheld the information that it was on the street.” While other who spoke cited example after example where council members contradicted each other or gave what was later on perceived as misleading information .
Posted on by — 8 Comments

Reader say The people did vote for a garage just not one that changes Hudson Street so profoundly and dwarfs Mount Carmel

Village Council Meeting

file photo by Boyd Loving

The people did vote for a garage just not one that changes Hudson Street so profoundly and dwarfs Mount Carmel. We were led to believe the design and size were still up for discussion. Many suggestions at the meeting called for additional parking venues closer to the center of town, refiguring of streets and relining of current spaces. Financial feasibility is important but for many it is more about traffic concerns, safety and if the structure will be neighborhood and user friendly. I only saw impassioned speakers being very civil but I did see a council member completely lose it. People hate to be lectured on civility by people who often behave uncivilly. It is really hard to stand up at a meeting and speak. It is a nerve racking experience that takes many of us out of our comfort zone. I admire those that do. One speaking out represents 20 who feel similarly but didn’t. A 100 people speaking out is more like a mandate. I don’t understand why the council majority would not be guided by that.

Please note that every single person who comes to meetings and speaks at the mic is absolutely not anonymous, and they are on the front line. Some of these people get attacked verbally by people from the dais and also from other residents. Dana Glazer was polite and soft spoken. He did not accuse Albert of anything…..he made a general observation to all five council meetings that he could not understand what the rush was with this project, and he wondered aloud if the upcoming election was a factor. Albert in his great cloud of ego started shouting and making threats, it was horrible and it was frightening to behold. An elected official absolutely does not have the right to volley off threats from the dais, or for that matter at any time. Yes, elected officials should maintain their cool, as most do, most especially in the face of something as benign as Dana Glazer’s calm and thoughtful presentation. For sure they should not be issuing threats and accusing people of being stalkers.

A garage that will extend into Hudson street by 10 feet and dwarf Mount Carmel should not be built. All 3 options do just that. Also our mayor kept saying questions would be answered after all speakers made their statements. This did not happen. but of all the things that happened the worst and most frightening was Albert’s vcomplete loss of control directing his anger at Mr. Glazer. The gentleman was speaking from emotion as he had just witnessed the previous speaker who was voicing her concerns in a heartfelt manner. All totally acceptable. Mr. Glazer was at a loss as to why the council majority was pushing forward regardless of public opinion. He asked if this was due to the upcoming elections. We all think that this may be part of it. The deputy mayor was so angry, I actually thought the police might be called. It also sounded threatening and that is very serious. We’ have to hear about being civil and not applauding regularly. I truly am appalled that the mayor runs civility meetings. But to have an elected official be the biggest offender is most troubling. A public apology isn’t enough. He needs to step down.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Anthony Lillo took the helm as director and chief of Ridgewood Emergency Services on Jan. 9

Ridgewood Emergency Services Installation Oath
January 12,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ , Anthony Lillo took the helm as director and chief of Ridgewood Emergency Services on Jan. 9.Lillo, 57, was sworn in by Ridgewood Mayor Paul Aronsohn at the Departments annual installation dinner. Lillo’s emergency services career began in 1991 and he joined Ridgewood Special Operations in 1999. Lillo, an EMT, has served in various leadership positions during his tenure, most recently as deputy chief.

Chief Lillo has worked with Ridgewood Central Dispatch and has extensive background in computer disaster recovery and disaster management as a project manager. He is enrolled in the Certified Public Managers Program at Rutgers University. Chief Lillo succeeds Brian Pullman who retired after serving as director and chief of Ridgewood Emergency Services for 10 years.

Robert Greenlaw, the founder, director and chief of emergency services for 25 years, praised Pullman’s commitment and service saying he helped make the organization what it is today. Pullman joined Ridgewood Emergency Services in 1993.

2016 Ridgewood Officers 1

In addition to Lillo being named director and chief, the other officers were announced during the installation dinner. The 2016 officers include: Deputy Chief Ryan Savaria; Medical Director Dr. Bob Lahita; Public Information Officers Richard Breining and Bob Krane; EMS Captain Murray Yang; EMS Lieutenants John Baker, Brendan Fischer, Emily Benjamin and James Bigos; Special Operations Captain John Epperlein; Special Operations Lieutenants Mike Butler, Eric Frielink and Ace Antonio; Teens in Emergency Services (TIES) Captain Corrine Scarpa; and TIES Lieutenant Kevin Scarpa.

In 2015, Ridgewood Emergency Services responded to 1704 requests for assistance. This amounts to 19,236 hours donated by the volunteers to the Village of Ridgewood on active duty. It does not include time spent on training, meetings, meeting and event preparation.  A cost savings of over $1 million dollars to the Village of Ridgewood.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

The Passing of Peter Deuber of Ridgewood New Jersey

Candle_Light

Ridgewood Nj, Peter Deuber of Ridgewood, New Jersey passed away Monday, January 4th at Select Specialty Hospital in Rochelle Park, New Jersey. He was born in Manhattan on January 17,1932 and grew up in Ridgewood, New Jersey. He attended Ridgewood High School and majored in Economics at Columbia. He worked in sales and the building trade in New Jersey. Peter had a great love of gardening, landscaping, and horticulture. > > Peter leaves behind his loving long term partner, Helen Eagy, ex-wife Mary Lou, and cousin Robert Huber; his two daughters: Nancy Gameson (Lyn) and Sharon Richter (Marc); five grandchildren: Ceri Gameson, Victoria Richter, Margaret Richter, Abigail Richter, and Joshua Richter. Burial will be private.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Ridgewood Impact Study presentations for Multifamily housing Tonight at Benjamin Franklin Middle School

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

MEETING TUESDAY NIGHT

Tuesday, January 12, 2016 – 7:30pm – Benjamin Franklin Middle School- Impact Study presentations for Multifamily housing, North Walnut Redevelopment Zone, Hudson Street Parking Garage -Presentations by Vendors:
a. Heyer, Gruel & Associates
b. Maser Consulting
c. Ross Haber Associates
d. The RBA Group
e. BFJ Planning/Urbanomics

Posted on by — 14 Comments

Readers say Going to the BCIA is a back-door way of going around the electorate

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

file photo by Boyd loving

Going to the BCIA is a back-door way of going around the electorate, plain and simple.$250,000 in additional cost to the taxpayers because the bond vote failed 3-2.

At the meeting on January 6th a few things were made clear. One is that the “threesome” stands firm as a bloc and of course voted in perfect synchronicity, in spite of the gigantic number of objections to the huge garage. Another point  is that Aronosohn is going rogue, going directly to the BCIA to get his funding, for which he only needs three votes.

Damn the laws of the land, just find a way around them. Another is that Albert’s trigger temper is still very much alive, as he went after a resident who alluded to the upcoming election. The resident was calm and polite, and Albert was wild, then Gwenn started holding up her cell phone. Such unprofessionalism from the dais, such calm in the audience.

A summary is SAME OLD SAME OLD. A million people spoke. Most were against the garage. The three amigos voted in favor of the bond. Susan and Michael voted against it. Aronsohn is immediately going to circumnavigate the law (legal, but still underhanded) and go to the BCIA, where he only needs three votes. He put that in motion before the ink was dry on the bond defeat. Good luck trying to find the Ustream on the new website. It seems to be nowhere.

Posted on by — 22 Comments

Planned Ridgewood garage is too big

Hudson Street Parking Garage

Planned Ridgewood garage is too big

JANUARY 8, 2016    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Planned garage is too big

To the editor:

My wife and I attended a meeting last week at Mount Carmel Church concerning the proposed garage on Hudson St.

I have been in favor of a structure at the site but was dismayed to see the overall size of the structure. It is massive. If I, as a private individual proposed a structure that size for that lot, the council would laugh at me. People would be up in arms.

I think that if the council informs residents of the size of the structure, they will be up in arms. It will permanently change the downtown area.

I also don’t understand the rationale behind the proposed traffic flow. It, aside from being a problem for Mt. Carmel, seems to me to be a disaster in the making. It will require the traffic to flow from Broad Street with the majority of vehicles making a left onto Hudson. It will also funnel the exiting vehicles to nowhere land since at the end of Hudson they will have the choice of making a left toward Ridgewood Avenue or a right onto Prospect.

I assume a traffic light will have to be put at the Hudson-Prospect intersection since the traffic from the park area will be head on to the Hudson Street traffic. Not a pretty picture.

Mayor Aronsohn, at the meeting, kept pointing to the referendum as a seal of approval for the garage as proposed. In my view, and probably most of those who voted for it, he received an approval of a garage on the site, not something so big it will tower over the neighborhood.

If the garage has to be this big to be financially viable, then maybe the council needs to rethink its location. The site at Walnut Street would be more appropriate. It is a larger site, has access to Franklin Avenue, a road that could better handle the traffic, and because of the larger site, it could be built lower so the structure would not be so imposing.

In closing I would ask the council to reconsider the size and site of the structure. At the very least, delay going forward until a proper traffic study is undertaken as has been proposed.

The council represents all the residents of Ridgewood, not just the 3,000 who voted for a garage.

Liz and Dave Pskowski

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-planned-garage-is-too-big-1.1487390

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ridgewood Art Institute 36th Annual Juried Art Show

RAI

Call For Artist Entries:

January 11,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood Art Institute 36th Annual Regional Juried Art Show. Open to all artists 18 years and older, in the New York Metropolitan area.
Two – Dimensional, traditional realism only. For complete prospectus visit www.ridgewoodartinstitute.org
The Ridgewood Art Institute is located at 12 East Glen Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ 07450 (201)652-9615

Receiving: Saturday, January 9th 12-5 pm *HAND DELIVERY ONLY*

Reception: Sunday, January 31st, 2-4pm- An Opening Reception and Awards Ceremony will be held at the Ridgewood Art Institute. Light refreshments will be served. Over $5,000 in awards and prizes, including a $1,000 grand prize, will be presented by the RAI President. Prize winners or representatives must be present at the awards ceremony.

Watercolor Landscape Demonstration Sunday, Feb.7 2PM by Joel Popadics
Show ends February 7.

Posted on by — 6 Comments

PETITIONS FOR RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL CANDIDATES AVAILABLE

vote for me

January 11,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Petitions are available for any Ridgewood registered voter seeking the position of Village Councilmember, in the Village Clerk’s Office at Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.

The Village Clerk will accept petitions which contain the valid signatures of at least 164 registered voters who live in Ridgewood, as required by law.

Three Village Council seats, which have four year terms, will be up for election.  The terms begin July 1, 2016.  The deadline for filing the petitions with the Village Clerk is no later than 4:00 P.M., March 7, 2016.

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Readers say Valley Ridgewood Mediation Will be Tainted ,Ms Hauck is too Invested in Valley

Gwenn Hauck has absolutely no business representing us in a lawsuit. For crying out loud, this is glaringly apparent. This is not about what platform she ran for office on, this is not about whether she loves valley hospital. This is the fact that there is a major lawsuit against Ridgewood and one of the two elected official on the mediation is a person who donates big money to them. How can anyone not see the conflict here? She is supposed to be representing US against THEM in this lawsuit, but she funnels money to them.

If anyone thinks that she should represent us in the law suit all you have to do is look up the minuets Sept 19 H-Z hearing and she what she said. Then you tel me.

Speaking before the council during the “H-Zone” hearings to determine the fate of ‘Renewal’, Hauck said on Sept. 19: “Also, I trust Audrey Meyers, Megan Fraser, all the doctors and volunteers I work with and all the spokespersons of the hospital when they tell me that the hospital will have better services and healthier surroundings if they modernize and expand the way they’ve laid out because they’re the health experts…and I believe them.”

While it may seem unlikely a perfect solution will ever emerge, Hauck stressed a “healthy” and “reasonable” dialogue must emerge for any meaningful change to happen.

Any output from her “mediation” will be tainted. That does not serve the interest of anyone, including Valley. Pencil this in for another 10 year slog unless a good faith process for resolution is adopted.

In my experience, the vast majority of ethical types always recuse themselves from legal duties where there is the potential perception of there being a conflict of interest. The key word is “perception”. In a lot of these cases, the reality of an actual conflict of interest is slim to none, but in the interests of showing absolute honesty, they do in fact, recuse themselves. By not recusing themselves, it actually infers that they are in fact attempting to improperly influence a decision.

Posted on by — 14 Comments

Ridgewood Landlord Say Residents Taxes are Too Low

Village Council Meeting

file photo by Boyd Loving

The business owner speaking here, Ed Sullivan, owner of 17-29 Chestnut St in the Village, spent 5 minutes citing a 1967 traffic study and then telling residents their taxes were too low.

Go to Ed’s remarks: https://youtu.be/neb4TSJ4QsY?t=2h28m56s

Impressive strategy… if you want to make sure no one ever frequents your properties again.

Referencing data from 1967 is interesting. But not relevant. Not a single reference to the Internet which of course wasn’t publicly available in ’67. The Internet, as we know now, changed everything for businesses that used to rely on people going into a store and purchasing something.

In person shopping is an anachronism.

The taxpayers (read: homeowners) should not have to bear any burden associated with failing businesses.

Ed’s wrong…things have drastically changed in 48+ years.

Posted on by — 10 Comments

Reader says First Paul, Gwen and Albert blamed everything on Gabbert now they blame the residents

Clock CBD

Remember the mantra of the 3 amigos( Paul, Gwen and Albert) that all the problems in Ridgewood was Mr. Gabberts fault. Now they and their
surrogate are blaming the residents. Who are they going to blame in the future?

Well we have certainly turned a corner when a group starts calling themselves the complainers.

For all those that think this is something new, it’s not. It’s not this council, it’s been every council. We saw it with Graydon where plans for improvement were attacked, contributors to that process were demonized personally and professionally. We certainly saw it with the current long, not yet complete, process with Valley (which duplicated the process Valley went through here in the 80’s — I was there for that too), village hall construction, the original parking proposal that the Mayor’s 2008 web page was about, the train station renovation, giant telephone poles, you name it. We’ll see it on whatever comes next. When a small percentage of the population — c’mon people no matter your definition, a few hundred at a council meeting is a small percentage of the population of 25,000 — can block potential solutions to big problems, then you will have zero progress. Zero. You get no change and no change equals no improvement. And in the long run no change equals slow, grinding, decline. You want to know what’s not Ridgewood? Slow, grinding decline, That’s not Ridgewood but that’s exactly what we have at Graydon (in-town membership totals don’t lie), at Valley (Hackensack is cleaning their clock) and in the CBD (we heard it straight from the CBD on Wednesday) and maybe you haven’t noticed but there are two giant dilapidated car dealerships and a run down toxic site in the middle of our quaint picturesque village.

It’s a lot of fun to cheer for your neighbors at council meetings, find that latest gotcha entry in the donor list or some 7 year old web page, and post on Facebook about what a hero of the common people you are but unless you are working for realistic pragmatic answers to real problems that exist in the village you are participating in its inexorable demise. Complaining feels good. Working for solutions takes hard work. From my chair we have far too much of the first and not nearly enough, on any side, of the second. The path forward isn’t cheering at council meetings when saying no to things. It’s figuring our the answer that all sides are a little unhappy with. And before I leave this here: 1] Yes I volunteer in a number of positions to try to help already 2] You couldn’t pay me enough to sit on the dais in that council room on Wednesday nights so this is not some kind of announcement and 3] I have zero relationship with any of the entities mentioned and the only stake I have in the conversation is the value of my home and my sense for what it means to be an active informed citizen. And finally,I didn’t call anyone a complainer here, you did that and they agree with you.

Posted on by — 16 Comments

Is is fair to assume  that we may threaten and disparage our neighbors as long as they fail to comply with the wishes of the Ridgewood council majority ?

Village Council Meeting

file photo by Boyd Loving
Januray 9,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ , At the January 6th council meeting after an long and sometime contentious meeting , people were tired ,tempers flared and threats were made . Residents were reminded of their obligation to behave at council meetings , but council members were not .

Most on lookers read the touchy defensiveness as a sign that something is not quite right .

Here’s how the council behaves when you ask them to talk about facts as Dana Glazer did: https://youtu.be/neb4TSJ4QsY?t=5h1m14s

The Ridgewood blog has a clearly stated ‘anti threat ” policy , but we didn’t hear anything that night on behavior on the dias of council members and what was appropriate or not . ( https://theridgewoodblog.net/the-ridgewood-blogs-anti-threat-policy/ )

Is is fair to assume  that we may threaten and disparage our neighbors as long as they fail to comply with the wishes of the council majority  ?

This  brings us all back to the original point that the Maser study seemed to magically appear on the Village Website tragically after the vote. This raises serious questions as to the entire process . Was it just an over site , bonding has clear regulations as to what information should be available . Withholding any significant information could throw the entire project in jeopardy.

Posted on by — 13 Comments

Ms. Hauck also signed this letter. Do you still think she should represent Ridgewood in the Valley Hospital law suit?

gwenn hauck

file photo by Boyd Loving

An Open Letter to Fellow Residents of Ridgewood and the Ridgewood Planning Board,
As residents of Ridgewood, we write to share our thoughts about The Valley
Renewal
.
We are among the thousands of Village residents who support
Renewal
.
To continue to be the high quality hospital that residents of Ridgewood and our neighboring
communities need and desire, it is essential for Valley to renew. Valley must right-size its
operating, diagnostic, and treatment rooms to accommodate new technologies and procedures.
It is also essential for Valley to develop single patient rooms to meet new patient care and
safety standards. These steps are not optional, they are crucial.
During its almost 60-year history, Valley has evolved from a local hospital to the award
winning, top quality regional healthcare organization that it is today. The hospital ranks
among the highest in the nation for both clinical care and patient satisfaction. It has evolved
over time to meet the needs of the communities it serves, and it must do so again. Valley’s
role as a provider of excellent healthcare services for tens of thousands is what makes the
suggested revisions to the Master Plan and H Zone not only acceptable, but vital.
As residents of Ridgewood, we disagree with those who have written or stated that
the Hospital’s Renewal will harm the unique character or way of life of the Village.
In addition, we believe that Valley is wholly committed to the safety and security of the
hospital’s patients, its staff, and the neighbors and students who live and attend school
in the hospital’s neighborhood.

Valley renewal Open Letter Signatures2
We are proud of The Valley Hospital and we know the majority of our neighbors feel the
same way. As friends and neighbors of many Village residents, we suggest that we move
past the “us vs. them” mentality that has unfortunately become a part of this discussion
and move toward ensuring that Valley remains the hospital that all of us would choose for
ourselves and our family’s healthcare, today, tomorrow, and in the future.
Sincerely,
Scott Agins, D.P.M.
Claudia Allocco
Andrea Aluisi
Michael W. Azzara
George Becker, M.D.
Timothy Berry
David F. Bolger
Mary Camerlingo
Tracey Carbone, M.D.
Eugene Cornell
Anne G. Crane
Thomas R. Crane
Charles D. Crowley, M.D.
Elizabeth O. Crowley, M.D.
Bettina M. Daly
Anne Raftery Denyeau
Marc M. Dreier, M.D.
Stephen J. Errico
Kevin M. Fee
Carole E. Forenza
Russell R. Forenza
James D. Fraser
Megan Fraser
Danielle M. Gaglioti
Robin L. Giordano
Robert Gutenstein
Gwenn Hauck
Cynthia Halaby
Diana Hock
Fletcher Hock
John Johansen
Sally Jones
John Kandravy
Leslie Kane
Sue Kelly
Maryann LeBert
Edward and Joan Lefferman
Kenneth Levitsky, M.D.
Hugo Lijtmaer, M.D.
David Lipson, M.D.
Donna H. MacPhee
Gail M. Matthews, M.D.
Susan H. Mayo
Diane Meissner
Klaus J. Meissner
Audrey Meyers
David Namerow, M.D.
John Nasr, M.D.
Ali Nasseri, M.D.
Pat and Mario Perillo
Thomas J. Rakowski, M.D.
Eileen Richardot
Bettie and Howell Rile
Marivic F. Santiago, M.D.
Kathleen B. Sayles
David G. Sayles
Maria Scibetta, M.D.
Marjorie L. Slankard, M.D.
Ann Marie Snyder
Charles J. Snyder
Susan J. Snyder
Jack Tohme, M.D.
Daniel Van Engel, M.D.
Wayne A. Yankus, M.D.
Patricia J. Van Dyke
Victoria Van Dyke
Susan Viniar
Michael Wesson, M.D

Posted on by — 8 Comments

OLMC : uncomfortable with potential ripple effects and future implications of the Hudson Street Garage in Ridgewood

Mount Carmel

OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL

FROM THE PASTOR Dear friends,

Since the bulletin is prepared on Wednesday, before the Village Council meeting, I cannot share with you what happened. Below, please find the statement of the Parish that was emailed to Council members and read into the record.

On behalf of the Archdiocese of Newark and Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish, I would like to thank Mayor Aronsohn, Councilwoman Knudsen and the architectural/engineering teams working with the Village of Ridgewood for their willingness to engage in these open discussions and for their participation in the two meetings held at the parish last week. I have attached a memorandum from Daniel Disario, P.E., PTOE, of Langan Engineering, the firm that the parish has retained to review the traffic study submitted by Maser Consulting. The memorandum has identified several areas of concern that we would like to see addressed prior to the project moving forward.

While we are encouraged by the fact that the Village is willing to consider reducing the size of the proposed structure, we still believe that the construction of a parking deck for 200 additional cars will significantly impact day to day operations for the Church community and accordingly we would like to see the project proceed with due caution. Though we are thankful that the Village commissioned a traffic study, we feel that the report was limited in scope and a more thorough analysis is necessary.

The study was performed on Wednesday, October 7th for two hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. As a result, the report does not take in to account added volume due to; daily drop off and pickup for Windsor Academy School, drop off and pick up for religious education classes, weddings, baptisms, confirmations, funerals and other parish events – including the significant attendance for weekend masses. With Mount Carmel being the closest neighbor to the parking structure, we would have preferred more interaction with Maser’s engineers so they could take these factors into account.

We are also uncomfortable with potential ripple effects and future implications of issues yet to be determined, including the possibility of the reversal of traffic flow and the elimination of street parking on Hudson and Passaic Streets, both of which border Church property. Certain aspects of the design, including the introduction of crisscrossing left hand turns at the entrance/exit of the lot, a problem which will be exacerbated by the inherent increase of both foot and vehicle traffic at mass times, should be more closely reviewed and fleshed out.

Furthermore, the proposed “cantilevered” overhang is a major aesthetic concern and also could present a series of logistical issues. We agree that solutions need to be found for the parking problem in Ridgewood and it is the intention of the parish to cooperate with the Village to address this longstanding issue. We also recognize the viability of the Hudson Street lot as a potential site, however, we believe the matter needs the type of comprehensive study and analysis that was recommended in the “Summary and Conclusions” portion of the original study completed by Maser Consulting on October 15, 2015 (page 22).

To this end, the parish is willing to retain an engineer at its own expense to examine the ramifications of the proposal in more detail. In conclusion, we formally request that bond approval be placed on hold until both engineering firms are given the appropriate time to study the matter in the required detail and subsequently confer for the purpose of providing a mutually beneficial solution for both the Village and parish communities.

Please pray we come to a peaceful agreement.

God Bless,

Fr. Ron