file photo by Boyd Loving
PLEASE mark your calendar for the MOST IMPORTANT meeting to date:
Wednesday, September 16 at 7:30 pm – VILLAGE COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING before ordinances are approved allowing multi-family housing in downtown Ridgewood at 35-units per acre
Please take time to read this important message from CBR Trustees:
For over two years, Citizens for a Better Ridgewood (CBR) actively participated in the Ridgewood Planning Board’s review of a Master Plan Amendment that would allow several large, high-density housing projects to be built downtown. CBR enlisted the help of a professional planner and an expert Land Use attorney to give residents a voice in the process, and to urge caution and advocate for proper planning. Unfortunately, our voices were not heard.
On June 1st, CBR circulated an online petition advocating for responsible planning and densities lower than the 35-units per acre that was before the Planning Board. The petition gained more than 1,000 signatures in just a few short hours, demonstrating that many Ridgewood residents oppose the jump from 12 to 35 units per acre. This petition was decidedly ignored. Despite our calls for visionary planning and densities more appropriate for Ridgewood, on June 2nd the Planning Board approved four separate amendments to the master plan that pave the way for high-density, multifamily housing projects at 35 units per acre.
On August 10, a group of concerned residents enlisted the service of CBR’s attorney to file a complaint in the Superior Court in Bergen County appealing the Planning Board’s decision. The Complaint seeks a Judge’s order to reverse the Planning Board’s June 2 decision based on several counts, including spot zoning violations, procedural irregularities during the master plan proceedings, violations to the Open Public Meetings Act, conflicts of interest among Planning Board members, inappropriate admittance of a threatening letter regarding affordable housing that wrongly swayed some votes, and insufficient comprehensive studies and evidence to warrant a substantial change in zoning.
As you return from your summer break, please know that our cause is strong and alive. Since the June vote, we have a new influx of dedicated and impassioned residents and donors leading the CBR charge. As such, we feel the time is right to change CBR’s leadership to energize this new chapter in our efforts. In the next few weeks, the CBR will have a new set of trustees and the current group will be stepping down. We are fortunate that we have zealous supporters ready to take over and embark on this next stage. If you would like to volunteer to help, please contact us and you can join them!
WE WILL NEED YOUR SUPPORT on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16 AT 7:30 PM when the Village Council holds a public hearing in advance of approving four ordinances that will amend the master plan and allow multi-family housing in downtown Ridgewood at 35-units per acre. This may be the last chance residents will have to speak out about zoning changes that will negatively impact our Village. Given the speed with which the Council accepted the Planning Board’s decision without meaningful discussion, we are concerned the Council may try to effect a premature final vote that same night!
We want to thank all of you for your support over these last two years. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
CBR’s new leadership will continue to keep you updated. Please stay tuned… we need you!
Best Regards,
Amy Bourque, Lori Weil, Carol Bicknese and Jen Ditommasso
NOTE: To be clear, CBR has always favored development in downtown Ridgewood. CBR is not against change, but rather favors VISIONARY (not reactionary) planning that considers the impact zoning changes will have on Ridgewood’s severe parking deficit, traffic issues, lack of open space, and overcrowded schools. CBR continues to advocate for a density limit that is more in line with what currently exists in downtown Ridgewood (approximately 20-24 units per acre.) CBR is in favor of providing alternative housing choices and meeting affordable housing obligations, but believes these objectives can be achieved at a much lower density than 35 units per acre.
Citizens for a Better Ridgewood
citizensforabetterridgewood@aol.com
I am not against reasonable expansion but our new neighbors have a 5 year old daughter who should be going to Hawes. Due to overcrowding in Hawes, she is going to be bussed to an entirely different school. I am sure this has happened to other new families as well. Where will they put the children brought in by these new developments? No census has ever been done as to the number of children living in garden apartments–just the one high rise on Maple and Franklin. As a result the Planning Board has no idea how many children will live in all these new apartments. Also, if the Builders are looking for a heavy amount of Senior citizens, what about the houses that will be sold to families with children? School populations are being totally ignored by the Builders and it should be required that they prove these new buildings will not further over crowd our schools!
Are any of the Council members involved with Citizens for a Better Ridgewood ? Will they recuse themselves from these discussions given the lawsuit?
I’ll be there, count on it.
Re: “To be clear, CBR has always favored development in downtown Ridgewood.”
I’m curious what % of the supporters of CBR agree with that statement? Are >50% of CBR supporters really in favor of density of “20-24 units per acre” in downtown?
Check out this slideshow of developments that range in density from 25-50 units per acre: https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/1861.
Is a 25 unit per acre property really so different from a 35 unit per acre property to make a difference to the average CBR supporter? I strongly believe that CBR and its supporters would be very likely to look at any development plan and simply demand “MAKE IT SMALLER”.
Of course the council members are not involved with the CBR.
There are 31 elementary aged children in the oak street apartments that attend Ridge which is a good indicator that the new apartments will be very attractive to those with children.
Poor Hawes. when the folks at Willard were told they would be bused to Travell there was an uproar and they got a new section added to avoid that scenario
The planning board does not care about the school over-crowding. Read the documents on the village website.
You have over crowding of schools, kids are bussed, you build more residences, you get more kids. And you move to Ridgewood for the schools ? Really ? Let’s hear from the BOE members.
2:15 – Did Mrs. Hauck recuse herself on Valley? Ever? Even after they filed suit?
5:55 – Hawes is thriving….best kept secret in town, just ask the folks that get bused over from the old Glen school (Salem) district.
And don’t forget that there already isn’t enough parking in town (hence need for a garage right?), not enough space inside or outside of the library (need for renovations right?), not enough ball fields for all the children who live here and play sports (need for a new field, right?), and so what do we do? Add more people! Genius.
6:37, Valley’s expansion plan was voted down by the Planning board, it was never discussed in a public Governing body meeting so there was nothing to recuse from. Answering a question about whether or not you would recuse yourself is therefore irrelevant because it never came to a vote at the Council level last year.
Have any Council members ever been involved with the CBR?
CBR SUPPORTS SUSAN KNUDSEN AND MICHAEL SEDON. Stay tuned for Meet and Greets for the candidates. Let us know if you’d like to host a coffee.
Hmmmmm, looks like we have a conflict of interest?https://www.northjersey.com/mobile/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-cbr-endorses-knudsen-sedon-1.841611
Its one thing to be supported by a group of Ridgewood Tax Payers bur another to be courted by a group of private developers who have big money at stake.
Wrong @10:30. They were endorsed. If you are suggesting that they are so beholden to CBR to render them unable to meet their responsibilities that is completely unfounded. They have been nothing but above board and transparent.
stunning hypocrisy 7:47, stunning
maybe they could ask the CBR to drop their lawsuit – which Village taxpayers will have to pay to defend against – if they are above board and transparent? Why are my property taxes going to defend against the CBR’s lawsuit Mike and Sue? Were you not endorsed by these people?
since you are the lone post on this perhaps its time to come out of the closet , taxpayers are going to pay for the Valley Suit , Ridgewood Water Suit, Exxon suit, all the Graydon Suits and so on and so on , perhaps instead the 3 amigos should be held personally responsible since they defied the voters on all the zoning and planning issues .
Sorry James, but none of the current Council voted in favor of Valley’s expansion, Ridgewood Water is on Ten Hoeve and previous VMs, and what stake do any council members have in causing the Exxon or Graydon suits? I agree that the current council should be fighting in court against Valley’s “not for profit” status which is clearly bogus
Why has no one on the Council opened their mouths regarding the Valley tax situation ?
here is a comment written by Al Pucciarelli when he was running for council regarding when you should recuse. After reading it, both Pucciarielli (his law firm does work with the developers of the Dayton and he is friends with the owners of the property) and Aronsohn (his wife works in one of the zones and benefits financially) need to recuse themselves.
It also shows Hauck (personal involvement that would impair her objectivity) and Pucciarelli (business and financial involvement) should recuse themselves from any discussions on the Valley issue
1a8c9c76ed288765abd14ec71f7dda9
Albert J. Pucciarelli May 06, 2012 at 09:43 AM
The very first time I spoke publicly about my candidacy – February 13, 2012 – I acknowledged my conflict regarding Valley. At Monday’s debate I said that because of the conflict I was uniquely suited to play a roll in bringing the hospital and the neighbors together in what I hope will be a meaningful dialogue. Only two days ago did I read for the first time that candidate Forenza’s wife works for Valley and he too has a conflict that would prevent him from voting. Finally now – two days before the election – I am seeing for the first time the candidate himself acknowledge this. I concluded that I have a conflict (and checked it with a lawyer in my firm who is an expert on such matters) because the state law on the matter is quite clear. I am surprised that for the past two months I have been asked about the conflict of interest frequently while Mr. Forenza, who may have enjoyed support of the Valley proponents, only now – just days before the May 8 election – is mentioned in connection with a possible conflict. Mr. Forenza, a non-lawyer, is not sure he has a conflict. Here is the relevant state law: “No local government officer or employee shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which he has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment.” Albert Pucciarelli
Recommend
Did any of the CBR leaderships (Amy Bourque, Lori Weil, Carol Bicknese and Jen Ditommasso) give money to any Zcouncil members as private citizens?
Just checking the back to school night calendar, the meeting is the same night as Ridge, Hawes and Travell back to school night and there are HSA meetings at BF and GW.
8:16, this is likely an intentional conflict on the part of the trio.