Experts set to testify for village in Valley expansion hearings
Thursday March 21, 2013, 4:36 PM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER
The Ridgewood News
Ridgewood Planning Board members are hopeful they will retain all the needed professionals and consultants in time for the start of the upcoming Valley Hospital expansion public hearing.
This week, the board installed two new alternate members and, pending a satisfactory review from Ridgewood’s municipal engineer, hired a geotechnical and environmental expert specifically for the hospital application proceedings, scheduled to commence April 2.
A traffic engineer, Gordon Meth from the RBA Group, was retained during the March 11 Planning Board meeting, while Village Planner Blais Brancheau and Chris Rutishauser, Ridgewood’s engineer, will represent the board in their respective areas of expertise.
As of Tuesday night, the Planning Board was still seeking an architect to testify for the board.
The planning board is still refusing to hire an urban planner that would study the project from the residents perspective. They said if they need to they will look at this later, which is disengenuous at best as they want all of these hearings to be done by June. This is just another reason why the taxpayers feel that the planning board is never going to give us a fair shake.
If enough residents are opposed to the expansion project as reintroduced they can file a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ. It is a legal remedy used when the taxpayers believe a planning board has ruled contrary to their best interest and current zoning regulations. If this PB keeps it up, they may eventually end up being served with legal papers.
Why bother with experts? Mr. Grant has already stated on the record that the hospital needs to expand. Ms. Price is bending over backwards to make sure that the “experts” don’t have to stick around and answer questions the same night either. Finally, when the matter gets to the Council, Valley Auxiliary President Ms. Hauck is waiting there with her rubber stamp.
Can the decision makers at least try to maintain some APPEARANCE of objectivity?
I have heard of this “complaint in lieu of prerogative writ” before. I really believe that may be the best option based on what I’ve seen so far. “Objectivity” does not really exist in this case…
I guess the definition of “objectivity” in Ridgewood means any opinion that opposes the Valley plans.
Since Valley introduced their first plans years ago, the perspective and comments from those opposed to Valley’s plans have been ANYTHING but objective.
#5. That is because valley hasn’t really change their demands . They still want to build a city complex in a residential neighborhood.
I don’t know if it is accurate to suggest that Valley has not made changes. From what I have seen, they have changed elements of their proposal. On the other hand the people opposed to Valley’s plans have not “changed their minds” at all.
Compromise is defined as “consent reached by mutual concessions”. When each side recognizes that they must BOTH make reasonable concessions, Ridgewood may begin to resolve this issue.
One way to solve the issue would be take the proposition and put to a public vote referendum style that way you would let the general public have a say and if they don’t come out and vote and they don’t get what they want they can’t complain.
So, why has it not been put to a public vote ?
I’m not sure#8. As far as I know the town council has to do that and I have never asked any of them.
On another thread someone was talking about a group of west side residents hiring a lawyer to fight the various expansions and projects in the village is this writ how they would go about it?