Ridgewood NJ, The Village Council repealed an ordinance that has in many residents eyes opened the door to unpopular village master plan amendments that included clearing the way for The Valley Hospital’s expansion and construction of high-density housing downtown.
The ordinance, No. 3066, was adopted in 2007 and states that “any interested party” can formally request amendments to either the master plan or its development regulations. The requests must be reviewed by the village, and the ordinance also outlines how a party must file such requests, as well as the fee structure for doing so.
Village Planner Blais Brancheau authored the ordinance nine years ago and has steadfastly claimed it was to “establish a clear procedure” for handling amendment requests and let the village charge the requesting party the cost of the professionals involved. Brancheau claims that without the ordinance, those costs would be carried by Ridgewood taxpayers.Critics of 3066 have long felt the Village had lost control of the planning process.
It was introduced by the Village Council under Mayor Pfund in 2007 (https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/minutes/07RPMJUN13.pdf ). Chapter § 190-143 of the amended Village Code is the kicker; it established procedures for interested persions (i.e. developers) to request amendments to the Village Master Plan or development regulations.
Council members Mancuso, Ringler Shagin, Wiest, and Pfund all voted in favor of the ordinance. Chapter § 190-143 is here https://ecode360.com/6694062 .
Over the years many residents argue that this should be repealed to ensure that we don’t see overdevelopment at Valley and in the CBD in terms of densities and building scale. It’s felt this will better protect our property values.
But last night the council agreed to repeal Ordinance 3066 once and for all in all its glory which will allow the Village to once again gain control of its own destiny and close the door on incongruous non conforming development. The final repeal will come in the August public meeting.
BY ALEXANDRA HOEY
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
RIDGEWOOD – Ridgewood’s new governing body laid the groundwork for pressing issues in their first meeting on Wednesday. Parking, budget approvals and Ridgewood Water were top items.
Parking
The council openly brainstormed different ideas to fix parking in the central business district. Deputy Mayor Michael Sedon, who kicked off the conversation, said the village should explore creating more one-way streets, which will increase on-street parking spots.
Firstly, I wanted to compliment you all on an open and thoughtful first meeting as the newly constructed Council. For the first time in years, Residents heard truly open discourse between Council Members and real discussion on the topics before the board. That was so refreshing. Thank you.
I am writing today, as one agenda item put before you is cause for great concern: the request to dissolve Ridgewood’s in-house Construction Board of Appeals so that any relevant cases in the future will be heard by the County’s board. When this request was made, many Residents in the audience thought: “Oh no, here we go again.” In light of this request it felt clear that Residents, and the Council, will have to remain very tuned-in and vigilant even with the prior Council’s voting block gone, as elements of their agenda may remain.
There is no way that Ridgewood should dissolve the Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA) at a time when so much potential construction, and construction related reviews, disputes, and potentially even litigation, may stand before the Village. I was surprised that our Village Manager did not catch this and even appeared to support the request. The CBOA representative who requested the dissolution indicated that this board hasn’t had much to do for several years and so may not be needed. One of the reasons they have not had much to do is that many of the construction projects proposed in Ridgewood are of such a controversial nature that they’ve been held up for years. However, at least four of these construction projects filed site plans last month and hope to have construction permits asap. Despite the passage of the recent high density multifamily ordinances, promoted by the prior Mayor and Deputy Mayor, these ordinances and the related applicant construction projects remain controversial, due to their size, scale and density being at odds with the majority of Residents’ desires, as well as issue with the process by which they were passed.
Given this, Ridgewood absolutely cannot turn over any governance and or construction review to outside entities or boards. Ridgewood needs to control its own destiny and we are lucky to have so many Residents with the smarts, talents and experience to do that.
As such, please, do not dissolve our Construction Board of Appeals right at the time it may be needed the most.
The bike lane to nowhere was was an idiotic attempt by Roberta to show she could do something, ,anything , constructive and it turned into a nightmare, It was a complete waste of money and it failed to achieve the goals of increased safety and increased vehicle thru-put that were touted by Village Management as a major goal. The fact is this project turned into a giant waste of taxpayer money with no identifiable benefit to the Village, All who were involved in planning ,executing, managing and promoting this stupid project should be let go immediately. We need smart people to solve our problrms not idiots who have no idea what they are doing.
Ridgewood NJ, Just a quick take on last night first council meeting with the new council , if tonight is any indication of things to come, so much is going to be accomplished. Ordinance 3066 is to be repealed.There was real talk about Ridgewood Water,even addressing the law suit.
The parking issues were addressed with real common sense and many new ideas as well as recognition of the immediacy of getting things done quickly. Roberta didn’t run the meeting and actually did what she is supposed to do, inform the council!
Rurik Halaby could not help himself. He had to praise the past council and once again went on and on about how there has never been anyone like Roberta. He gave Susan a mild lecture and talked about his belief that Valley is a done deal and to fight this would be the equivalent of endangering lives( lifes?)He cautioned Susan not to base her decisions on a few disgruntled neighbors and move Ridgewood forward into the future embracing change and growth. I might have made this sound better than it actually did! But she was very polite as usual.
Hopefully we go forward with a suit against Valley. maybe it would tie things up long enough for them to start developing all the other properties they have purchased and their argument that their expansion is for the greater good will not have as much impact in a court of law as it seems to have done with the current judge.
Below are two articles, from today’s WSJ and Bergen Record, on Monday’simportant NJ Appeals Court ruling on Affordable Housing (AH) that will: (1) substantially lower the overall number of AH units required by municipalities under AH laws, and (2) may cause further delay in defining the actual obligations of municipalities under AH laws. In the Record article, even Kevin Walsh, the Fair Share Housing advocate (whose threatening of “hearsay” letter was wrongly permitted to be read into the Planning Board’s record by attorney, Gail Price – as if it represented a legal determination – scaring some Board Members and improperly influencing votes) indicated the forthcoming delays from this ruling, saying: “it requires further studies.”
In short, this ruling and these articles support what I, and other members of CBR, tried to convey to the Planning Board and Village Council during the past couple of years of overstated AH ‘threats’ proffered by Mrs. Price: that the Affordable Housing/COAH matter is, despite her puzzling advice, very unsettled and will continue to lack real clarity, potentially for years to come. It’s been that way since the 80s. No Legislature wants to fully effect the laws because they recognize their often impossible demands on NJ’s municipalities. However, conversely, no legislature, or legislator (other than Christie), has effectively sought to rework them or strike them down due to the obvious political implications.
These laws are just too flawed, resulting in the tumult and dysfunction of the past several decades. Fact is: there are no clearly defined AH numbers for Ridgewood right now. And there’s a chance there may never be. Given this, our representatives need to govern planning based on “what is right for Ridgewood now and in the future” and not “what minimizes builder’s remedy lawsuits.”
I firmly believe Mrs. Price wrongly influenced the Planning Board decision on the Multifamily Ordinances by alleging that a “Yes” vote was needed on the Master Plan changes, enabling development at the excessive levels sought by developers, to avoid potential developer lawsuits based on recent AH court rulings. As many anticipated, these rulings have now been lessened, and to some degree, called into question. Unfortunately, Mrs. Price never properly educated the Board on how dysfunctional the AH/COAH laws and politics have been (and very well will be), and that until such time as an unlikely final verdict is delivered, they should be wary reacting too quickly to threats from developers.
The implications of Monday’s ruling serves to underscore the unwise, biased and, unacceptable for Ridgewood, process undertaken by the prior Planning Board and Council. While we can and should promote fitting and proper development (and proper “development process”) in Ridgewood, which does add affordable units to our housing base, we should never have done this in the manner – fraught with bias and influence – that occurred over the past four years.
Beyond this, I believe there are certainly other ways Ridgewood can more properly and proactively plan to meet future AF/COAH requirements. These ways may be more creative and better for both Ridgewood and those truly needing AH than those put forth by the developers. I look forward to discussing my thoughts on them with you. I have been in the multifamily business for two decades, have managed many properties with affordable and moderately priced units, and am happy to share my experience.
Lastly, it is important to note that if members of the prior Planning Board and Village Council voted out of fear of lawsuits, they already got one: and sadly it’s from their own Residents, the very people they were elected or selected to properly represent. It’s a suit that alleges decisions based upon conflict of interest, outside influence, and improper representation and, most importantly, seeks to correct the serious mistakes in planning, representation and judgement made by the prior Council and Planning Board.
While the AH/COAH laws truly lack clarity, what is clear is that Ridgewood’s Residents demand proper planning and process. There is a much better route than the one taken by the prior Planning Board and Council.
Best Regards,
Dave Slomin, Resident
Follow up _________________________________________________________________
July 13,2016
Dear Mayor, Council and Village Attorney Rogers,
My July 12th email provoked feedback from a good number of fellow Residents and representatives various Ridgewood citizen groups, including responses to my letter and the linked articles with concern that pro-development attorneys may contend the appellate decision does not “change anything.” As the agenda indicates tonight’s Council meeting will address litigation in closed session, I wanted to make sure my comments were placed in the proper context, asMonday’s ruling does impact things here in Ridgewood.
My point is that the ruling exemplifies the significant dysfunction and lack of clarity that continues to exist (as it has for several decades) in the Affordable Housing definitions and determinations at the State level. This highlights the Planning Board attorney’s failure to properly advise the Board on how to address these issues. Mrs. Price, as a professional land use attorney, was well aware of this dysfunction and should never have counseled our Planning Board as she did. By proceeding as if the now reversed lower court decision was new “scripture,” and by either misunderstanding and/or misapplying other standards, the Planning Board attorney wrongly influenced the public debate and Board members’ votes. Necessarily, therefore, the Village Council proceeded under a flawed process and construct.
I do understand that whether State rulings ultimately determine that Ridgewood owes 50, or 100, or 500, or 1,000, or 100,000,000 affordable units, we are well short of that number and need to provide some additional AH units. From that singular perspective the ruling has a more limited impact. However, that is not the issue at hand. Rather, the issue is the defective and conflicted process in our municipal governance effecting the passage of recent pro-development ordinances. As such, what the appellate court’s decision signifies to me – as a multifamily real estate professional, with several decades of experience – is that the law has been and will be in a state of flux for some time to come. That no one can predict with certainty what will happen should definitely have been strongly conveyed to the Planning Board and Village Council prior to their votes. It was not. That is why the willingness of the prior majorities on the Council and Planning Board to side with those speculating with our downtown is so particularly egregious. Rather than react and surrender to an imagined obligations, or cave to the potential of developer lawsuits, Ridgewood should have performed correct and proper master planning with proper construct and counsel. There were so many things wrong and biased in their failed excuse for “planning.” You have the opportunity to begin the process of correcting this and protect Ridgewood from reckless overbuilding now and in the future.
Thus, I urge the newly constituted Council to address all pending litigation in view of the voters’ mandate. And you do have a clear cut mandate. Mayor Knudsen and Deputy Mayor Sedon both won their council seats in a landslide two years ago. And in the recent election, not only did Councilmembers Voigt, Hache and Walsh win in another landslide, but they routed the candidates heavily promoted by Aronsohn, Pucciarelli and Hauck to promote furtherance of development at the excessive scale and density recently passed. Then, subsequent to these elections, Residents next defeated the oversized garage by a vote of 2 to 1. These were not just victories. They were repudiations. They represent the voices and the clarity with which Ridgewood Residents speak and vote once we know the truth. Residents have spoken. You know very well what your constituents want. The recent votes leave no questions whatsoever. Your actions need to reflect the mandate we gave you.
Now is the perfect opportunity for the Village to move forward in acknowledgement of the serious issues raised by litigation in the housing and hospital lawsuits. With these suits, along with the garage referendum matter, you need to rectify Ridgewood’s core problems. Let’s show progress by first openly acknowledging that serious mistakes were made by the prior Council and Board Members. We all know it… our votes showed it. A perfect starting point for that is to recognize the legitimacy of the issues raised by our fellow citizens’ lawsuits, and settle those lawsuits as strong representatives of your constituents and not as officials fearful of outside interests. Then, let’s redirect the Village’s resources to focus on the developers with either settlement talks or continuing litigation, whatever is required to do what is truly right for Ridgewood. If you do what’s right, you will have our endless support. If any shortcuts are taken, Ridgewood’s divisions will sadly remain. And it’s time to end our divisions.
Lastly, please note I am including Mayor Knudsen in this email, as I entered her email incorrectly in my email of 7/12.
Ridgewood NJ, looks like Ridgewood residents who questioned the over development of the central business district proved right all along. A state appeals panel overturned a court order that could have added thousands of units to developers’ plans.
Suburban towns are not required to address the so-called “backlog” of unmet housing needs that supposedly accumulated from 1999-2015. This is a very good development for Ridgewood. The developers have much less leverage than they thought they did. Now we have to press the point that we are fully built-out, have been for decades, and should not be obliged by any court to “build up”, city-style, to accommodate large numbers of new residents.
What a shame for Saraceno, Simoncini, Pucciarelli and all the others that stood to gain big time and pushed so hard to get all that housing into the CBD. Kudos to,the citizens who delayed all the development and stood up to Aronsohn and his horrible reign of terror, and Gwenn with her sparkly eyed talk about COAH.
2 hour tech workshops
that will save you
10 hours of time.
Sign up for summer workshops in
Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.
Bergen IT LLC’s targeted, affordable tech training sessions are designed to meet the needs of small business. They address the challenges you and your employees regularly face when working with essential software tools.
Our highly-experienced instructor will provide training that’s usually only available in large corporations. He’ll offer expert answers in clear, easy-to-understand language. Even if you’ve used these software programs for years, this training will improve your productivity, reduce stress, and save you money.
This specially-priced opportunity is for fellow Chamber members and their employees. Workshops will be held in the Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce office. Summer sessions will run from 7/18/16 – 8/5/16. Reserve a spot now by contacting [email protected] or calling 201-689-1823. For more details and the schedule of sessions, Click to Learn More.
I sat at the top of East Ridgewood Avenue this beautiful Sunday morning enjoying some time on a bench with my granddaughter, drinking iced coffee and a blueberry coolatta. She noticed that cars were not stopping at the stop sign heading south on Broad Street at the Ridgewood Avenue “T” by the train station parking lot. She is 6 years old and was disturbed by this. So we counted 40 cars passing through. Out of 40 cars, 28 of them rolled through the stop sign without stopping. Only 12 actually stopped. And all the while people were crossing on foot, pushing strollers, on bicycles, etc. So dangerous. And mind you, this was on a Sunday morning from about 9:00 – 9:15. What must this be like on a busy weekday when the trains are coming and going, when commuters are rushing about, when people are trying to get their kids to school, and so on. I suggested that we tell a police officer but she was afraid to get the police in trouble for not doing their job of ticketing these drivers.
Ridgewood NJ, What we asked for follows immediately below. What we got is attached.
So Gwenn Hauck was behind this all (see invoice)? I SERIOUSLY doubt it. I guess they needed a fall guy for some reason.
4089 and 4091 total emails sent
**********
During date range June 9, 2016 through and including June 21, 2016:
1) The number of intended recipients and any and all “e-notices” sent by Village of Ridgewood employees and/or agents regarding matters related to the special election concerning “Parking Deck” Referendum Election scheduled for June 21, 2016. That is, how many unique e-mail addresses were included in said “e-notice” distribution(s).
2) Information Technology data associated withwww.ridgewoodnj.net indicating the total number of “clicks” or “hits” on: a) referendum “page”, b) referendum “guide,” and c) video associated with said matter. That is, how many “clicks” or “hits” were there on the referendum page, referendum “guide,” and the video.
3) Copies (via DVD) of any and all versions of said video that at one time or another were posted on www.ridgewoodnj.net during the date range noted above.
4) Copies of any and all outstanding and/or paid invoices associated with the production and/or distribution of the video content associated with numbers 1, 2, and 3 above.
Correct me if I are wrong. My general understanding is there is not widespread ownership of downtown commercial properties but that many of the downtown buildings are long time holdings by several who enjoy relatively low acquistion costs.
It appears that vacancies can be sat on instead of lowering rent because they can given the large cash flow coming in from other ongoing rentals. I do understand the basic economic principle that supply and demand sets prices and the market will bear what it can but I also understand that artificial price supports can be in place given any degree of monopoly and I believe that this is reflected in vacancies and heavy turnover at many spots.
Landlords do have the right to decent ROI at current values but rents do appear excessive in comparision to other towns and some numbers Ive seen for spaces are simply astronomical . The current rent structure eliminates most low margin businesses and any real chance for mom and pop shops to succeed long term so you see the opening and closing of many fine hopefuls which has as much or more to do with high rents than parking.
Ive watched numerous places with good nearby parking turnover a few times, ie the cozy coffee shop on the park corner, not because of parking but because of exorbitant rents. I do think parking should be addressed as it could be improved but landlord wishes to maintain high prices or further raise rents are secondary because their bottom lines dont need to be supported or subsidized.The value of their holdings can also operate and fluctuate in a fair market . It would be optimal to get the most convenient parking spot when visiting an establishment and not have to circle around but I eventually find one within walking distance in relatively short time .
The new council appears to be prudent and open to exploring parking options that could address the whole spectrum and I would also hope that they have discussions with the few dominant landlords and prod them to do their part in seeing housed businesses succeed and seeing that vacancies dont persist. To landlords, I would say look at your bottom lines vs today’s values and decide if you have squeezed the lemon too hard and if it is hurting the community in which you’ve invested.
Many businesses invest in their own future…for our town that seems to be a novel idea but that’s usually how businesses expand…
Time for the Chamber of Commerce to come up with their own solutions and invest in their own future – in case you didn’t get the message, we aren’t going to pay for it…
From the Chamber’s website for new members:
Member Benefits – Membership decal with the Chamber decal – We promote “Spend Locally” and encourage shoppers and diners to look for the logo. The logo identifies your business as a member of the Chamber, and supporter of the Ridgewood community.
“supporter of the Ridgewood community” – that’s rich…
If the landlords are content with empty storefronts for months on end, then that’s that. They could lower rents, but that hurts their bottom line. Their misguided solution is increase the crowd level with high density housing – so we’ll have more people ignoring the shops in the CBD, and more Amazon deliveries to the new apartment blocks. This is a market issue that can’t be legislated away.
Any business that provides an incremental service will continue to survive in the downtown setting. Restaurants provide cooking and service, in addition to a social atmosphere. Bars provide a meeting place, booze, and a bartender who will listen to your bellyaching when nobody else cares (the bartender doesn’t care either, by the way…and that dancer at Satin Dolls is not working her way through college, and doesn’t think you’re funny, but I digress). Certain goods, like high end clothes that need to be fitted, will still sell. Tailors, barbers, etc etc. See a pattern? Even a used guitar store that buys select instruments online, sets them up well, and offers them to be played before they’re bought might do well. But the traditional consumer goods re-seller is dead on arrival – they can’t pay their rent on razor thin markups necessitated by competition from Amazon.
The “toxic” situation has not arrived. You are imagining a Walking Dead future. Relax.
People will shop if there are products that they want, at a good price.
Restaurants do fine. They all wish that they could sell alcohol and make big bucks on the bar. The restaurants, like Valley, are regional businesses. People come to Ridgewood to dine out, many love the fact that we have so many byob establishments. This is the crux of the “parking problem”. People from all over Bergen county come to Ridgewood. The busineses would like more but feel that they are hampered by lack of parking.
They need to come up with a solution that does not rely on me for funding.
Many well-thought reasons for voting NO to the garage have already been posted. But here are my central questions? Why on God’s green earth are we considering building a $11,500,000 garage in a remote corner of the the central business district BEFORE we look to simpler solutions such as angled parking stalls, the often under utilized Cottage Place lot, and the potential of the more central N. Walnut Street lot?
Why the hyper focus on Hudson Street? (I think we all know why). I’m not saying that a parking garage should never be built. But the $11.5 MILLION “fix”, especially at that remote location, should not be the FIRST solution we consider to this 80 year old problem. Let’s take more prudent, incremental steps toward freeing up parking throughout the CBD, and then reassess. Tomorrow, please VOTE NO!
