Posted on 26 Comments

Council Candidate Jeff Voigt Voices Concerns over the High Density Housing Proposals in Ridgewood

Jeff Voigt Ridgewood
March 15,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, the Ridgewood asked for some feed back from the candidates on the March 9th “informational ” meeting with the Village Council on the high density housing projects for the central business district .

Council Candidate Jeff Voigt said ,  “I am concerned there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty around the school children projections.  The analysis done by BFJ planning makes the assumption that the mix of units in the new buildings will be the same as existing apartment inventory and then uses this assumption on what the number of students will be moving forward.   Since the builders can build whatever they want, this assumption should not be made.  As I had suggested at the meeting a sensitivity analysis should be done on the best and worst cases.  it is a relatively straight forward process and would provide us with the risk and costs of various scenarios and the likelihoods of these happening. ”

Jeff brought to mind another issue , “Another concern is that once these ordinances are approved, my guess is that the developers will start ASAP on building, considering their concern about the potential make-up of a new council.   This will make downtown a mess – with 4 potential large developments going up at once – the parking garage plus 3 multifamily developments.  In particular, the S. Broad St area is going to be impassible.   It would be nice to see the developers understand this and do their best to ensure the downtown is not disrupted. ”

Jeff went on to say that , the real estate agent (who stood up) expressing his concern about 55 students coming out of 70+ apartments.  This type of relationship also holds in the Ridge Apt’s where 37 children come out of 40 (2 bedroom) apartments. Since Ridgewood is a magnet town for education I can see many families moving into these apt just for the education – even in the one bedrooms.  If either of these scenarios plays out with the new developments – we could have 100+ children in our school system.   Not good.

He also added that , “The planning board needs to scrutinize the site plans for each of these developments very carefully considering each site plan should have a plan for how daily life/traffic is going to function while they put up their rather large edifices.   Stipulations made by the planning in their approval is going to be extremely important.”

Jeff also echoed the sentiment of many residents when he said the meeting ,”Overall, very disappointing”

Posted on 13 Comments

Ridgewood holding public info sessions on proposed multifamily housing zones downtown

CBD high density housing

BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — It’s a proposal that’s raised hackles in this prominent community for several years: the possible rezoning of portions of the village’s quaint downtown to accommodate high-density, multifamily housing developments.

Proponents, including village Mayor Paul Aronsohn, say five introduced zoning ordinances that would increase allowed housing units per acre from 12 to 30 or 35 in three zones in the central business district would help create housing for young professionals and empty-nesters looking to stay in town minus the sizable house and accompanying tax bill.

 

https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/ridgewood-to-discuss-multifamily-rezone-plan-1.1527370

Posted on 12 Comments

Readers Say Current Ridgewood Historic Preservation Committee is Very Lenient Compared to Past Committees

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

The 5-6 parking spaces are being deleted because of the sidewalk? No, They are being removed because the new building deleted the old sidewalk.

Storeowners are behind the parking. The HPC member who is a storeowner and former Chamber of Commerce president should not be voting. It is a conflict of interest. Someone in a different post siggested that another HPC member owned the building next to the garage. Is that true and was he allowed to vote? It How do so many people with conflicts get on the HPC?

I did a renovation more than ten years ago needed a variance, the architect suggested that we get planning HPC approval even though we are not in a designated historic area. The HPC agonized about how the addition would fit in with our neighborhood of old homes.

The current committee is very lenient. They do not seem to care about the historic district and what the impact will be on the neighborhood. the garage overwhelms the neighborhood. I am shocked that the HPC cannot see this.

Mr Damiano, you had to use your real name. It would have been hard to defend your mailed-in decision if you posted anonymously. We would have figured it out. It does not matter that the reason that you gave in your letter was wrong, you were still voting yes.

Posted on 22 Comments

Ridgewood News Ad Shows Out of Scale Picture of Hudson Parking Garage

hudson Garage Ridgewood News Ad

photo by Melanie McWilliams‎

Ridgewood News Ad  Shows Out of Scale Picture of Hudson Parking Garage
March 13.2016
the staff of the Ridgewood Blog

Ridgewood Nj, Many readers point out the complete discrepancies discovered regarding the scale and measurements of this photo. The village green roof line is made to look significantly larger than it is. It is approximately 24 feet tall give or take a few feet. The place on the garage that meets that point is significantly distorted to make the garage look smaller than it actually is.

View 3 Looking West on Hudson Street copy revised 4 1
photo by Saurabh Dani
This photo would have you thinking the village green and the garage are similar in size. For a reference point, the lights shown on the garage are 11 feet.
During the recent HPC meeting it was called  “Planes” this… and “Sight line” that.. when Councilwoman Knudsen tried to suggest adding labels or height markers so it would be more clear, she was summarily dismissed.
1501447 10153504625323947 5067010893500319914 o
photo by Saurabh Dani
The claim is that it is because of the “plane”. Say whatever you want. It’s out of proportion. Giving viewers a sense that if the garage really was going to be this small, perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad. Do NOT be fooled. And please feel free to pass this information along to anyone who might be fooled by the ad in today’s paper.
Posted on 19 Comments

Ridgewood Hudson Garage Architect Contradict Mayor’s “Two” Traffic lane Assertion

Mayor_theridgewoodblog

file photo by Boyd Loving

March 11,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood Nj,  the resolution passed by the Village council on Jan 27th, for the 5 principals of the “design D” for the Hudson Parking Garage .

The mayor mentions that there will be TWO traffic lanes, and one parking lane in the new design D/the resolution which he approved on Jan 27th.

At  Historic Preservation Commission meeting the architects informed tthe commission that currently, there is 30 feet of asphalt – 9 feet each side is parking, and 12 feet is used for a one way traffic lane. From that 9 feet parking on the north side, 5 feet will now go to encroachment, so the ‘cart way’ (car lane ) will be widened from 12 feet to 16 feet. When asked if 16 feet is enough to drive two lanes if current single lane is for one car 12 feet, and his answer was “NO, Hudson Street will NOT have two lanes”.

The mayor and the village manager both tried to convince him that there are two lanes, at least where the traffic turns, and the architect re-confirmed that NO – Hudson Street will have ONE traffic lane.

SO bottom line is that the resolution that was passed for design principals for the garage on Jan 27th does not match with the current design D. Our mayor was probably reading that resolution when he called residents liars. Here is the video, where the mayor says 2 traffic lanes on Hudson St.

https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7778289 courtesy of Saurabh Dani .

1. https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7782575 – Here is where the architect corrected the mayor and the village manager.
2. Here is the resolution that was passed on Jan 27th – see page 3 – point 4b – https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/hudson/Resolution1631.pdf
Posted on 16 Comments

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting : Yet another example of the misinformation regarding the presentation of the Hudson Street Parking garage For Ridgewood

hudson parking garage ridgewood

photo by Saurabh Dani

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Last night I videotaped the Historic Preservation Commission meeting and the full recording of everything I shot can be viewed here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCBptQJMcs

My camera angle had an obstructed point of view of the drawings presented, but they can be viewed here:

https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/p…/423-hudson-street-parking-deck

Last night was unfortunately yet another example of how our local government is conducting business. The misinformation regarding the presentation of this parking garage is in glaring view.

For such a massive project that is going to cost us millions of dollars, why can’t we get a proper view of how this proposed garage is really going to look? Why isn’t there a 3D rendering, both virtual as well as a physical model built of the garage as well as the other buildings, so that we can truly understand what is being proposed? Why is the proposed garage still not residing inside of the municipal lot footprint? Why does the “Plan D” proposal that the Village Council voted in favor of on January 27th now have only one lane of vehicular travel, when for that vote there were two driving lanes?

Lastly, the treatment of Councilwoman Knudsen by other members of our government as well as the architectural firm was beyond reproach. Her concerns were dismissed by Commissioner Parillo – as was her vote. This is not how we treat a Councilwoman or anyone for that matter.

Once again, we as residents are faced with difficult choices. Many of us want a garage, but this is not how to do it.

On March 23rd, the Village Council will be voting on this proposed garage as well as the high density housing issue. I strongly encourage you to mark your calendars for that evening and to share your concerns with our Village Council and members of the Historic Preservation Commission in the meantime.

There is so much that can be done with improving our wonderful village, but let’s do it right and with care.

Thanks for listening.

Dana Glazer
Posted on 24 Comments

Impact studies for Ridgewood multi-family high density housing a round up of the Usual Suspects

council meeting
file photo by Boyd Loving
March 10 ,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, to say last nights meeting was a disappointment is an under statement .

1. During the discussion about Ordinance 3523 to Establish Guidelines for Audio/Video Recording of Public Meetings – which was penned by Albert Pucciarelli – the subject of body cameras came up.  Councilwoman Hauck described these cameras as “surreptitious,” which for her information means “kept secret.”  Having stated this, she then went on to say that she has seen what a “body camera looks like and it looked like actually a terrorist with an explosive chest.”  Ummmm….. Councilwoman Hauck, how can something be at the same time secretive and also look like a bomb strapped on the chest?    Her ridiculous characterization elicited laughter from the audience, so much so that Mayor Aronsohn had to reprimand the public to quiet down.  Seems that laughter is not considered civil.

2. Real Estate developer John Saraceno who stands to make a major bundle on all the development in the CBD, went to the microphone and stated that he is a father of school children and yadayada and that he is “a resident first and a developer second.”  Yep, that rings really true.

3.  Rurik Halaby once again went on about how the Village of Ridgewood is in a steady decline, same tired and untrue song.  Ummm….Rurik….how can the village be in such a terrible decline if there are supposedly no parking places due to all the consumers who pour into town to shop and dine?  Really?  We need parking so desperately because there is so much traffic in town, but the town is in decline.  Hmmm, doesn’t really add up Mr. H.

4. The impact studies were described with power points and charts.  The take away is that none of these developments will have any impact on the schools, the water usage, the sewers, the fire department, the police department, the ambulance corps, etc.  Just amazing, isn’t it?!  Plop these great big buildings down all over town, fill them with people, and no one will even notice.  Wow.  What reality is this we are living in?

5. Residents were not allowed to ask any questions of the developers, but reportedly will be able to do so on March 23.

Posted on 6 Comments

High density Housing will have NO Impact on the Village of Ridgewood , yep they said that

misterrogers02
March 10,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood Nj, last nights meeting seem to resemble more of a trip to the land of make believe than serious planning for Ridgewood’s Future . Readers claim it was a complete farce. Once again. They did not allow any public members to question the experts behind the  studies. The experts described the developments in butterflies and rainbows terms and could only see positive impacts. Farce.
One expert boldly stated , NO impact from high density housing. Yep. He really said that.

One of the highlights of the evening for Gwenn Hauck was when she referred to resident Dana Glazer’s GoPro harness as resembling a ‘terrorist.’ That was fun.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u4tu7t64fy0qnge/2016-03-10%2001.25.42.mp4?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jvpd8a7iiorvp8s/2016-03-10%2001.31.22.mp4?dl=0

So there you have it three council members who are not running again are going to make decisions that will change Ridgewood forever.

Posted on 9 Comments

Ridgewood Parking Garage “Plan D ” still fails to fit the Footprint of Hudson Street lot

Hudson Street Garage bogus renderings
file photo by Saurabh Dani
March 9,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ , In Mayor’s corner (newsletter) from this week, our mayor writes “This time, the ordinance is for $11.5 million, and our plan is to build a 325-car parking deck that would basically fit within the footprint of the current lot.”

A letter to Editorial published in Friday’s Ridgewood News writes – “The Village Council continues to modify the plans to address certain concerns raised by some, and to create a larger consensus. The latest rendition seems to accomplish that on many levels- even one level less of a deck.”

However both of these statements prove to be incorrect. Plan D does not fit within the lot, it still encroaches out 4-5 feet and is higher than the allowed zoning in that zone. The latest rendition (plan D), doe not reduce one level, it’s still 5 levels, it’s just about 3 feet short of plan A, and that’s achieved by reducing the height of each level by few inches.

To be more specific Plan D does not fit on the footprint of the existing lot. Plan D still goes over the existing lot by 5ft onto the existing sidewalk. The sidewalk will then be moved 4ft into Hudson Street (therefore narrowing the sidewalk by 1ft, and narrowing Hudson street for the length of the garage by 4ft). On January 6th, when the council could not receive the super majority vote it needed to bond in house for Option C (3 stories (approx 38ft high-not including towers), 4 levels of parking, 12 ft beyond the sidewalk and into the street), The mayor agreed to go back to the architect for a plan that fit on the lot. At the January 13th council meeting, the village manager repeated that they were “focusing on the parking garage that fits within the footprint”.

At the January 14th Historic Preservation Commission meeting, the mayor told the HPC as well as the members of the public at that meeting 3 times, “we’ve agreed to make sure it does not encroach upon the street”. At the January 27th council meeting, there were no sketches, drawings, etc, but it was announced that the new plan would go over the existing lot, “not more than 5ft”, and it would be 4 stories and 5 levels of parking (1 story more than Option C from January 6th). When the village manager and Mayor were asked where is the garage that “fits on the footprint”, the reply was, “this is close”. Yes, Option D is less than 12ft into the street, but it’s still not “on the lot”, and now it’s a story higher than Option C.
Posted on 6 Comments

Ridgewood hearings to examine impact of multi-family housing development downtown

CBD high density housing

BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — The results of studies on how zoning to allow high-density, multifamily housing downtown would affect the village will be presented to the public Wednesday night at Ridgewood High School.

The four studies, commissioned by the Village Council in mid-January, will explore the possible impacts of five introduced zoning ordinances on local schools, traffic, community services, infrastructure and finances.

Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld said Saturday three firms were contracted to do the work: Ross Haber & Associates to look at the schools, the RBA Group to review traffic, and BFJ Planning, in partnership with Urbanomics, to study local infrastructure and financial impacts.

Experts from those companies will present their findings to the public Wednesday night at the Ridgewood High School Campus Center. The public will be able to comment on the reports afterwards, and a final public hearing and possible votes of adoption are slated for March 23.

The ordinances, approved by the Planning Board by majority votes last June and introduced by the council a month later, would increase the allowable number of housing units per acre from 12 to 30 or 35 in three zones in the central business district. Proponents of the master plan amendments say the resulting housing complexes would provide homes for young professionals and empty-nesters; opponents claim they would strain local infrastructure and forever change the character of the village’s quaint downtown.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-hearings-to-examine-impact-of-multi-family-housing-development-downtown-1.1523992

Posted on 6 Comments

Reader says why pay to park in Ridgewood when I can Park for Free in Other Towns ?

parkmobile_meter

I go to Glen Rock to eat, get a haircut, etc., I park, I pay nothing. I go to Midland Park to the hardware store or the shoe repair shop or others or to eat, I park, I pay nothing. I go to Wyckoff to shop or eat or go to the bakery, I park, I pay nothing. I go to Allendale to shop or eat, I park, I pay nothing. I go to Hawthorne for whatever (including, most often, the movie theater, but also restaurants and shops), I park, I pay nothing, and I don’t worry that the meter will expire before the movie is over, because there isn’t one. I go to Waldwick to the hardware store or to shop or eat, I park, I pay nothing. I go to Ramsey to shop or eat or go to the movies (two different ones), I park, I pay nothing, ditto re: worrying about meter expiring because there isn’t one. That’s not to mention free parking at Route 17 stores, strip malls, and bigger malls, and we won’t even mention the internet (can’t eat lunch or get a haircut there).

What is wrong with this picture? Ridgewood, my own town, is not so special that it’s worth paying so much to park and (more important) looking at my watch and worrying about risking a ticket, which we’ve been assured will soon be increased in price and monitored intensely.

Just no. Sorry. I am frankly embarrassed by this entire thing. We don’t need a garage and we are already paying too much to park. Entire project was a waste of time and resources and will only get worse. Even more distressing is that it’s not going to work. Could end up ripping the whole thing out just as the one-lane underpass road/suicide bike lane will eventually be replaced by the two lanes we had before.

Posted on 4 Comments

High Density Housing , Ridgewood Needs A Vision and the Village Council has None

Abraham-Godwin_theridgewoodblog

March 5,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Towns like Summit NJ, have invested money in a downtown improvement plans that are costly and visionary and included ample input from residents. While Ridgewood’s lack of vision seems to be focused on fulfilling the ad hoc wishes of special interests.

The fact is we have no development plan and there is no vision. We are reactionary in everything we do. Our council rejects public input and views the public as obstacles to be overcome. Residents are never treated as if our voices matter by the council majority, they are attacked, threatened and berated .

The group Citizens for a better Ridgewood (CBR ), worked to create a vision.The CBR Facebook page says “We support a lower number of Housing per acre, still higher than the 12 that is currently allowed, but not as high as the 35 proposed. 20-24 would be generous, profitable and would compliment the character of our downtown. 20 -24 units an acre” . The CBR statement on this –https://theridgewoodblog.net/citizens-for-a-better-ridgewood-cbr-calls-for-residents-to-attend-village-councils-public-hearing-on-september-16th-730pm/ , CBR supported 20-24 units per acre because that’s density that could be built over and over (instead of spot zoning for some units).

The CBR group searched for a visionary compromise and but were labeled as racist, a clever tactic by developers to garner support from those who are uninformed.  Watching council meetings, everyone who goes to speak in support of the big garage or in support of very high density housing has no specific current facts ,just an over reliance on almost absurd assumptions put forth by developers and their supporters,that amount to nothing more than fantasies from the land of make believe . Their tune is always the same: “anyone asking any question here is nay-sayer”, “now is the time or no one else will do it”, “they don’t want any garage”, “they don’t want any development”.. “loud mouth vocal minority”…NIMBY…yada yada yada.

Posted on 29 Comments

Resident Dana Glazer , the real agenda here is to make Ridgewood into another “Transit Village”

village council meeting

Dana H. Glazer speech from the Wednesday Night Council Meeting

I am here to express my strong belief that the real agenda here is to make Ridgewood into another “Transit Village” like

Hackensack, in which a giant garage is built to primarily serve commuters from out of town; in which the master plan is radically amended to allow for high density housing which will create a large influx of new families into the CBD – thus straining our resources and permanently altering the face of our town.

I believe this is still the case, because on February 23rd the Executive of the County said in his State of the County address “I’m sure you’ve all read our partnership with Ridgewood. They’re looking to partner with the BCIA to fund their parking garage and partner with them.” He went on to describe this proposed garage as “a commuter garage to be used by commuters all day long..”

Now, on February 21st, two days before the State of the County, Mayor Aronsohn wrote to residents an email saying “in the spirit of getting this project done –once and for all – and in the spirit of doing it together as a community, I am willing to re-introduce the January bond ordinance at our March 2 Council meeting. “

If there’s no intention of making Ridgewood into a Transit Village, why was the County Executive announcing this Ridgewood partnership in his big speech two days later? Shouldn’t someone have told him not to include it? It makes no sense.

The only way it makes sense is if making Ridgewood into a Transit Village is still the only plan. Why else wouldn’t our Village Council immediately repeal the County Bond before funding the garage through the town? 1500 residents petitioned loudly against this, in an initiative Ridgewood has not seen in years – if ever, right? Our Council Majority would never let this happen because it would jeopardize the real plan– Ridgewood as a Transit Village.

That is why the “Plan E” garage proposal that Lorraine Reynolds and Gail McCarthy have so passionately worked behind the scenes to put together, having spoken with hundreds of residents, shopkeepers and Mt. Carmel – what is being called the “People’s Garage” – I believe is going to be sabotaged – or ignored completely.

I believe this “People’s Garage” will never see the light of day because the shenanigans will continue, whether they relate to the site plan, the financials, the traffic studies or anything else deemed necessary to do this right; and then on March 23rd, if Councilwoman Knudsen and Councilman Sedon stand up and say “No” the Council Majority or even just table the issue, the Council Majority will turn this against them, loudly proclaiming, “See, they are anti-garage. Now, let’s vote for people who are pro-garage and let’s vote to go to the County because there’s no other way to do this in Ridgewood.”

But here’s the thing:  this upcoming election will not be about a garage. It will be about who votes in favor of the upcoming High Density Housing vote later this month. It will ultimately be about who trashed our town and made it into a Transit Village like Hackensack. That’s what’s at stake here.

So, Councilman Sedon and Councilwoman Knudsen, I am encouraging you to listen to the 1500 people who petitioned loudly that WE DON’T WANT A COUNTY GARAGE. I trust you will do anything and everything to keep this from happening.

Thank you.

Posted on 9 Comments

Council Majority Continues to Push Restaurants at the expense of the Merchants in Ridgewood

parking_enforcement_theridgewoodblog
March 3,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, The Council Majority starting to cater to the Chamber of Commerce by changing the hour from 9 p.m. to 8 p.m.and free parking on Saturday night. That is an estimated loss in revenue $ 50,000. $50,000 a year for 25 years is 1.25 Million.The council majority used the excused it was for the church goers on Saturday. The Village Manager called lowering the meter times and free Saturday night parking . ” A mere bag of shells”.

So our main question is if the garage is in fact a boost for local merchants in  the Central Business District , how does raising meter rates from .75 to $1.00 and adding free parking at night when most are closed help any merchants in Ridgewood ???