Ridgewood NJ, Long time Ridgewood Restaurant Smith Brothers is rumored to be closing February 1st. It will become an Italian restaurant.
We are not surprised. As much as we always tried to like the place you never knew what you were going to get when you ordered. We checked and they only got 2 out of 5 stars on Yelp.
Most of the complaints echoed ours over the years were about service and then the food.Sources tell us not 1 employee will be retained, even those working for over 10 years.Seems the new place will be starting fresh.
For many years they were known for live music and hosted countless local bands .
Readers remarked that they felt management was the problem, they treated everyone like crap. Another Reader said , the wife and I had dinner there some years ago near the table by the bar. Owner berated a poor 16 year old busboy right in front of us.
JANUARY 15, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Troubles in Ridgewood
To the editor:
We have troubles right here in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and that rhymes with P and that stands for poor planning.
We voted yes on parking but we didn’t understand that all three garage designs would not fit on the site and would encroach on already narrow Hudson Street by 10 to 12 feet, creating huge traffic and safety issues. Mt. Carmel parishioners came out in large numbers at last week’s council meeting to express their concerns about the effects of such a structure on the church community along with many others with strong objections to the garage proposals.
We live in a small town. I believe we are a mile square which makes all of us close neighbors and thereby connected. My neighbor’s problems are mine. I don’t want a facility that hurts Mt. Carmel.
I don’t want a large baseball field that will result in the removal of many acres of woods, which is the home of at least one endangered species. Residents are worried about noise and particle pollution due to their close proximity to Route 17.
I believe we must reduce the 35 units per acre density changes in the CBD to a more manageable 22-24 up from 12.
Habernickel Park neighbors need to have their traffic and safety concerns addressed. We all travel down Hillcrest Avenue and understand the problems. My fellow residents’ issues are mine.
This is our village. We elected our council members to represent us. I thought that meant they would also listen to us and when possible, act accordingly. I see all of our issues bring resolved with some form of compromise.
We would all benefit from that approach and in the process, we wouldn’t hurt our neighbors or in the long run, ourselves.
JANUARY 14, 2016 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2016, 3:17 PM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Village Council decided this week to go forward with multifamily housing impact studies on education, municipal planning, fiscal impact and traffic, hiring three firms to complete the work.
Ross Haber Associates (education), RBA Group (traffic) and BFJ Planning/Urbanomics (fiscal and municipal planning) were selected for the studies.
A special public meeting was held in the Benjamin Franklin Middle School auditorium on Tuesday, and featured interviews with five consulting firms.
Presentations
Ross Haber Associates recently conducted a study for the Ridgewood Board of Education on the feasibility of full-day kindergarten.
Haber explained that his studies for the village would be focused on what financial impact the new additions would have on Ridgewood schools.
“Would these new students in any way, shape or form impact the budget?” he asked. “Would it require the hiring of new staff? Might the expansion include construction in the schools if needed? Would you need additional crossing guards?
“This is not to say that any of these things are going to happen,” Haber said, “this is to say these things could happen.”
file photo by Boyd Loving SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING – RIDGEWOOD MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING – JANUARY 12TH
January 14,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog with input from several readers
Ridgewood NJ , the Special Public Meeting on high density multi family housing was attended by 30-35 residents attended who heard proposals for studies from five groups as follows:
1. Heyer, Gruel & Associates – who could do studies on the fiscal and school impacts
2. Maser Consuting – traffic study
3. Ross Haber Associates – school impact
4. The RBA Group – traffic study
5. BFJ Planning/Urbanomics – fiscal, infrastructure, school, and traffic
Overall the meeting was peaceful. The mayor as usual did not answer all the questions and asked some residents “your five minutes are up” when they questioned him, though they still had time, and answered questions from some others who were appreciating his efforts.
Mayor Aronsohn could not resist poking residents making a sarcastic remark about the “overflow crowd,” – stating that BF had been selected to handle a large crowd, his comment discounted the fact that 30-35 residents had come out. Which under normal circumstances would be a decent sized crowd .
The Village had two police officers present through the entire meeting, at what cost? It was also unclear whether they were guarding the Council members , or the public since threats were made from hostile council members to the public?
There were five presentations. 2 for school, 2 for traffic and one for everything. The firm which presented everything also included impact on schools and traffic. So, for schools and traffic, 3 options each were presented. For the other two impact studies, only one option was presented BFJ/Urbananomics.
The Village Manager Roberta Schoenfield stated that there had not been an RFP, that there did not need to be for this. Thus we only wound up with ONE infrastructure group, thus no basis for comparison.
Council Women Hauck asked questions of one of the contractors regarding how to discredit residents who disagree with the results of a study.
Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli stated that the public called for experts, and then goes ahead and questions the expertise of the experts, implying that residents should not ask any questions about how any of the proposed studies should be done.
The council seemed to agree informally to go with BFJ for the fiscal, infrastructure and school but RBA for traffic. This was not a vote and it will be discussed further. RBA’s description of their traffic study indicated that would use video technology at 10 intersections, considering the cars as well as the pedestrians and bicycles at each. The tubes-in-the-road technology is outdated and only captures vehicles. RBA also indicated that any data from studies more than 3 years old is basically useless.
They liked the fact that BFJ had the ability to do all the studies and work with each other in-house, but their traffic proposal was weak.
Roberta stated that our in-house experts are quite capable of doing some of these studies .During the initial comments the village manager mentioned that she wanted to use them as hub where traffic and school consultant will feed into them, but she also mentioned that she did not like their pricing for data collection and she wanted them to use already collected data. When one resident asked why was only one firm invited for the other two impact studies, the village manager responded that we may not even go with them and we may do those in house to save money.
It clearly sounded like the village manager doesn’t want an outside consultant to be looking at the water, fire, police, fiscal stuff closely and wants to keep that part to herself ie internally.
Eleven residents made comments, paraphrased:
The VC was thanked for changing the date of the meeting from Friday to Tuesday
Much concern about the traffic studies – one day, two days, a week, what if a snowstorm, how good a picture would any traffic study actually produce
Questions about the RUSH – why not slow down with all of this.
Questions about complying with COAH.
Questions about what was going on with Kensington Assisted Living
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ridgewood NJ, Questions arise over why the Traffic Study for Hudson Street Parking Deck was not released until after the vote , when some of the Village Council and and the Village manager had access to this key piece of information in October . While both Councilman Michael Sedon and Council Women Susan Knudsen both saw the Masters study when the public viewed it .
According to the Village Manager it was merely an oversight by the Village for not posting it sooner . While the 3 amigos , Paul ,Gwen and Albert stalled in their answer to when the study was available to them , Mike and Susan seemed to indicate they only saw the study recently.
The big dust-up came resident Dana Glazer pushed the issue and Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli as well as Gwen Hauck took offence at the implication . The Village attorney chimed in with a “you can say what you want to the council as long as you agree with them ” ordinance to defuse the tension.
The omission whether it was intentional or not once again brings up the old issue of the Village’s inability to manage large scale projects and effectively communicate with residents . A key piece of information seems to be left out of the mix ,in the race to aggrandize egos and leaves many residents wondering are we once again providing a solution in search of a problem .
JANUARY 8, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
In response to numerous concerns raised by residents, the date for a special public meeting featuring interviews with consultants for multi-family housing impact studies has been changed.
The meeting, which was to take place in the Ridgewood Village Hall Court Room at 5 p.m. this afternoon, was moved to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 12 in Benjamin Franklin Middle School’s auditorium.
Residents raised concerns that they would be forced to miss the meeting because they would be commuting, eating dinner with their families or practicing their religion.
Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli explained that the meeting was not intentionally scheduled for such a difficult time.
“Fridays are generally a good time to spend with family and start the weekend,” he said.
Pucciarelli said that the time and date were chosen purely based on scheduling availability, though he noted that the council agreed on Friday “with great reluctance.”
Pucciarelli said it was agreed upon that the date be changed to one that worked better for residents. Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld’s office polled residents to figure out the best time.
Pucciarelli said council members received numerous emails asking them to reconsider the original date. A separate meeting is required for this topic due to the expected length of the interviews, he added.
The Tuesday meeting will not be streamed live because consultants will be in separate rooms during each presentation.
The meeting will be videotaped for subsequent viewing, according to the village manager’s office.
JANUARY 8, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Residents listen to public comments on a proposed parking garage during Wednesday’s council meeting.
Wednesday’s marathon Village Council meeting ended with the governing body voting 3-2 on a $12.3 million bond ordinance to build a parking garage on Hudson Street.
Because the ordinance requires a supermajority vote (four out of five council members), it was defeated.
Following that vote, a second ordinance was introduced that would enter Ridgewood into an agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) for a garage. The ordinance, introduced with a 4-1 vote on Wednesday, would require three votes for final approval.
Council vote
Prior to the meeting, which went until almost 3 a.m. Thursday, Mayor Paul Aronsohn sent out a statement explaining that while he is still in favor of the largest garage option (option A), he was willing to compromise.
He lent his support on Wednesday to the smallest option (option C) in the hopes of approving the bond ordinance.
“The idea of building a garage is an idea that has been discussed and debated for decades,” he said at Wednesday’s meeting. “While I still think that building a larger garage is the way to go, in the spirit of compromise … maybe at the end of the night, we can come to an agreement.”
Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck, who had both been strong proponents of option A, also agreed to support option C if it meant moving forward in the process.
“We clearly need to think about this opportunity very carefully,” Hauck said. “I would like to work together in the spirit of cooperation to see this parking deck built.”
Though he noted that he is still in favor of plan A, Pucciarelli said that he understands that there is “objection on the part of plan A,” causing him to reconsider.
“It is clearly time to get going on this garage,” he said, adding that “studies in this town have become a mantra for not making tough decisions,”
While he had initially been in favor of bonding the ordinance for plan C, Councilman Michael Sedon expressed reservations with the idea due to new information about the proposed plan.
He opined that the public did not really have a true view of what the garage would look like before voting in the non-binding referendum in November that started the entire process. Sedon also said that he thinks the process was not made very clear to the public before they voted, which caused him some consternation.
Sedon said that instead of voting to bond option C, he is in favor of looking at less expensive alternatives for adding parking.
“We could do this, and it wouldn’t cost nearly $12 million,” he said. “If it’s decided that it doesn’t work, it’s easily reversed. I can’t support this bond at this time, and I’m voting no.”
Ridgewood NJ, There were too many discussions focused on needing a garage or not. I voted no, but it passed, let’s build a nice one. We need to be talking about what it looks like and how we pay for it. The only design offered to date is ugly, doesn’t fit the lot, and the council is in a rush to build it. We don’t really know how it gets paid for. The traffic impact is going to be huge. The garage is going to be filled with train commuters every day- the village has been clear about that. The one traffic study (done over 4 hours on one day) says we need to know more about overall traffic impact. The village has a poor record dealing with traffic design. This is a traffic disaster waiting to happen.
Judging by comments to the council and online discussions, too many voters did not educate themselves ahead of the vote. A lot of buyer’s remorse and people who “assumed”. There were some amazing speakers who clearly and smartly got to the issue and were ready to dive into to the details the council wishes to avoid. There were also uninformed garage supporters who thought the architect’s renderings were fakes made by opponents of the garage. Quite the indictment when supporters of the garage have no idea what it looks like and even they think it can’t possibly “look like THAT”.
It is now crystal clear that 3 council members, led by the village manager and mayor, were not forthcoming about their intentions ahead of the vote. They promised a conversation about design and then offered one photo ahead of the vote and no options on design. The only design option was a meaningless 10′ difference. The village seems to revel in ignoring codes and statutes created to preserve what everyone loves about the village. The village should set the standard and go beyond what is required. This manager and 3 of the council now have a demonstrable record of doing the opposite. Let’s hope the promise of a new design to be created is true.
JANUARY 5, 2016, 12:40 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2016, 1:09 PM
BY ESTHER DAVIDOWITZ
FOOD EDITOR |
THE RECORD
Longtime Ridgewood restaurateurs Natalie and Frank Trent have closed their beloved casual restaurant Natalie’s after 25 years, and Due Bistro, the well-received modern Italian restaurant just a few doors down, is set to take over the space next month.
“It will almost triple the size of Due,” said executive chef Adam Weiss, who received 3 1/2 stars for his cooking for guests at the bistro’s small (42-seat) dining room.
Weiss said that Due will probably close its doors at the end of this month at its present location – 13 E. Ridgewood Avenue —and move sometime in February into its new location — 16-18 S. Broad St. Currently, he is “redoing the menu, updating things.” He said that the new Due will be a little more casual but with an “elegant upscale feel.”
mémoire in Ridgewood has announced they have closed. The restaurant opened back in 2013.
Below is the full statement from owner/chef Tom Finnelli:
“This was probably one of the toughest decisions that I’ve ever had to make. I love the restaurant business and opening mémoire was the realization of a childhood dream. It pains me to close it. But it comes down to risk versus reward. There is the obvious financial and emotional burden that comes with owning and operating a small business; but more importantly, there is a quality of life burden. I have a wife and two young children whom I love very dearly. As Executive Chef and Owner, it wasn’t uncommon to work 75 to 90 hours a week. In fact, it was often the norm. I have no problem working hard, but there has to be a balance. And I think working as an Executive Chef for a place that I don’t own will likely create the balance that I’m looking for.
We have so many wonderful guests that will be missed. They were not only huge supporters of our restaurant, but were like family to us. Thank you for your loyalty. It was a pleasure to serve you.
Maybe one of the hardest parts of closing the restaurant was saying goodbye to my team. Everyone on our team worked very hard. They were loyal and helped to make the restaurant the best that it could be. Especially Frank, our Maître d’, whom many of guests assumed was my partner because of his passion and love for hospitality. He treated the restaurant as his own and always went above and beyond to make our guests feel welcome.”
back by popular demand RIDGEWOOD’S own RESTAURANT WEEK 2016! January 17-January 21, January 24-January 28, Sunday through Thursday, experience fine dining in Ridgewood for only $25.16. For these ten days, participating restaurants are offering you the chance to experience dining in Ridgewood like never before. Each business will prepare a 3course, (prix-fixe menu for you at $25.16 +tax/tip/beverage.
Please note: We have added a
Catering, Wine and Specialty offerings.
PLEASE NOTE THERE ARE A FEW EXCEPTIONS
WITH DETAILS,PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
ENJOY!
Visit the following participating businesses.
Call for details.
Fish Urban Dining
201-857-5151
It’s Greek to Me
201-612-2600
LaTour, A French-American Grill
201-445-5056 – lunch only
Mediterraneo Restaurant
201-447-0022
Memoire Restaurant
201-857-8899
Novo
201-444-4910
Park West Tavern & Loft
201-445-5400
Pearl Restaurant
201-857-5100
Planet Swirl FRO-Yo & Grill
201-857-455
Raymond’s
201-445-5125
ROOTS Steakhouse
201-444-1922
Sakura-Bana Restaurant
201-447-6525
The Office Beer Bar & Grill
201-652-1070
Village Green Restaurant
201-445-2914
Catering
Chestnut Catering
201-445-3031
From Scratch Ridgewood
201-981-8606
Specialty Offerings
Ben & Jerry’s
201-689-1122
Carlo’s Bake Shop
201-962-9080
Super Cellars Fine Wines & Marketplace
201-444-0012
The Wine Seller
201-444-3300
See you in Ridgewood!
FREE parking on Sunday
Free Parking after 6:00pm
Ridgewood voted “26th best place to live in America”
Visit historic “downtown Ridgewood”
NJ/NY Transit friendly
experienceridgewood.com
