Photos taken at 12 noon on Thursday, 11/19, 16 days post election day.
Ridgewood NJ, As per Village Code 199-122H6.: Election signs. Temporary signs for elective office shall be permitted in nonresidential zones. Such signs shall be removed no later than 10 days after the date of the election to which they pertain. In the case of a primary election, the signs of all candidates who fail to remain as candidates in the ensuing general election shall be removed no later than 10 days after the date of the primary election. Such signs may be freestanding or attached to a building wall.
Why did the “design team” (gimme a break) meet with council members individuall Paul???? Trying to avoid a public meeting where all five could hear each other’s opinions and the public could be present? Hmmm, sounds like you tried to avoid the Open Public Meetings guidelines.
The point is, why have each member come in for a private meeting? They should each have been able to hear what the others are thinking, what plans they are favoring, and their reasoning. This stupid system circumnavigates the open public meeting act, and it does not good. Opinions will form before the December 2 meeting, when in fact they all should have started right out looking together in front of the public. That is not Paul’s way. He proclaims openness and transparency, and then holds these secret one-on-one meetings. Kind of like sliding the Health Barn in before telling the residents in the neighborhood. Kind of like letting the RSBA hand-deliver the ballfield grant application. Everything is done wrong under this regime, but it is deliberately done wrong in order for them to control the agenda. The three of them and Roberta stink.
Anyone pointing fingers at past Councils about conflicts of interest is clearly trying to divert attention away from the several conflicts with the current Council. Mr. Killion is long gone folks. We have several critical issues before this Council and the 3 majority members all seem to have cozy relationships with the parties that have a lot to gain from their “YES” vote. Money has already changed hands from Mr. Saraceno to our Council majority in the form of $1,000 fundraiser tickets for them and their dates. Mr. Pucciarelli and Mrs. Hauck have clear conflicts on the Valley Hospital lawsuit.
Apologists for the Council majority cry “old news” when these conflicts come up yet they point fingers at past Councils as a convenient way to deflect any blame that comes their way.
Ridgewood NJ, Bookends of Ridgewood will host New York Times Bestselling Author Mary Higgins Clark
on Wed. Nov 18th @ 7:00pm .
Appearing authors will only autograph books purchased at Bookends and must have valid Bookends Receipt.
Availability & pricing for all autographed books subject to change.
First In Line Certificate use is the the discretion of Bookends. Blackout dates may apply.
Bookends cannot guarantee that the books that are Autographed will always be First Printings.
Autographed books purchased at Bookends are non-returnable.
While we try to ensure that all customers coming to Bookends’ signings will meet authors and get their books signed, we cannot guarantee that all attendees will meet the author or that all books will be signed. We cannot control inclement weather, author travel schedules or authors who leave prematurely.
Bookends, 211 E. Ridgewood Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ 07450 201-445-0726
I am writing to share our “next steps” with respect to a proposed parking deck.
As you know, we have spent the last few months engaged in a community-wide conversation on this topic – one that has been asking and answering a series of fundamental questions: Do we need a parking deck? If so, what should it look like? How big should it be? Where should it be? How should we pay for it?
To inform this conversation and to fully involve the public, the Council did two things:
First, the Council commissioned architectural renderings and a financial analysis that – together – have not only helped answer those questions, but have also given us a good sense of the challenges and the opportunities. We have made all of the information available to the public on our website and have discussed it during several public meetings … including Council work sessions, a Planning Board meeting, a Historic Preservation Commission meeting and a handful of public forums that involved presentations by the design team and one-on-one conversations with the experts. The renderings — which have evolved to reflect input received throughout this process — have been on display at Village Hall, the train station and the library. And the Village Manager and I have even set up shop outside of Memorial Park at Van Neste to answer questions and hear people’s ideas and suggestions.
Second, the Council also decided to put a referendum question on the November 3 ballot, so that we could gauge public opinion. The result was not only a record turnout on Election Day; it was also a show of strong support for a parking deck, which received a full 65 percent of the vote. In fact, the parking deck was the big vote getter for the day … receiving more support than any of the candidates on the ballot … 3,236 votes in support!
Now, we need to move forward and decide on the size of a parking deck.
To that end, working with our design team, we have settled on three alternative designs. Each has pros and cons. Each reflects feedback received from people throughout our community. And each would cost much less than the $15 million originally discussed.
§ Option A: A parking deck with 4 floors and an open roof that could accommodate 405 cars and cost approximately $12 million. (The current rendering on the Village website.)
§ Option B: A parking deck with 3 ½ floors and an open roof that could accommodate 355 cars and cost approximately $11 million.
§ Option C: A parking deck with 3 floors and an open roof that could accommodate 306 cars and cost approximately $10.1 million.
To facilitate this decision, the design team met individually with Council members last week to go through these options, and the design team will be on hand at our next Council meeting on December 2 to do the same with residents, too. We are also making available in the Village Hall lobby renderings that show what each of the options would look like and the costs associated with them. Our plan is to make a decision by mid-December.
Your involvement throughout this process has been invaluable, and we want to hear from you … again. Please stop by the lobby. Please come to our December 2 meeting. Please let us know your preference.
And as we get closer to resolving this issue – the need for more parking – that has been discussed and debated for over 50 years, I sincerely hope that we can share in the excitement of the moment and work together to make it happen.
Thank you.
Paul
PS. Please let me know if you have questions.
Paul Aronsohn, Mayor
Village of Ridgewood
@paularonsohn
NOVEMBER 16, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015, 2:23 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
With the deadline to submit a housing element to the courts, village officials must act diligently to avoid possible lawsuits and meet its affordable housing obligations.
Housing was a major topic of last Monday’s meeting as affordable housing and how to proceed in regard to the issue of multifamily housing in Ridgewood’s Central Business District (CBD) came to the forefront.
The village successfully applied for a declaratory judgment seeking immunity from possible builder’s remedy lawsuits in July and was given five months to come up with a housing plan to be submitted to the court.
Village Attorney Matthew Rogers noted the court had found Ridgewood had been acting in good faith, which can be at least partially attributed to the inclusion of the Planning Board’s June 2 decision to amend the master plan and create new zones that allow residential and mixed-use development in previous commercial areas.
Rogers said he advised the court the council was carrying the ordinances in order to conduct additional studies as to the impact new housing would have on the village.
The housing element must first be determined by the village’s Planning Board, as it is the sole arbiter of the master plan document. The plan must then be submitted to the Village Council for consideration and adoption before the Dec. 7 deadline.
However, Rogers said there were a couple of “major impediments” to accomplishing that task.
NOVEMBER 13, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Better planning, more trust needed
To the Editor:
Sept. 30 was a great night for Ridgewood. Hundreds of residents bore witness to our council approving, by 4-1 vote, four important studies required to make a truly informed decision on a high-density housing amendment that could change the character of our village forever. Based on a motion by Councilman Sedon, amended by Councilwoman Knudsen, studies for financial impacts, school impacts, infrastructure and a comprehensive traffic review, were all approved.
For the first time in years, residents felt that their voices were being heard. Rather than the frustratingly expected, rushed approval of the out-of-scale high-density ordinances, we instead heard a vote that began restoring our trust.
Unfortunately, at this Monday’s meeting, our council took a scary turn towards breaking that newfound trust. Residents in attendance witnessed several members — Aronsohn, Hauck and Pucciarelli — offer commentary questioning the council’s commitment to the studies, with an angle seemingly against prompt commissioning. It further came to light that no work has commenced towards planning any of the studies, despite the matter’s urgency.
Further disturbing were statements by several council members indicating that they couldn’t recall what studies they voted for on Sept. 30, despite the vote’s place in public record. Interestingly, all the residents in attendance knew the vote. A review of the Sept. 30 video shows that all council members were fully aware of the motion and were given opportunity for further clarification. By the time the vote occurred, there were no such clarification requests and the “multiple studies” motion was put forth by the village clerk: “Infrastructure Study,” “Financial Study,” “The School Impact Study,” and “a Comprehensive Traffic Study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village.”
Knudsen, Sedon, Aronsohn and Hauck voted “Yes.” Pucciarelli voted “No.”
These studies are so important because our Planning Board, despite years of deliberation, strategically missed the mark, never “planning” in a comprehensive manner. Their process was too reactionary to the zoning-change applications. Studies used were too site-specific for proper master planning, leaving many questions unanswered in a process akin to spot zoning.
Regarding one study, Councilwoman Knudsen explained: “… there has never been a comprehensive traffic study done of the Central Business District proper, the adjacent communities and/or the village as a whole. It becomes incredibly relevant when we consider that there are four large parcels being considered for high-density development, coupled with the North Walnut Redevelopment Zone with an assisted living facility of … 76 units per acre, upwards of 98 (units). And coupled with the fact that we are pursuing a parking garage that will add over 300 vehicles to an already narrow, difficult, congested corner of Broad Street and Hudson. So when you take all these collectively, it really becomes imperative that we conduct our due diligence and get this right. So, I think that, to the question: What traffic studies have been done? Not enough.”
“Not enough” is not good enough. Ridgewood needs better. Better planning. Better process and a better foundation for trust.
Please promptly commission these incredibly important studies.
NOVEMBER 13, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Additional studies needed for CBD housing issue
To the editor:
On Sept. 30, hundreds of residents attended the Village Council meeting to tell our council members we do not want them to approve high-density housing at the 35-unit-per-acre density level and that further studies were needed. A vote was taken and the council passed, by a 4-1 vote, a measure for a “traffic and infrastructure study, financial study and school impact study.” The traffic study was further outlined as “surrounding neighborhoods, the entire Village” as the prior studies had not looked at this area.
At the council meeting on Monday, Nov. 9, the council agreed to move forward and examine finances but Mayor Paul Aronsohn said it is “still inconclusive if we will do additional studies.” It appears they may try and push these ordinances through without ever doing the additional full analysis they are duly bound to do by their 4-1 vote.
Please write them and urge them to keep their word and perform the new studies they committed to in September. Again, those studies are a comprehensive traffic study, school impact study, infrastructure study and financial impact study.
NOVEMBER 13, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Consensus can be reached on issue
To the Editor:
I believe wide areas of consensus that currently exist coming out of the Planning Board process for higher density family housing provides hope that we all will be able to do the right thing. Consensus can reach 100 percent if we address the shared fiscal impact which has not yet been considered because, according to our village planner, the Planning Board was precluded from taking it into consideration.
We are all rightfully entitled to develop and invest in private property in Ridgewood. The planning process, while fully transparent to the lawyers involved, was a convoluted community management practice that left out the very simple moral difference between right and wrong. Our free market affords a range of business practices, but one’s profits shouldn’t be realized by increasing the tax burden of every other member of the community they belong to.
We know that every added school-aged resident entering Ridgewood costs more to educate than any family pays in taxes. And, that every town in America has a socialized educational system that distributes the costs of educating some of our residents amongst all. As a parent of three children, I am acutely aware of this since private tuition could easily cost me six times my current tax contribution to the education budget.
We also know that Ridgewood’s ratings on the Internet are the No. 1 reason people move here, but less obvious is that our special education programs, having been labeled “centers of excellence,” draw families to our town as well. The proposed apartments not only appeal to anyone with a child, but they are an ideal environment in which to raise a subset of special needs children for whom living in a detached home is potentially dangerous.
Because of these realities, not “projections,” the negative impact of higher density on our taxes is undeniable. The only question is by how much. It is simply wrong for a select few to leverage our socialized education system to guarantee themselves a business profit on the backs of every one of their tax-paying neighbors. We might easily reach consensus were developers to create an escrow account to reimburse the Board of Education for the cost of educating every new child they bring into town, but I doubt projected profits would allow it.
A simpler way would be for all of us to do the right thing by the one group of our residents who are not being currently accommodated. We can limit apartments to a 55-and-over demographic in order to provide for the current demand for empty-nester housing in town and attract retirees seeking the superior quality of life that our idyllic village setting provides at a stone’s throw from New York City. It’s a no brainer, its fair, and it will bring down taxes for us all.
Restaurant mémoire, Fish Urban Dining, It’s Greek To Me and Gen Sushi in Ridgewood, NJ now offer Complimentary Valet Parking
Mémoire, a fine dining restaurant offering seasonal, American eclectic cuisine in a casual NYC-style atmosphere, announced that the restaurant, along with Fish Urban Dining, It’s Greek To Me and Gen Sushi will offer complimentary valet parking on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
Mémoire Owner and Executive Chef, Tom Finnelli stated the following: “It was ten months in the making, but we are thrilled to finally be able to offer valet parking to our guests. It is definitely a win-win to have four restaurants included in one valet service because it’s not about the individual restaurants; it’s about the guest and providing a much needed accommodation on nights when parking is limited. Hopefully, this will evolve into valet for every restaurant in the town, which will help to further revive one of the best dining destinations in New Jersey.”
About the Valet Services: Valet services will be available on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays beginning at 5 p.m. Valet stations will be conveniently located on the corners of Chestnut Street and East Ridgewood Avenue and Prospect Street and East Ridgewood Avenue.
NOVEMBER 13, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Newspaper column was ‘unbalanced’
To the Editor:
Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
In his recap of activities associated with the recent non-binding parking garage referendum (“A big day for Ridgewood,” The Ridgewood News, Friday, Nov. 6, page A6), Mayor Paul Aronsohn did not hesitate to heavily criticize the “anti-parking garage” mailer, but failed to even mention the brouhaha connected with a non-factual letter of endorsement written by the Historic Preservation Commission’s chairperson, Mr. Vincent Parrillo.
I can’t imagine why Mr. Aronsohn didn’t think an inaccurate letter of endorsement, allegedly written at the request of either himself or Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli, wasn’t worth mentioning in his summation of significant referendum related activities/issues. He devoted over 80 words of criticism to the mailer, but devoted not even one word to the bogus endorsement. This strikes me as being both an unbalanced and unjust report to your readers.
And why is the mayor so concerned about the mailer having been sent from Newark? Are there people working or living in Newark that we should be concerned about? Would it have made a difference to him if the mailer was postmarked from Ridgewood?
…the fly has learned that many residents voted in favor of the parking garage , giving the council the benefit of the doubt as a result of the Village Council agreement to do in depth studies on the High Density Housing proposed for the central business district at the September 30th Council meeting in addition to the assurances that residents would have input into design etc. It now appears that the council majority is attempting to renege on that deal …
NOVEMBER 12, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2015, 12:48 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The village’s Planning Board forged on with its reexamination of Ridgewood’s master plan last Tuesday with a discussion that focused on its circulation and community facilities plan.
With an early February deadline to submit a complete master plan reexamination, the board voted unanimously to include the village planner’s recommendations in the draft version of the report with final determination to be made prior to adoption.
One of the recommendations made by Village Planner Blais Brancheau was the establishment of a Transportation Improvement District (TID) in Ridgewood, which would allow the village to allocate the cost of roadway improvements to areas of development in town based on the property’s use. The board also asked for the Complete Streets program previously adopted by the Village Council to be included in the report.
In discussing the current circulation and community facilities plan with the board, Brancheau said he was “struck” by how outdated they are and said both are in need of a major overhaul.
Brancheau suggested the board could decide to do away with the respective elements altogether as they are not mandated by the state and some municipalities have no such elements in their master plan.
NOVEMBER 10, 2015 LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2015, 9:51 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Affordable housing obligations have been a hot topic in municipalities all over New Jersey in the wake of the state Supreme Court’s decision in March to return jurisdiction in cases on affordable housing to the courts.
photo by Boyd Loving
Like many other municipalities, Ridgewood is in the midst of litigation on the matter while attempting to clarify its exact affordable housing obligation.
The village is preparing a plan to submit to a judge by December on how it will meet its obligation.
photo by Boyd Loving
Jeffrey Surenian, an attorney whose practice focuses exclusively on representing municipalities in affordable housing matters, gave a presentation at last Wednesday night’s Village Council meeting in order to shed some light on the issue.
The council was expected to discuss the issue further as part of its work session later in the meeting, but postponed talks as a public hearing pushed the start of the regular agenda past midnight.
Ridgewood NJ, “We’ll see…” was Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s answer when asked about the the September 30th agreed to studies . The Mayor did at lest confirm his commitment to the Financial Impact Study.Residents felt betrayed and reminded the council that you cannot renege on any of the approved studies and maintain our trust. Residents deserve and demand the comprehensive overlook you voted for before you consider any sweeping changes to the Central Business District.
At the Monday night meeting several of the Council Members indicated that they could not recall exactly what they voted on, and “committed” to, on September 30th before an audience of hundreds of residents. The video and Heather Mailander’s clarification of the motion immediately before the vote from the September 30th meeting set the record straight :
It is clear that ALL Councilmembers were fully aware of the motion put to the vote and all parties were given the opportunity for further clarification, prior to the vote.
The Vote then occurred as follows:
Heather Mailander: “So this is the amended version which we just read which is multiple studies. Traffic and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study. And it’s a comprehensive traffic study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village. Correct? Okay. So that’s the motion on the floor. Any more discussion?
Susan Knudsen: “And that would be to table everything until this?”
Heather Mailander: “Correct, correct.”
The vote, was then taken with the following result:
Hauck: Yes
Knudson: Yes
Pucciarelli: No
Sedon: Yes
Aronsohn: Yes
It could not be clearer as to what the Council voted on. The council committed to multiple studies. a comprehensive traffic study and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study. That’s now what residents require .
Residents clearly indicated that they need a better answer than, “We’ll see.” The High Density development issue is simply too big of an issue ,fundamentally changing the nature of the Village of Ridgewood forever.
