It’s certainly not needed like it once was. Maybe if we keep talking about it we will never need it. Outside of inconveniencing a few restaurant goers on Saturday nights, Ridgewood Sales Days, and Christmas shopping, what the hell is the point in spending $10 million on this thing ?
Dont build for max capacity at peak useage. Bad business reasoning. This is Eco 101
It’s horiffic.. Where are the residents of Ridgewood when the council meets? a huge parking garage will cause huge congestion in that small street as cars line up to park and get out of garage. Will they charge in the garage after 6 p.m.
How much to park in the garage during daytime? It will change character of town. Will look monstrous; but fit in with high buildings of new high density housing.
(all timeframes and the order of agenda items below are approximate and subject to change)
7:30 p.m. – Call to Order, Statement of Compliance, Flag Salute, Roll Call – In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4-8d of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location, and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village municipal offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.
7:35p.m. – 7:40 p.m. – Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board
7:40 p.m. – 7:45 p.m. – Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics; Correspondence Received by the Board
7:45 p.m. – 8:15 p.m. – Memorializing Resolutions – Amendments to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan: AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts
8:15 p.m. – 10:30 p.m. – Reexamination of Master Plan and Development Regulations – Discussion of Historic Preservation and Environmental Protection Provisions
10:30 p.m. – 10:40 p.m. – Approval of Minutes: June 2, 2014; May 20, 2014
10:40 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. – Executive Session
Adjournment
In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work sessions, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings, which are always open to members of the general public.
Members: Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Nancy Bigos, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly, Wendy Dockray, Michele Peters, David Thurston, Isabella Altano, Khidir Abdalla
Professional Staff: Blais L. Brancheau, Planner; Gail L. Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher J. Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary
Another study and a referendum huh? Here’s to hoping that we get a study on the demand and impact with regard to multi-family housing and a referendum on the ballot…
$500 K for Pre-Construction? what a joke! the people of Ridgewood are getting hosed and not a one cares…
So we’re spending more than Millburn to get their report with about ten pages changed. Nice work if you can get it
A blank check to do whatever the Council wants. What will be the cost of this bond at its payment end. Oh that right the 3 Amigos and their supporters will not be here.
Here are the result of the study, for free. The downtown business district doesn’t have enough parking. Build a garage. Land and construction are expensive, the village can’t afford it. Don’t build a garage. The parking meters aren’t providing the revenues that everyone says they will, even without theft. $500,000 down the drain with the bond being paid for years and the parking problem still won’t have a solution. The Three Amigos are un-seated in the next election and it becomes the next mayor and council’s problem. End of story.
Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Benson
Saturday, June 13th @ 12:00noon
Fox News Contributors, Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Ben will discuss and sign their book: End of Discussion
Books available June 9th
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
6th Central Business District Forum – Parking – Wednesday, June 17th 7:30pm – 9:00pm
The 6th Central Business District Forum will take place on Wednesday, June 17, 7:30 to 9:00 PM in the Courtroom in the Village Hall. An open mic will be available until 8:00 PM for anyone with ideas, comments and suggestions concerning the CBD. Then Bob Rooney, Director of the Parking Utility, Janet Fricke, our Assistant to the Village Manager and Charley DeBow of Park Mobile will conduct a seminar on using Park Mobile, review the new parking rules and times in the CBD and discuss the proposal for a parking garage on Hudson and Broad Streets. We are especially interested in hearing from commuters and welcome everyone who has not yet tried Park Mobile. Please join us.
JUNE 11, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2015, 3:15 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
As the concept of a new parking deck edges closer to becoming a reality, the Village Council has introduced a bond ordinance in the amount of $500,000 for pre-construction activities.
The ordinance was introduced unanimously on Wednesday night and designates money for the design and engineering phases of the project, which would follow a decision on the type of parking deck to be built. Two weeks ago, the village hired Walker Parking Consultants to perform a study of the Hudson Street lot to issue a report which will assist officials in making that determination.
Last week, council members discussed the bond for pre-construction costs and laid out an ideal timeline for completion of such activities, and a potential non-binding referendum in November for a garage on Hudson Street.
Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld said the $500,000 figure was based on the approximately $467,000 spent by Millburn on design and engineering when it constructed a downtown parking deck a few years ago, along with the financing costs for the bond issue and the contract amount for Walker Parking Consultants.
If all goes according to plan, the village will have the results of the traditional versus automated parking deck study by the end of June or early July, said Sonenfeld. The council would then be able to decide what type of garage will be built and a request for proposal (RFP) can be advertised. With a design in hand by October or November, the construction can be bid and shovels would be in the ground after the winter thaw in 2016.
JUNE 12, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Last week, the Ridgewood Planning Board ended a five-year process of work session meetings, testimony from experts, board deliberation and public comment hearings with the approval of a master plan amendment that will allow for higher density and mixed use housing projects in the Central Business District (CBD).
The amendment allows housing in the AH-2 zone, an affordable housing district encompassing the Brogan Cadillac site on South Broad Street, the B-3-R zone, which includes the Ken Smith property on Franklin Avenue and the section of North Maple Avenue between East Ridgewood and Franklin avenues, and the C-R zone, which is a small plot of land on Chestnut Street intended for commercial and mixed use development.
These zones will allow 30 units per acre of for-sale affordable housing and 35 units per acre of for-rent affordable housing and cap the height of the buildings at 50 feet. The original amendment allowed for as much as 50 units per acre, but was scaled back in a revised amendment presented to the Planning Board in late April.
Throughout the process, developers representing three potential housing projects presented testimony regarding their respective proposed developments. The projects presented were The Dayton, a 106-unit complex in the old Brogan Cadillac lot; the 52-unit Enclave proposed for the intersection of East Ridgewood and North Maple Avenues; and Chestnut Village, a 52-unit luxury development slated for Chestnut Street near the village’s central garage.
The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”
A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.
The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.
“HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”
It’s a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.”
“American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government,” said Gosar, who is leading an effort in the House to block the regulations.
JUNE 5, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Minutes after the clock signaled a transition from Tuesday night to Wednesday morning, the Ridgewood Planning Board capped a years-long master plan amendment debate with the approval of four new zones in downtown Ridgewood.
An evening that began with comment from the public, most of whom stated their opposition to the master plan amendment, came to an anticlimactic end nearly four hours later – after many residents had left their seats – with a majority of the board members giving their approval.
The board voted on each amendment separately, with each zone receiving yes votes from board members David Thurston, Nancy Bigos, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly and Mayor Paul Aronsohn. Board member Wendy Dockray voted against all four zones while Michele Peters opposed all but the C-R zone and Councilwoman Susan Knudsen only cast an affirmative vote for the C zone.
The amendments will now go before the Village Council, which will consider an ordinance to change the master plan.
We thought we would share an opinion piece that was written by a resident for the “Tips From Town” website.
The recent decision by the Planning Board to approve the amendment of our master plan to allow for 35 units an acre, three times what is currently allowed, has me experiencing a flood of negative emotions, everything from sadness, to fear, to anger.
A recent article in North Jersey.com, notes all three of the builders left the vote with big smiles on their faces, and why wouldn’t they? It feels very much as if the 6 out of 9 members who voted “Yes” had exactly the builders’ satisfaction and approval in mind when they cast their careless vote. Many are arguing they may have had some more selfish motives in mind, but I won’t speculate. The four builders who originally petitioned for the change asked for 55 units/acre, probably hoping for half that, and the Town Planning Board, whose responsibility should be to the residents of Ridgewood, nodded their heads like puppets, and essentially said, “Whatever you need to turn a profit at the expense of our village.” Thank you to the three members who voted no.
I know the town needs to change with the times. I support multi-family housing development, just not at this density. There is no doubt if the Village Council supports the Planning Board’s recommendation, we Ridgewood residents are in for a helluva time. I can barely drive through town now with all the congestion. Imagine what this will do to traffic. It took months to “improve” the underpass at Garber square, what will this kind of massive construction do to the safety and usability of downtown? And, that is just in the short term.
If you agree, please share with your neighbors and consider signing the petition to let our council know just how many residents are opposed to the proposal before them
Any development should enhance Ridgewood’s character
JUNE 5, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Any development should enhance village’s character
To the Editor:
Those of us who chose to move to Ridgewood made a careful decision and chose a village with character over urbanized cities such as Morristown or Hackensack.
My family has experienced what Ridgewood has to offer young families, and it’s plentiful. However, I have noticed there is an obvious need for housing for empty nesters.
Overdevelopment in town is being driven by corporations’ strong desire to cash in, not enhance our downtown.
Our schools are overcrowded already; overdevelopment will increase taxes because it will increase the number of children who attend our schools, therefore adding more costs to taxpayers.
In order to protect the quality of our schools, the suburban life and the peace and tranquility of our neighborhoods; development should be reasonable and enhance our village character, not drastically alter it. One example of how development can enhance our downtown is providing green space and parking.
Overdevelopment and an unreasonable increase in density in our zoning laws will lower property values for all and hurt our village life. Urbanization of Ridgewood will decrease property values, as well. We must question the true intentions of those supporting special interests rather than protecting our community.
How is the Mayor friend Saracino and his fish restaurant going to make it without the parking garage in his backyard? I have one question. Are the taxpayers also to pay for the extra large bronze plaque that will hang on the garage wall memorializing the 3 Amigos as the ones that brought Ridgewood out of the dark ages or will it be donated by Saracino and Vaggiois?
Yes the same Developer who purchased the tickets for the council to the Chris Christie event in violation of the “gift ordnance ”
“The council is considering adding a non-binding referendum” What a tease. The key word is “Considering ” They are just throwing out there to make residents believe that the 3 amigos have the residents interest in mind. I wonder if this referendum will contain all the pertinent information such as the told cost plus interest from bonding? Does everybody feel good now they that publicly put out this headline. “The council is considering adding a non-binding referendum to the November ballot to gauge support for a parking garage downtown.” The question is after all that has happened ‘Do you real trust them”
We have former Mayor and now appointed local judge Pfund to tank. Without Ordinance 3066, passed purposely in July 2007 when many residents were down the shore, applications to amend the Master Plan would never have even been considered. Then the developers used an old anchoring by applying for 50 units, only to say they’d “comprised” down to 35. The anchor number used should have been the 12 in the Master Plan, and they should have comprised at 18-24, reflecting current Village densities. Development is surely need in the CBD – it’s an eyesore with too much dead space and decaying remnants of the past – but Ordinance 3066 and the 50 number should have never happened in the first place. That’s Pfund’s folly…. These wheels have been in motion since 2007
I feel the need for further clarification about a matter that I brought upWednesday evening.
When an elected official asks a question of the Village Manager regarding Village business, I think that a civil reply is appropriate. Councilman Sedon’s question about a possible reduction in the salary of the Village Manager, in order to compensate for the reduction in her job responsibilities, was on the mind of others. It seemed a logical question. Ms. Sonenfeld’s reprimand of Mr. Sedon, along with her comment that her salary is already as bottom as it can go, seemed completely inappropriate. I think with the current push for increased civility in public venues, Ms. Sonenfeld should be reminded that she works for The Village, and when one of her “bosses” (ie, an elected Councilmember) asks a question, a straightforward reply is in order.
Besides the tone of her reply, I also have a problem with the content of her comments. Let’s be reasonable here. A new position has been created to the tune of “six figures.” The responsibilities of this new hire used to be handled by The Village Manager. I think the suggestion that the increased expense might be offset by taking at least some money from The Village Manager’s salary was worth considering. Moreover, her public declaration that her salary is already rock bottom is very offensive. Ms. Sonenfeld has been on the job for just over a year. The salary that she is paid is what she agreed to; no one forced her to take the job or the salary. For her to now publicly complain that it is so low, so soon after she came on board, and especially when some of her responsibilities have been delegated to the new Human Resources person, seems quite inappropriate. You, Paul, were very outspoken about the salary, and salary increase, of the former manager. Well, now you have a manager who is publicly stating that her salary is low even while she is hiring more help.
I would sincerely appreciate your response on this – both the civility matter, as well as the payroll matter.
JUNE 5, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — The council is considering adding a non-binding referendum to the November ballot to gauge support for a parking garage downtown.
For more than a year, Ridgewood officials have been working on ways to provide additional parking in the central business district.
At previous meetings on parking, business leaders agreed with the council’s notion that a garage would lure more dollars to the village.
This year, Ridgewood’s council has approved financing for three different studies of the garage’s proposed site along Hudson Street.
The referendum was the brainchild of Mayor Paul Aronsohn, who said adding the issue to this fall’s ballot will cost the village nothing.
Deputy Mayor Al Pucciarelli, Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck, and Councilman Mike Sedon all supported Aronsohn’s suggestion to get feedback from voters.
The referendum’s results would have no bearing on the future of the parking garage project, which Ridgewood officials hope they can break ground on next spring.
Aronsohn’s idea was not well-received by Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, who urged that a “more comprehensive study” be undertaken of the village’s need for a garage as well as its potential impact on downtown businesses.
