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.
We know what to do come election time. This agenda has been push by the 3 amigos for a long time. They have close ties with some of the developers who will profit by this along with member of the Chamber of Commerce . Next item on their agenda is the parking garage to help certain members of the Chamber. To show how enforcement of ordinances are only for certain people I direct you attention to the wall/planter in front of Greek to Me and the large political sign at Ken Smith Motors. Same person is responsible for both of them , a strong supporter of our Mayor.
Although I suspect that some if not most of the 1000 resident that sign the petition voted for the Dream Team that 1000 votes are enough to vote them out of office before the come up with something else to take car of their friends.
Straight out of the developers playbook…
Know that the existing standard density is 18-24 units per acre
Ask for 50 UPA
Settle for 35 UPA
Double the existing standardt!
But less than 50 UPA …Suckers…
The Planning Board only needs to point to the existing densities that have worked successfully in Ridgewood and say that’s it.
Or they can roll over and give the Developers 35 UPA, double the existing standard, which is what the developers really wanted…to the detriment of our town’s best interests.
JUNE 3, 2015, 9:14 AM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015, 7:07 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Developers were all smiles as they left Tuesday night’s meeting of the Planning Board, which approved four separate amendments to the village’s master plan, paving the way for high-density, multifamily housing projects downtown.
Several residents walked out of Tuesday night’s meeting when the closing comments by members of the board made it clear even before the vote that the panel would be moving to advance the proposed zoning changes.
The four master plan changes were approved by majority vote; Wendy Dockray, a real estate agent, was the only member to oppose all four amendments. Both Susan Knudsen, a Ridgewood councilwoman who sits on the board, and Michele Peters, an attorney, opposed three of the amendments.
All three women said that a vote Tuesday night would be premature, calling for more discussion of the amendments.
The vote capped five years of meetings, public hearings, and expert testimony on the master plan amendments, first requested by four developers with plans for four different housing complexes.
One developer has since backed out, leaving three housing projects planned with a combined 208 apartment units.
I will not sign the petition only because I have no idea what kind of backlash I might face by doing so. But I wholeheartedly object to their 35 unit/acre proposal. The developers knew the rules when they bought the properties. The rules allow 12 but let’s be generous and go with the 18-24 existing standard – they asked for double that and by their own admission were surprised by the resistance they’ve faced. So they are either stupid or were told by those involved in the process (council, planning board?) that it would be approved. They say the economics don’t work under the current rules – so who in their right mind would take that kind of risk? These developers do not have the best interest of the village in mind, they want more traffic (foot or otherwise) downtown. Who does this help? In some ways the businesses generally but much more so and longer term it helps the landlords. For years they have been jacking up the rents on businesses (driving many away) in a time where retail spending as a whole has moved online making brick and mortar stores less valuable. The landlords see this and are happy to support this over-expansion because there is no other way to fill that revenue hole than to extract it from current residents of Ridgewood.
There were 3 primary considerations for moving to Ridgewood (many years before our first child was even born btw so the “empty nester” argument is invalid here – we are 2nd generation Ridgewood).
1) Great schools
2) Safety – outstanding police and fire response
3) Charming, Beautiful place to raise a family and hopefully retire
Allowing this over-expansion enhances exactly none of those considerations. Ridgewood’s restaurants thrive, retailers do not and likely will not when even the high-traffic areas of 17 have been forced to close. Stop arguing that we need to draw bigger retailers into this town – I can drive to 17 if I can’t find what i’m looking for online. Enough with the nonsense arguments, and enough with Blaise trying to figure out how to stuff the maximum density into our limited space (all this based on his “expert” opinion even though he has zero ability to think about a broader common sense plan for development).
in short – just say No to the developers. It is not our responsibility to tell them what’s allowed – they knew that when they bought the property. Cutting your request from 4X what is allowed to only 3X is not a compromise, it’s still a snow job.
(all timeframes and the order of agenda items below are approximate and subject to change)
1. 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.
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
JUNE 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JUNE 1, 2015, 9:46 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Village Council approved on May27 a contract for a consulting firm to study two options for a parking garage on Hudson Street.
The governing body also discussed a potential bond ordinance that would cover pre-construction funding for such a project.
The contract, approved by a 5-0 vote, was awarded to New York-based Walker Parking Consultants, which will perform an evaluation of automated parking systems versus traditional parking garages for the lot at Hudson Street.
The study needs to be done prior to a request for proposals (RFP) on the design, said Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld. The village must decide if it wants to build a traditional deck or one with automated parking before going out for an RFP, she said.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen inquired about the cover letter submitted by Walker, which said the Hudson Street lot was only 100 feet wide and does not have the dimensions for an efficient self-park garage, thereby defeating the purpose of studying two systems.
Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser agreed the lot does not have the depth for a traditional deck, but a study done by Ridgewood’s engineering department revealed there were a number of options the village had if it wished to build a traditional deck.
Ridgewood NJ , CBR invites you to please open the link below and consider signing this petition. The Planning Board will most likely be voting on this amendment tomorrow night and we want to show them many people are not for this considerable change to our master plan from a density of 12 units per acre (current) to a density of 35 units per acre (almost triple).
Just to give you an idea of what other towns allow: Hackensack 22 units per acre, Teaneck 28 units per acre, Fair Lawn 17 units per acre, etc. Why would we want to have such a high density of 35 units per acre in our Master Plan? If they vote yes, there’s no turning back. Ridgewood will no longer be the charming Village we all love. Yes, change is good, growth is good, but this is too much. It needs to be a more reasonable number. Please sign and forward. Only 1 signature per e-mail address is allowed. Please send to your spouses e-mail address, so they can sign too.
We have reason to believe that the Planning Board may vote on the revised Amendment to the Master Plan at tomorrow’s meeting! Yes, this could all be over tomorrow night!
Please read and sign the petition below to urge responsible planning and to encourage the Planning Board to “VOTE NO” to 35 units an acre .
Please SHARE THIS PETITION ASAP TONIGHT!
Share on Facebook, via email, on Twitter — everything!!
Encourage others to forward and share, as well!
Please join us at the Planning Board Meeting THIS Tuesday, June 2nd at Village Hall at 7:30 pm
Agenda: FINAL Public Hearing on the Revised Amendment to the Master Plan that was put forth on April 21st (Revised Amendment is attached)
We need your attendance at the next Planning Board meeting on Tuesday. We are close to the end, but we must still attend the meetings and continue to urge our Planning Board to act cautiously when altering our Master Plan. In our opinion, the Revised Amendment is still not appropriate for Ridgewood and will have long term negative consequences.
The new Amendment takes a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing density, offering the same benefits across all zones, regardless of the context or surrounding location — a risky approach that we do not support.
The new Amendment allows for up to 35 units an acre, with affordable for rent units included. While this is indeed an improvement from the 40-50 units put forth in the initial Amendment, in our opinion, this is still too big of a jump from the 12 units per acre that is permitted now and the 22 units per acre average that currently exists in our down town.
Several properties (West Bergen Mental Healthcare and neighboring lots) that were originally identified as suitable for high-density housing in the first amendment have been eliminated from the revised amendment, which puts Ridgewood at risk for legal action for spot zoning.
In the revised amendment, the much larger Ken Smith property has been lumped into the same zone as the smaller Enclave (Sealfon’s) site. These are two very unique properties and their zoning benefits should differ.
Our Village Planner insists that a minimum density (of approximately 35 units per acre) is necessary to economically incentivize developers to develop their properties and build housing, however, a lower density could be awarded that would still allow developers to build and profit. Below is a link to a Letter to the Editor that references developers in HoHoKus that are seeking much lower density than 35 units per acre.
They should do that in Ridgewood instead of the assisted living facility the Kensington which is like a hospital and would involve over-the-top amount of traffic. Several shifts during the day. and night, Kensington will house over 90 residents and each resident including food preparation and basic need care will need about five staff members per resident.
Also additional medical staff on premises. Remember were talkin people who cannot take care of themselves PLUS Alzheimer residents, dementia residents.There is a new assisted living being built in Wyckoff at The Christian Health Care facility. Plus there are lots of other places.
Restaurant memoire Recognized as a Top Performing Restaurant
Posted: 28 May 2015
Ridgewood NJ, Restaurant mémoire, a seasonal American eclectic restaurant, announced that it has received a TripAdvisor® Certificate of Excellence award. Now in its fifth year, the award celebrates excellence in hospitality and is given only to establishments that consistently achieve great traveler reviews on TripAdvisor.
“Winning the TripAdvisor Certificate of Excellence is a true source of pride for the entire team at Restaurant mémoire and we’d like to thank all of our past guests who took the time to complete a review on TripAdvisor,” said Tom Finnelli, Executive Chef & Owner at Restaurant mémoire. “There is no greater seal of approval than being recognized by one’s guests. With the TripAdvisor Certificate of Excellence based on guest reviews, the accolade is a remarkable vote of confidence to our business and our continued commitment to excellence.”
Restaurant mémoire is a fresh, seasonal American eclectic restaurant featuring a menu that is made to order. We are happy to modify or even go off our menu to accommodate you in every way. Here at mémoire, the answer is always, “Yes”.
Restaurant mémoire is located at 16 Chestnut St., Ridgewood. call 201-857-8899
www.diningatmemoire.com
