file photo
Downtown Parking Initiative
Draft – Ridgewood Downtown Parking Initiative Discussed at Village Council Meeting
For the Draft Parking Plan Fact Sheet that was discussed at the Village Council Meeting on Wednesday, October 1st please
Click Here https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2014ParkingPlan.pdf
Ridgewood seeks feedback on proposed changes to meters
OCTOBER 2, 2014 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014, 4:36 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
STAFF WRITER
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Ridgewood’s two-hour meters, 12-hour meters, and non-resident parking permits might soon be gone.
Village officials are discussing resident-only permit parking and putting a three-hour time limit on all downtown meters (except for the 15-minute spots).
These ideas are being lauded as the latest measures to help improve Ridgewood’s parking situation in the short term. Now, officials are looking for resident feedback, Mayor Paul Aronsohn announced at Wednesday’s council meeting.
The mayor noted that a compilation of the new short-term ideas, titled “Ridgewood Downtown Parking Initiative,” will be put on the village website (ridgewoodnj.net) for public review before any action is taken.
“Parking’s been on everyone’s mind,” Aronsohn said. “We’ve been kicking around a lot of ideas … We really need to take care of Ridgewood residents first.”
According to a preliminary version of the document provided to The Ridgewood News, the village would make parking “easier, simpler, better” by standardizing the rules.
The village would do this first by making all downtown meters run from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., cost 25 cents per half hour, and provide three-hour parking. Current meters provide 12-hour and two-hour parking limits.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/business/feedback-on-latest-proposals-sought-1.1101314#sthash.pkdoMQSd.dpuf
The Central Business District :Parking well that is just part of the Problem
September 28th 2014
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, A Ridgewood Panel says lack of parking is the source of problems in downtown Ridgewood , but in readers offered many other ideas .
While parking is often mentioned , many felt the issue has been long over played. Readers said store hours , types of stores and restaurants , rents , taxes and Ridgewood’s over bureaucratic non responsive regulatory environment pose significant problems for businesses. It seems Ridgewood has gotten a very anti business reputation.
Readers also questioned the lack of comprehensive planning , spot zoning, ad hoc development, and a lack of efforts by the Chamber to promote new business in town .
Readers though the panel was a bit self serving , and said “What a bunch of self serving greedy people lead by a councilman who is a narcissi . The article shows how much the Ridgewood News is on board with this. These greedy people using words such as “stigma,” “that Ridgewood is asleep.” “that Ridgewood has lost its edge.” “Some similarly jarring points were made” “When you drive into this town, I don’t want to say it the wrong way, but it looks kind of dumpy… -” Thanks.
“Sarceno, a Ridgewood resident, said he wanted to attract anything other than a restaurant into the historic building, but he couldn’t.“It was amazing to see the lack of interest from anyone other than a restaurant,” he said.
Mr. Sarceno did you expect a Gap or a JC Penny to go in there. We all know what you did. You bought that building at a discount and then you go to your friend on the Council and push for a parking garage on Hudson St which would make the bank building more attractive for renters not to mention charging higher rent.”
Panel says parking is source of problems in downtown Ridgewood
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2014, 4:19 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
STAFF WRITER
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
John Saraceno, owner of the former Bank of America building, gave some bad news during Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli’s most recent public forum on the Central Business District (CBD).
Sarceno, a Ridgewood resident, said he wanted to attract anything other than a restaurant into the historic building, but he couldn’t.
“It was amazing to see the lack of interest from anyone other than a restaurant,” he said. “In three years, I never received a proposal or request from a non-restaurant, and all I wanted was a non-restaurant.”
Now, the new high-end seafood restaurant FISH is on its way into the long-vacant space.
The issue, Saraceno said, is two-fold: Ridgewood’s parking “stigma,” and the stigma “that Ridgewood is asleep.”
“In the retail marketplace, there is a tremendous view,” he noted, “that Ridgewood has lost its edge.”
Some similarly jarring points were made by other attendees during the forum Monday evening in the richly furnished back room of Chestnut Street’s new Roots Steakhouse, which features luxe leather seating and lantern lighting.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/business/panel-says-parking-is-source-of-problems-1.1097287#sthash.IxBzgt3T.dpuf
REMINDER SIDEWALK CLOSED – NORTH BROAD STREET CROSSWALK
PEDERSTIAN ADVISORY –
CLOSED – North Broad Street Crosswalk will be closed to Pedestrian Traffic. This includes the entire sidewalk at times.
Please use the Eastside Stairs near the Taxi Stand.
Alternative routes available to use are the Pedestrian Tunnel or the Garber Square Sidewalk if you are under the train trestle.
A temporary Crosswalk will be available near the Taxi Stand.
Reader says anyone who defends the status quo Parking Meters here can only be a part of the problem.
…and how amy millions will the new parking meters cost? with the added bonus of tracking residents shopping and parking habits via credit card use. Way to go.
— How about:
1) get all of the stolen money back
2) implement REAL security for the quarters – not just toss them in a open buckets in an unguarded closet.
New security measures have already been put into place which make future thefts much more difficult – so why do we need to spend millions on new parking meters?
So your argument is “let’s not install smart meters that will avoid any slippage for villagers” ? What kind of a Luddite are you ? New meters might threaten the long standing tradition of municipal employees stealing quarters to pay for personal entertainment or help with the mortgage or money launder it through AC, so let’s protest against them? Sorry , anyone who defends the status quo here can only be a part of the problem. We’re not falling for it.
Reader says Any development proposal that is so severe that it requires a change to the town’s Master Plan SHOULD take time so all parties
A change to the Master Plan NEEDS to be deliberate (and yes to a degree- difficult) to encourage developers to find solutions that meet their needs AND fit into the parameters of the existing Master Plan – otherwise we are at great risk to destroy all of those intangibles that make RW great and which drew the developers to the town in the first place.
Reader says I’m relatively certain that it’s not within the Mayor’s power to advocate for amending the Master Plan at this point
I’m relatively certain that it’s not within the Mayor’s power to advocate for amending the Master Plan at this point. Nor is it within the power of his 2 running mates Mrs. Hauck and Mr. Pucciarelli – both of whom seem to have already made up their minds on the subject.
How about these 2 developers apply for variances just like anyone else that wants to build anything in this town. You want to be a little lenient with them, fine. Just keep it within the scope of the existing Master Plan. There’s your compromise.
Don’t allow 3 people who think they know better than the rest of us make such permanent changes to our town.
A little history lesson. We owe this master plan craziness to former Mayor Pfund and his desire to help out Valley bypass everyone in its over-expansion plan. Had he not pushed the change that allowed the hospital and developers to push for amendments, we would not be in this morass. I believe that if the master plan had not been changed to allow these cases, then Valley would have instead asked for exemptions on a building-by-building basis. They would have had something built by now. Smaller, yes. But one new building is better than nothing and looking like a fool in the process. Greed is getting the best of all of them.
And for this fine effort, Pfund was appointed our municipal judge for life.
The problem as i understand the ordinance that exists is that we will be dealing with this over and over again even if we approve one or all of these proposals. That is the great fear…that if any of these projects is approved it will open the floodgates for other projects…all using what i will call the brother/sister argument (you let her/him do it so why can’t i?). And given that this has became such a legalized process, no one can assure that won’t sue to try to push through their proposals. I agree that something needs to be done but not with potentially open-ended litigation risk.
Reader says the current amendment proposal is doomed and the Mayor wants to make sure something gets through.
many on the planning board that night were skeptical of the mayor’s proposal that night. it clearly took many by surprise and you really have to question why he brought it up now. my best guess is that he sees the current amendment proposal is doomed and he wants to make sure something gets through. THAT ISN’T THE PROCESS!!
Let’s remember that the ordinance that allows these amendment proposals in the first place was pushed through by friends of developers (which includes their lawyers). They created a legal process that couldn’t be stopped or participated in by residents once it moved past debate at the council level (or so they thought – they didn’t count on something like the CBR). Recall how Al abruptly ceased debate on these and pushed the vote which brought them to the planning board. Now that the process isn’t working in their favor they are trying to split them up to make it look like a “compromise”.
Also remember this: The developers bought these properties knowing exactly what they were allowed to build. They were banking on being able to push through these amendments that quadruple the number of units/acre currently allowed. That’s just bad business decision making (unless you have some reason to believe your amendment will be helped along). Certainly helps explain why saraceno stormed out in the middle of the cross by his attorney of the CBR planner as it was clear he wasn’t going to rattle her.
If the current amendment proposals are voted down the developers have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan. It is not the town’s job to tell the developers how much more they can get away with than is currently allowed – that’s like asking a cop how much faster you can drive over the speed limit while he’s writing you a ticket.
This is the process the developers and their attorneys created…stop whining because it’s not going your way now!!
Addressing special needs housing
To The Editor:
Earlier this year, the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) established its latest housing regulations. It was a long-awaited attempt to clarify an increasingly complex situation and to provide our communities with clarity on this issue.
While we can spend hours debating the merits of such rules imposed on our municipalities, we think that it is imperative that attention be paid to a housing shortfall that lies beyond this new set of COAH rules. It is an issue that poses its own set of moral and practical challenges and is a relentless source of anxiety for many New Jersey families.
Specifically, we are talking about our state’s significant shortage of special-needs housing.
Ask any parent of an adult with cognitive, developmental or physical disabilities about housing opportunities and you are likely to get the same concerned look, hear the same compelling plea and feel the same sense of urgency. It is not just a matter of independence for their adult child. It is possibly a matter of life and death, because their adult child may have no place to live once the parents have died.
For them and their children – the literally thousands of people with disabilities waiting on state lists for such housing – the time to act is now. We must address the housing needs of our most vulnerable, and we must provide towns, such as Ridgewood, with more flexibility to make such housing a reality.
To that end, we have introduced Senate Bill 2132 to allow and encourage municipalities to work together to create regional affordable housing opportunities for adults with special needs. The bill would permit any city or town to transfer up to half of its COAH obligation to another city or town within a 10-mile radius, which would receive 1.5 COAH credits per unit of affordable housing to meet its fair share.
Among other things, this legislation would allow built-out communities – those with no space for additional housing – to help meet the needs of its special-needs residents, but to do so in neighboring towns.
In the past, similar regional contribution agreements had been legal and had been successful in creating thousands of affordable homes for people around the state. This bill is different, however, in that it focuses on people with special needs and includes a 10-mile geographical restriction as a common-sense component to keep such housing and services in close proximity – something that will benefit the communities and the families involved.
S-2132 is a significant step toward solving the housing needs of our most vulnerable and a solution that can provide much needed and much deserved relief to many New Jersey families. We therefore urge the Legislature to seize this opportunity and act upon this legislation.
Paul Aronsohn
Mayor, Ridgewood
Kevin O’Toole
State Senator, 40th Legislative District
https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-addressing-special-needs-housing-1.1093600
Reader says So now the Master Plan is something to be tweaked and molded to meet any developers’ needs?
So now changing the Master Plan is reduced to a “regular” negotiable item on the table and is open to regular and frequent changes?
———-
Modifications to the Master Plan should be difficult to implement and should be considered only rarely – when absolutely necessary.
Apparently this mayor and council seem to consider a Master Plan change as one of the many “regular work-a-day tools” at their disposal.
———-
Clearly the ambitious plans of developers do not fit into the “essence” of RW – as evidenced by a need to change the Master Plan.
Changing the “proposed changes” to the Master Plan misses the function of the Master Plan and the problem at hand…
The problem IS NOT that the “original proposed changes” to the Master Plan were too severe.
The problem IS that the developers desires DO NOT FIT AND DO NOT BELONG in RW.
Ridgewood mayor suggests two amendments for downtown housing
September 22, 2014 Last updated: Monday, September 22, 2014, 11:39 AM
By Laura Herzog
Staff Writer
The Ridgewood New
If two is usually better than one, what about when it comes to Master Plan amendments?
Last Tuesday, Mayor Paul Aronsohn surprised Planning Board members by suggesting the board split the currently proposed Master Plan amendment, to allow multifamily housing in the village’s central business district (CBD), into two amendments.
He also asked the board to consider reducing the proposed density, as in allowable units per acre.
One part of the newly bifurcated amendment, Aronsohn said, would consider the CBD’s “core” – East Ridgewood Avenue and Franklin Avenue – and the other would consider the CBD’s “periphery” – south of East Ridgewood Avenue and north of Franklin Avenue.
“We’re looking at a lot here. I think it would simplify it. I think it would allow the board to really focus,” Aronsohn said. “I think it would just help our decision.”
In another proposal, the mayor asked the board to consider modifying the density increase to a range around 30 to 40 units per acre, as opposed to the currently proposed 50 units per acre, which has been criticized as too great by opponents.
“I’m thinking closer to 30 makes sense,” he said.
A couple of Planning Board members expressed interest in further pursuing the ideas, which Chairman Charles Nalbantian said would be discussed more in the future, but most said the board should continue moving forward as it is.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-mayor-suggests-two-amendments-1.1093601#sthash.9hy3VdTP.dpuf
Parking should be first priority
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2014, 9:55 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Parking should be first priority
Felicia Angus
The Planning Board meeting on Tuesday night was a firm confirmation as to why the board has to take back control of the future of this town. Sitting there, you might have thought we had all stepped into a Perry Mason special instead of a village meeting. The former Sealfons building developer’s lawyer came out like a bulldog in his “cross examination” of CBR’s [Citizens for a Better Ridgewood] hired planning advisor and was at times condescending, mean-spirited and outright bad-mannered. If he is the representation of the developers that hired him then we can only infer how they would be once they were to get any sort of go ahead to develop in this town. Kudos to Ms. Brigette Bogart, CBR’s planning advisor, for keeping her calm and not being coerced into answering the deliberately leading questions.
What this town needs to thrive is a good parking option to let those who already live here, as well as those from other towns, make use of all that the village has to offer. Walk into any shop and ask the owners. This should be priority number one in helping boost the Central Business District. After that, the Planning Board should decide how it wants to change the town plan and proceed with housing for the empty nesters. Let the village put out the requests for proposals and not be pushed into anything that is not appropriate for the nature of this town.
Ridgewood to encourage downtown employees to park in Ken Smith lot
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014, 4:22 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
STAFF WRITER
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Space is being made in Ridgewood’s village code for more parking spaces.
The village has created a new ordinance as a first step to encourage Central Business District (CBD) employee parking in the Franklin Avenue Ken Smith lot, to temporarily free up public parking spaces.
As the village enters a public-private partnership with the new lot owners, KS Broad Street LLC, to allow CBD employees to use the lot, which the village would police and manage, the council on Wednesday introduced an ordinance that establishes requirements for the permitting of CBD employee vehicles in that lot.
“The negotiations still continue. We’re very close,” Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld said.
“I want to emphasize that this is a short-term solution,” she added. “The contract that’s been drafted now by [the village attorney] will be a six-month contract. We think it will go longer because I think the current owner still has to go in front of the Planning Board with his plans for the property, but obviously once he decides what to do with the property, it becomes unavailable to us.”
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/village-finds-space-at-ken-smith-lot-1.1091314#sthash.LjgChrvO.dpuf
Readers debate cost of living in the Central Business District
I went to their website and had problems with the “data” that they presented. They think that someone in stupid.
The P&I on my mortgage is $1,800. I have a large 5 br 3/3 bath home. My taxes are $2,500. I am not looking to downsize to a much, much smaller rental for a higher cost. This development does not solve my tax problem. It just gives me an expensive alternative. I think that I need a smaller house or townhouse, but not in Ridgewood.
BTW. How many parking spots do I get? We have two cars.
and ….
How about your cost for lawn maintenance, snow removal, repairs and the set-aside for major repairs (new roof, new AC etc., etc.) I know a former Ridgewood resident who had a house that is probably similar in size to yours. He and his wife are empty nesters and they decided to move to an apartment in Manhattan. They have a 2br, 2bath unit with a doorman and pay $6000/mo. When I commented that it appears that it would have been less expensive to simply stay put in Ridgewood he laid out the cost for me and guess what they totaled about $6000/mo. The Ridgewood developers are talking about $3000/mo for 2br/2br. Granted Ridgewood does not compare with the Big Apple but for the difference in rent a couple could easily afford to go into the city several times a month …..and still have a few bucks left over.
https://downtownridgewood.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/RidgewodRumorVsReality.pdf
