RIDGEWOOD DOWNTOWN ZONING ANALYSIS STUDIES
The Final Downtown Zoning Impacts Analysis that address the four multifamily housing study areas is now available. For the complete document Click Here
By Dan Ivers | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on March 06, 2016 at 5:59 PM, updated March 07, 2016 at 7:24 AM
HOBOKEN – Police Chief Ken Ferrante is speaking out after 15 people were arrested and dozens of others ticketed after this year’s annual Lepre-Con bar crawl.
In a statement, the chief said he was “disturbed” by what he called repeated issues with revelers at the St. Patrick’s Day-themed event, sponsored by a private promoter and local watering holes.
Arrests this year increased by four over 2015, and Ferrante specifically cited the arrest of a former college football player for allegedly breaking a city officer’s ribs and dislocating another’s shoulder.
“I will not tolerate having any of our officers injured, for the purposes of a few to make a financial profit at the expense of our residents, and for the purposes of promoting deviant behavior attached to various holidays, which results in citizens and officers being hospitalized!” he said.
file photo By Boyd Loving
CHANGE IN LOCATION FOR MARCH 9TH AND MARCH 23RD VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETINGS
The Village Council Meetings of March 9th and March 23rd will be held at the Campus Center of the Ridgewood High School, located at 627 East Ridgewood Avenue. The March 9th Regular Public Meeting will begin at 8:00 p.m., and will be immediately followed by a Work Session, where the results of the impact studies for
multi-family housing will be discussed. The March 23rd Work Session meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. During the Work Session there will be a Special Public Meeting for the Public Hearings and vote on the multi-family housing ordinances as well as a public hearing and vote on the bond ordinance to appropriate money for the Hudson Street parking deck.
This location is not equiped to broadcast the meetings. The meetings will be filmed and available both on UTube and the Village Public Access Channel (Cablevision 77; Fios 37).
March 5,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Towns like Summit NJ, have invested money in a downtown improvement plans that are costly and visionary and included ample input from residents. While Ridgewood’s lack of vision seems to be focused on fulfilling the ad hoc wishes of special interests.
The fact is we have no development plan and there is no vision. We are reactionary in everything we do. Our council rejects public input and views the public as obstacles to be overcome. Residents are never treated as if our voices matter by the council majority, they are attacked, threatened and berated .
The group Citizens for a better Ridgewood (CBR ), worked to create a vision.The CBR Facebook page says “We support a lower number of Housing per acre, still higher than the 12 that is currently allowed, but not as high as the 35 proposed. 20-24 would be generous, profitable and would compliment the character of our downtown. 20 -24 units an acre” . The CBR statement on this –https://theridgewoodblog.net/citizens-for-a-better-ridgewood-cbr-calls-for-residents-to-attend-village-councils-public-hearing-on-september-16th-730pm/ , CBR supported 20-24 units per acre because that’s density that could be built over and over (instead of spot zoning for some units).
The CBR group searched for a visionary compromise and but were labeled as racist, a clever tactic by developers to garner support from those who are uninformed. Watching council meetings, everyone who goes to speak in support of the big garage or in support of very high density housing has no specific current facts ,just an over reliance on almost absurd assumptions put forth by developers and their supporters,that amount to nothing more than fantasies from the land of make believe . Their tune is always the same: “anyone asking any question here is nay-sayer”, “now is the time or no one else will do it”, “they don’t want any garage”, “they don’t want any development”.. “loud mouth vocal minority”…NIMBY…yada yada yada.
March 4, 2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood Nj , Pfund’s folly resurfaces once again to haunt the Village of Ridgewood . We have former Mayor and now appointed local judge Pfund to thank.
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 “compromised” down to 35.
It is clear to most residents that we need to stop the madness , Village residents need to focus on repeal Ordinance No. 3066 which allows these incongruous projects. No other town in New Jersey has this ordinance which was initially passed to aid the Valley Hospital development.
“Ordinance No. 3066, which sets forth the fees and processes involved in applying for an amendment to the master plan or development regulations, was originally passed in July 2007. The ordinance has become the subject of controversy as many believe it enabled the multiple master plan amendment applications that have dominated the agenda at Planning Board meetings.” https://theridgewoodblog.net/ridgewood-making-changes-to-controversial-ordinance-no-3066-known-by-many-as-pfunds-folly/
Developers then seized the opportunity to propose projects which previously would have been summarily rejected without this ordinance. Essentially if the ordinance is not repealed any “for sale” or “for lease” sign anywhere in town can also include the phrase “All uses considered.” .“More specifically, the law – Ordinance No. 3066 – makes formal the process and fees charged to any interested party should they petition the Planning Board or Village Council for a change.
The ordinance has been the topic of much debate over recent months as the Planning Board has heard back-to-back applications for amendments to the master plan, first from The Valley Hospital and currently from three housing developers seeking to put high-density housing in the Central Business District (CBD).” https://theridgewoodblog.net/urbanization-ridgewood-ordinance-on-master-plan-amendments-at-center-of-debate/
This gives a huge loophole to developers looking to push massive over development on Ridgewood like the current high density housing . Its is time to close the loophole.
“Furthermore, the actual bonding through BCIA is more expensive than Ridgewood bonding ourselves, and many in municipal finance question the assumptions used. Also, the building will go over budget as Albert promised himself. Lastly, there is demand for parking but currently you can always – always- find parking on street in that area of town. (in front of NY SPorts, up prospect etc.). The garage is not that much closer and it is a shame businesses were never able to convince their employees to park over there as that is what really takes street parking.”
Of coarse there is also the county politics and perhaps the real story;
The apartments will be built as soon as the lawsuits begin, COHA judgements line up, and the remaining council fall in place. Makes some sense”
file photo by Boyd Loving
During last week’s Planning Board meeting, Village Planner Blais Brancheau explained some changes he recommended the board make to the master plan.
Brancheau began by reading from the current master plan, discussing housing, changes in population in the village and historic preservation, among other topics.
One change he recommended was updating the master plan regarding soil removal.
“Right now, we have three levels of soil permit procedures: a ministerial, a minor and a major permit,” he said. “We don’t need that level of difficulty to do a soil movement permit, where you’re going to get both Planning Board and council approval to move soil. One or the other should suffice.”
Another change he said would be beneficial was updating the master plan in terms of flooding zones.
Brancheau explained that the federal government has been making changes to its flood area designations, and that these should be reflected in Ridgewood’s master plan.
Chris Rutishauser, the village engineer, noted that this would be done as soon as possible, since people who would potentially be in flood zones may need to purchase flood insurance, and should know sooner rather than later if they required it or not.
Brancheau also pointed out that flood areas prohibit certain activities, such as building houses in some locations, making it even more important that the changes be updated as soon as possible.
https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/master-plan-review-continues-1.1501713
file photo saddle river
JANUARY 17, 2016 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, JANUARY 17, 2016, 1:21 AM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
HO-HO-KUS — The fate of a developer’s proposal to nestle dozens of town houses in a neighborhood of single-family homes may rely on the state’s new process of getting communities to meet affordable-housing obligations.
The plan, put forward by the Upper Saddle River-based Chamberlain Developers, is to build 45 town homes on a 3.66-acre corner lot off West Saddle River Road and Hollywood Avenue. Some of those units would be designated to help the borough meet its court-mandated obligation to promote housing for low- and moderate-income residents.
But opponents say such dense housing would be wholly out of character in an area dominated by sizable single-family homes.
“For almost 100 years, there’s been single-family development on the applicant’s property,” said Ho-Ho-Kus attorney Robert Inglima, representing four neighboring families opposed to the proposal. “So to take that property and transform it into a site for any number of multifamilyhousing units would be a significant departure from the prior zoning pattern … this is an established neighborhood we’re talking about.”
But land is gold in North Jersey, and as more residents — especially young professionals and empty-nesters — seek smaller units closer to mass transit, development firms are reacting, said Bergen Realtor Robert Abbott.
https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/town-house-plan-roils-ho-ho-kus-1.1493801
Troubles in Ridgewood
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.
Linda McNamara
Ridgewood
file photo by Boyd Loving
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
file photo by Boyd Loving
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.
https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/meeting-is-moved-1.1487454
file photo by Boyd Loving
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING – MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
There will be a Village Council Special Public Meeting held on Friday, January 8, 2016 @ 5PM in the Court Room at Village Hall. Various Consultants will be presenting proposals for the 4 Multi-Family Housing Studies covering; fiscal impact, traffic, education & municipal infrastructure
Dear Councilwoman Knudsen, Village Council and Village Manager:
On behalf of the Supporters of Citizens for a Better Ridgewood (CBR), I request that the Village Council promptly review and change the date of the Multifamily Housing Impact Study Presentations, which are apparently set for Friday, January 8th at 5pm. This meeting MUST be scheduled at a time that will encourage Resident input and attendance… after all it is called a “Special PUBLIC Meeting.” The current scheduling has the direct and true effect of substantially eliminating the ability of many (or most) Residents from being able to attend. We recognize you are working hard to expedite these presentations, but nevertheless, the serious public attendance issues with a Friday 1/8, 5pm timeslot should have been evident and understood as a given before making this problematic change. This issue and this meeting are too important to your Resdients. Beyond the fact that Fridays are generally an inopportune time for such events, the 5pm timing eliminates most Residents with school age children (as this is their dinnertime), as well as the majority of our workers and commuters, who will not be home in time to attend. Given this, who then, is this “Public” meeting planned for?
While I am sure this was not intended, leaving the meeting set for such a difficult time, creates the divisive appearance that the Village Council is seeking to bypass or avoid public attendance and input. That is most certainly not what our Council, or our Village needs at this time. Our Mayor has been a vocal advocate of finding ways to improve the tenor of public discourse. Providing an “inaccessible” meeting time, for such an important event, will raise the level of frustration, Resident-exclusion and act as a setback to those noble intents.
The timing of this meeting is wrong for Ridgewood. Please reschedule at a time that encourages public attendance.
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Dave Slomin
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Special Public Meeting – Multi-Family Housing – January 8, 2016
Ridgewood NJ , There will be a Village Council Special Public Meeting held on Friday, January 8, 2016 @ 5PM in the Court Room at Village Hall. Various Consultants will be presenting proposals for the 4 Multi-Family Housing Studies covering; fiscal impact, traffic, education & municipal infrastructure.
The firms that are competing to conduct the special impact studies that residents overwhelmingly requested on September 30th. The question arises is ,”why would you schedule such a meeting at 5:00pm on a Friday unless you did not want residents to attend?”
Contrary to the view point promoted by the Deputy Mayor , most residents do have a jobs. Jobs are particular necessary to pay the enormous amount of federal ,state and local taxes . No one who can afford to live in Ridgewood who works in the private sector gets home that early .
The other issue that would make sense would be to delay any decision regarding the parking garage until the comprehensive studies are done. It makes absolutely no sense to hire an outside company to conduct the studies without including the proposed garage.
