MAY 4, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, MAY 4, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY KATHLEEN LYNN
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Home construction in New Jersey has gotten off to a slower start this year, with builders starting 5,352 units in the first quarter, down 8.3 percent from a year earlier.
But Patrick O’Keefe, an economist with CohnReznick in New York and Roseland, expects builders to rev up construction later this year, giving the homebuilding sector “its best performance since 2006.” O’Keefe is forecasting that about 30,000 housing units will be started in the Garden State in 2015, compared with 28,119 in 2014.
Multifamily activity will continue to provide momentum for home construction in the state, O’Keefe said. In the first quarter, multifamily construction made up 59 percent of the building permits issued in New Jersey.
“We will be looking at multifamily as the dominant driver,” he said. For the past several years, well over half the construction in the state has been in multifamily projects — especially rentals, concentrated in Bergen, Hudson and other northeastern New Jersey counties.
One example is Hudson Lights in Fort Lee, a mixed-use project being built just south of the George Washington Bridge. Its first stage, expected to be finished at the end of this year, will include 276 rental units. A second stage, expected to be completed in 2018, will include 201 housing units.
The developer, Chicago-based Tucker Development Corp., sees continuing demand for rentals, especially in neighborhoods where stores, restaurants and transit are within walking distance.
Young people starting out in their careers want “the ability to be more mobile,” said CEO Richard Tucker.
Economists also note that many younger adults are renting, rather than buying, because it’s difficult to qualify for mortgages and because they are wary about investing in a home after seeing values crater during the housing crash.
Adding to the demand for rentals, Tucker said, are empty nesters who decide they don’t need large houses anymore.
The national homeownership rate is 63.7 percent, the lowest level since 1993. The rate had exceeded 69 percent in 2004 as mortgage lenders loosened their credit standards and lent to many people who couldn’t afford the payments and ended up losing their homes.
Homebuilders’ slow start this year is only temporary, O’Keefe said, citing the complex planning and approval process involved in multifamily projects.
05/05/15 7:30PM Planning Board Public Meeting – Village Hall Court Room
Please join us on Tuesday, May 5th at Village Hall at 7:30 pm
Agenda: Public Hearing on the Revised Amendment to the Master Plan that was put forth on April 21st
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.
At the last Planning Board meeting on April 21st, the Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, presented a NEW Amendment that takes a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing density — a risky approach that we do not support. In our opinion, Mr. Brancheau continues to plan for profit, not for the people of Ridgewood. The revised amendment is VERY different from the amendment that was proposed in November of 2013 and in our opinion, is looking more and more like spot zoning. (The revised amendment is attached.)
Thoughts:
Blais Brancheau, the Village planner, stated that the zones he identified as suitable for high-density housing in the first amendment were being considered because housing at these locations would be beneficial to the public at large. Why then, in the 11th hour, did the planner eliminate several properties (West Bergen Mental Healthcare and neighboring properties) that have been in consideration for more than two years? We never, not even once, heard any Planning Board member suggest this change. Yet this was one of the biggest changes in the revised amendment. We don’t get it.
In another significant change, the much larger Ken Smith property has been lumped into the same zone as the smaller Enclave (Sealfon’s) site. This move makes a bold statement. By combining these two sites into one zone, the Village planner has thrown all of the initial criteria he specified when identifying zones for high-density housing out the window. These are two very unique properties and their zoning benefits should differ. By lumping them together and labeling them as one in the same, Mr. Brancheau has basically set up every property in between these two sites to argue for the same zoning benefits. In our opinion, this is a reckless approach.
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. Instead of establishing a maximum density up to 35 units per acre, why not raise the minimum and allow our village to examine each new development on a case by case basis? We recommend raising the baseline density to 24 units an acre, doubling the permitted allowance. Our Planning Board could then work to establish criteria that would allow for density bonuses, beyond the baseline. For example, if developers can provide for more parking, affordable housing units, open space, greater set backs, green building practices, etc… they would be allowed a bonus of more units per acre than the baseline. This cautious approach would be preferable to a one size fits all zoning change that could have irreversible repercussions.
Mr. Brancheau is capable of crafting this amendment differently, yet he continues to offer the same benefits across the board to all zones, regardless of the context or the surrounding location. We don’t understand why. From our vantage point, many Planning Board members seemed flustered by the changes to the Amendment and some even expressed question or concern. The only Planning Board member who seemed to embrace these changes was Mayor Aronsohn. He seems very eager to move forward and get this done.
CBR wants this process resolved as well, but we want it done RIGHT. We don’t want the Planning Board to rush to a decision. We just received a copy of the new Amendmenton Friday, and the Public Hearing is TUESDAY! We live here and we care about the future of our town. Long after politicians are out of office and eager developers have reaped their profits, we will still be left here, living with the consequences. Please join us on TUESDAY, May 5th at Village Hall at 7:30 pm. Let’s continue to urge our Planning Board to get it right!
Here are two links to Letters to the Editor that provide more detail about our position:
MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Many downtown housing questions still unanswered
To the Editor:
Having attended virtually all the Planning Board meetings on the proposed high-density housing master plan amendment for the past several years, and being as directly involved in the process as a concerned resident can be, I am left with one overarching question: Why? This notion of “Why?” relates to so many questions in this process that have yet to be answered, but need to be for the Planning Board, mayor and council to make the real right decision for the residents of Ridgewood. Here are some variants of “Why?” as related to this bizarre master plan amendment process:
Why did the original amendment contain the massive density number of 50 apartments per acre requested by the developers, when our current zoning only calls for 12 and the village average is 18-22?
Why hasn’t the board or the planner ever explained why 50 units per acre was used (except to note that it was requested by the developers and puzzlingly, as suggested by one board member, is necessary to incentivize the developers to build and profit)?
Why, as with so many important changes to Ridgewood, was the public not fully informed and educated in a proactive, openly invited manner and asked for opinion at the outset of the process years ago?
Why has the Planning Board failed to conduct and provide its residents with a comprehensive and necessary master plan review – that looks at all village-wide planning needs and impacts – prior to implementing such a monumental change to our village (and is actually required to be performed in 2016 anyway)?
Why do some members of the Planning Board appear to believe that the board’s and the village planner’s reactionary reviews of data provided by the developers constitute a thorough and responsible review?
Why are the opinions of so-called “experts,” hired by developers to sell the board on the benefits of this overwhelming change, given more respect than those of concerned residents, who will forever have to live with these changes?
Why is the Village Council separately looking at an additional large-scale assisted living complex development on the corner of Franklin and Walnut, without openly and clearly combining the master planning review with the high-density housing?
Why was the most recent amendment revision not provided to the public at last week’s Planning Board meeting, along with the revised zoning map?
Why does the Village Planner believe that the newly proposed density of 30-35 units per acre is now the correct number across the board, in all areas of the Central Business District?
Why can’t we go with what we know works in Ridgewood, 18-24 units per acre, which is still double the current zoning allowance?
Why isn’t the board more concerned with potential impacts on schools, parking, open space and village services?
Why can’t we keep Ridgewood as a village?
As a resident of Ridgewood who truly loves this town, I look forward to real answers to these “Why’s?”
APRIL 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015, 9:24 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Proposed changes to the master plan amendment were presented to the Planning Board by Village Planner Blais Brancheau in an attempt to address some concerns discussed by board members at a previous meeting.
Ridgewood Planner Blais Brancheau discusses proposed changes to a master plan amendment that would allow multifamily housing in the Central Business District.
The new amendment features zoning changes as well as a reduction in density, lowering the total number of possible units to less than 300 if the zones contained in the master plan amendment were built out to maximum capacity.
Changes in the maximum height, floor area ratios and additional language to require recreation and social amenities as part of any housing project were also presented.
The board voted unanimously to formally prepare the changes for a public hearing at its next meeting on May 5, where both the public and board members will be able to comment and ask additional questions.
Key zoning changes include three properties in the area of West Bergen Mental Healthcare building being excluded from the C-R zone, moving the Ken Smith property and the area at the corner of Franklin Avenue and Chestnut Street into the B-3-R zone.
APRIL 26, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 2015, 10:17 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — A final vote on a proposed amendment to the master plan that would clear the way for the development of high-density, multifamily housing downtown is approaching.
After five years of consideration, Ridgewood’s Planning Board could move to decide the long-simmering matter at a public hearing that has been set for May 5.
At the board’s meeting last week, village planner Blais Brancheau outlined several recent changes he had made to the master plan amendment’s draft language — modifications prompted by ideas from board members and the public.
In the revised amendment, Brancheau lowered the permitted height of high-density, multifamily housing complexes to 50 feet from 55. He also decreased the number of units allowed by acre, dropping it to 30 to 35, from 40 to 50.
Brancheau tweaked the sizes of some of the four zones, reducing the total acreage that would be affected by the proposed master plan changes by a fifth, thus reducing the maximum build-out for those four zones to 253, from 326.
The two Planning Board members (Thurston and Abdallah) in favor of the project,as is, are both involved in commercIAL real estate and development. Interesting…very interesting.
We are not sure industry experience automatically implies a conflict , but …
There’s a real conflict if he is voting on things or even commenting on things that could affect his clients or potential clients. He can add his comments from the podium along with the rest of us. Did the council know he was actively involved in real estate projects in Ridgewood when they appointed him? What the hell were they thinking????
Even if he currently does not do business with these firms he may hope to work with them in the future.
He should enter the discussions because of his experience but he should not vote.
Thurston is not afraid of developers . . . he IS a developer.
Mr. Thurston has been active as a Real Estate Professional for over 30 years. After graduating from Law School in 1982, Mr. Thurston spent two years in Dallas, Texas practicing real estate law. He then moved back east and spent the next four years practicing real estate law in Philadelphia and Manhattan at the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Shea and Gould. In 1987 he left legal practice and joined The Binswanger Company headquartered in Philadelphia where he managed the National Industrial Brokerage Group for four years and then the International Group for the next five years. He then joined NAI in New Jersey and managed the Corporate Services Group for two years. He was recruited to start up and manage the National Office Sales force at Equis Corporation. He moved to Marcus & Millichap in 1999 to manage the New Jersey office. He is a Director in the Company’s National Office and Industrial Properties Group and in it’s Net Lease Properties Group and specializes in the sale of Retail, Office, and Industrial Properties in New York, New Jersey, Northern New Jersey and Bergen County and in Single Tenant Properties Nationwide.
David Thurston’s background certainly gives him an interesting perspective in all of this. Since he is involved in the sale of commercial real estate in Ridgewood, should he recuse himself from these discussions? Is there potential conflict of interest” Or does he bring years of valuable experience to the table? Interesting.
“Marcus & Millichap has brokered the sale The Lincoln Building, an office property at 45 N. Broad St. in Ridgewood. The 24,000-square-foot multi-tenant property sold for $3.9 million. David Thurston of Marcus & Millichap’s New Jersey office represented the seller, a partnership, and secured the buyer, a local limited liability company.”
“Mr. Thurston has been active as a Real Estate Professional for over 30 years. After graduating from Law School in 1982, Mr. Thurston spent two years in Dallas, Texas practicing real estate law. He then moved back east and spent the next four years practicing real estate law in Philadelphia and Manhattan at the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Shea and Gould. In 1987 he left legal practice and joined The Binswanger Company headquartered in Philadelphia where he managed the National Industrial Brokerage Group for four years and then the International Group for the next five years. He then joined NAI in New Jersey and managed the Corporate Services Group for two years. He was recruited to start up and manage the National Office Sales force at Equis Corporation. He moved to Marcus & Millichap in 1999 to manage the New Jersey office. He is a Director in the Company’s National Office and Industrial Properties Group and in it’s Net Lease Properties Group and specializes in the sale of Retail, Office, and Industrial Properties in New York, New Jersey, Northern New Jersey and Bergen County and in Single Tenant Properties Nationwide.”
If Thurston or any of the others are afraid of the developers, then they have no place on the Board. The future of the Village is not a game of chicken, its either build appropriately or not at all. I would hate to see his vision of Ridgewood if we spend the next 40 years giving in to developers.
I have heard this chicken stuff from our council members as well — everyone is scared to death of the developers. If our officials can’t stand up to bullies, they have no place in the Village. Elected officials should have backbone or they should step down and let others take their place who will put the interests of Villagers first and profiteers second.
Shame on those who would abdicate their duties because it is too difficult to do the job properly.
Please join us tomorrow night for the next Planning Board Meeting Available
Tuesday, April 21 at Village Hall (not the HS)
Deliberations to begin at approximately 8:45 to 9 pm.
(The meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but the discussion on High Density Housing is not the first item on the agenda)
Agenda: The Planning Board will continue deliberating and Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, will provide some detail regarding issues put forth by Planning Board members last month. We are hoping Blais addresses concerns raised by several Planning Board members — concerns also shared by CBR.
To refresh your memory, below is a reprint of our reap from the 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting:
CBR’s recap of 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting
CBR Note:
The first condition of this amendment, aside from density and height issues, is changing the usage in the zones from commercial to residential. Keep in mind that when the planning board members state that they support the usage change, that does not necessarily indicate that they approve the densities that are proposed. Changing the zoning in an area of our CBD from commercial to residential is a big step in itself, as presumably once residential is built, there is no turning back to commercial usage on that site.
Once usage is addressed, the next issue is how much residential do you allow? Currently, most residential properties in the CBD have commercial usage on the first floor. Under this amendment, commercial usage on the first floor is no longer required. Allowing housing in our downtown at density higher than the 12 units per acre that is currently permitted makes sense, and anything over 12 units an acre constitutes “higher density.” Considering that the average density that currently exists in our downtown now is actually 22-24 units per acre, CBR would be quite comfortable with setting 22 or 24 units per acre as the new limit for density. We feel that doubling those numbers is too much, and that 35-40 units an acre and beyond would significantly alter the character of our Village. It is very important that our planning board finds the right balance in this amendment.
CBR ReCap:
We took notes on each of the Planning Board member’s comments and would like to share them here. Our notes are not direct quotes.
Absent from this meeting was Nancy Bigos. She has yet to weigh in.
Charles Nalbantian, the Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees that the usage (housing rather than commercial) is good, but said the “devil is in the details.” He expressed reservations about the height and RSIS (state mandated parking requirements), and indicated that he is not sure yet about the density.
Richard Joel, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees with the usage (housing in our CBD) and believes it will promote the general welfare. He feels that we need to develop these under-utilized sites and there is a need for a variety of housing. He said that he doesn’t know what the right balance between height and density should be.
Kevin Riley, supports the use of housing in our downtown but is concerned with height and density. He said he would like to see the density reduced from what is currently put forth in the amendment.
Wendy Dockray, thinks concept of multifamily housing is a good one but has her “yellow flags” or reservations. She is not sure this is actually what seniors are looking for in terms of space and affordability. She is concerned that the height and scale will negatively impact the historical character of Ridgewood. She said going from 12 units per acre to 40-50 is a “huge jump” and she is not sure if building 40 – 50 units an acre is necessary or appropriate to achieve housing. She is also concerned with the fiscal impact and noted that our schools are “at capacity.”
David Thurston, supports the amendment AS IS. He doesn’t want to “play chicken” with developers by giving them less than what they want. He said this is his business and if the Planning Board comes back with less than the amendment, it may not be “economically sound” for the developers. He is in favor of the 40 – 50 units in our CBD and is worried about what our town will look like in 40 years if we don’t allow the developers to build.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, not in favor of the amendment as it is written. She is concerned with the density, height, impact of adding more pedestrians that will impede traffic, open space and the changing character of Ridgewood. She said the she would like to see developers move forward with something, but would like to see a balance.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn, feels this is an opportunity for Ridgewood. He feels like we have enough information to make a decision and we should move forward soon. He said that people who don’t want their big houses could move to these apartments, but we need to strike the right balance. His stated that his issues are 1) density, 2) amenities (he would like to find a way to incentivize the developers to build high end apartments), 3) housing for special needs residents, 4) parking (he wondered if developers not providing sufficient parking could be forced to pay money into a fund to use for public parking), and 5) can separate amendments be crafted to address each zone individually?
Michele Peters, concerned about the density. Not in favor of the current amendment. She questioned whether the parking that was being considered as part of the proposals in the redevelopment zone on N. Walnut would alleviate some of the parking deficit in Ridgewood, but was told the deficit is beyond what could be added in the redevelopment zone.
Isabella Altano, (1st alternate on PB) wants to see more consideration given to the impacts. She feels we need a lower density. She asked about the potential costs to our infrastructure, if projected school enrollment could be provided that included approval of 400+ new apartments and what could be done to address our open space deficiency.
Khidir Abdalla, (2nd alternate on PB) said that we shouldn’t be afraid of change and supports the amendment. He is not concerned with the density and scale and feels that this type of housing fits in well to an URBAN downtown. He feels we need increased density in order to get pedestrian traffic that is needed to revitalize our downtown.
If you have traveled around the state lately, chances are you have come across construction of some kind.
According to the State Department of Labor and Workforce Development, there has been a spike of 10,000 construction jobs in 2014 and an increase of 7,900 during January and February of this year.
One housing and economics expert said there are five main factors driving the construction increase.
“The first is higher education which is the result of the bond issue and universities and colleges are leveraging those funds in public/private partnerships,” said James Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.
The second is demographically driven.
“The real growth in the population is millennials and aging baby boomers who are resizing in the housing market. So, we have almost record high numbers of multifamily construction. The multifamily rental housing sector is now about 60 percent where historically, it’s been about 30 percent,” Hughes said.
New Jersey is also the third largest warehouse distribution center in the country, a sector that has been growing very rapidly as a result of e-commerce.
“Instead of building conventional warehouses, what are now being erected are very large fulfillment centers, like the one for Amazon in Robbinsville. With people shopping on the Internet, a lot of space is needed to store items before they are shipped,” Hughes said.
Data centers are a significant factor to the increase in construction as well, namely because of New Jersey’s geography.
“In many cases, the big New York brokerage houses need vast data centers to store their information and they want them on a different power grid than the main headquarters, but they can’t be too far away from the major trading centers because those milliseconds are very important in high-speed trading. New Jersey is in a good location for that,” Hughes said.
April 13, 2015 Last updated: Monday, April 13, 2015, 9:24 AM
By Darius Amos
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Already mired with the downtown multifamily housing public hearings, the Ridgewood Planning Board has taken on the state-mandated task of reexamining its master plan.
For the next several months, board members will be expected to review the municipality’s current master plan and a list of corrective action items created during the village’s previous reexamination, which took place in 2006.
Their objective, according to Ridgewood Planner Blais Brancheau, is to identify areas that require change and any outdated language within those planning documents.
The board is not necessarily required to rewrite the master plan, but members must complete their review and adopt an official reexamination report, to be drafted by the municipal planner, by February 2016.
In part, the report should evaluate major problems and objectives related to land development at the time of the adoption of the previous report, determine the extent to which problems have changed, and propose any recommended changes to the master plan.
“It’s a report that will say this is what we looked at … this is what we think going forward,” said Brancheau, who detailed the reexamination process during last Tuesday’s Planning Board work session.
APRIL 9, 2015, 1:30 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2015, 11:55 PM
BY SALVADOR RIZZO
STATE HOUSE BUREAU |
THE RECORD
A state appeals court on Thursday blocked Governor Christie’s efforts to take $160 million out of trust funds that towns use to build low-cost housing units for poor, disabled and elderly residents.
It was the latest setback for Christie in a legal battle brewing for years over New Jersey’s troubled housing program for poor residents. Last month, the state Supreme Court ruled that Christie’s inaction on affordable-housing matters had gone on too long and required an urgent fix.
As an end run around the Christie administration, the high court put judges in charge of setting rules and giving guidance to towns on how many low-cost housing units they should be building. With Thursday’s ruling by the appeals court, the judiciary is now set to take control of millions of dollars in housing funds to implement those plans.
Christie, a Republican, in 2012 tried to take the housing funds to help balance the state budget. The appeals court rejected his position and faulted his administration for ignoring previous court orders, declining to write statewide housing regulations and leaving New Jersey towns in the dark as to how many homes should be built for their lowest-income residents.
April 6, 2015 Last updated: Monday, April 6, 2015, 8:39 AM
The Ridgewood News
Print
Planning Board deliberations regarding multifamily housing in downtown Ridgewood previously scheduled for April 7 will be carried until Tuesday, April 21.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, a member of the Planning Board, announced last Wednesday night at the Village Council meeting that the public hearing for the land use element of the Master Plan AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts would be moved to 7:30 p.m. on April 21 in the Sydney V. Stoldt Jr. Court Room.
The delay was attributed to information from the League of Municipalities regarding the state Supreme Court decision on affordable housing in early March, said Knudsen, which ruled that the courts would decide affordable housing rules, at least temporarily. Knudsen said the information would hopefully be available on April 20.
At the Planning Board’s March 17 meeting, it was suggested that board members compile a list of elements to work through with Village Planner Blais Brancheau.
https://www.northjersey.com/news/downtown-housing-hearing-moved-to-april-21-1.1303434
April 6, 2015 Last updated: Monday, April 6, 2015, 8:39 AM
The Ridgewood News
Print
Planning Board deliberations regarding multifamily housing in downtown Ridgewood previously scheduled for April 7 will be carried until Tuesday, April 21.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, a member of the Planning Board, announced last Wednesday night at the Village Council meeting that the public hearing for the land use element of the Master Plan AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts would be moved to 7:30 p.m. on April 21 in the Sydney V. Stoldt Jr. Court Room.
The delay was attributed to information from the League of Municipalities regarding the state Supreme Court decision on affordable housing in early March, said Knudsen, which ruled that the courts would decide affordable housing rules, at least temporarily. Knudsen said the information would hopefully be available on April 20.
At the Planning Board’s March 17 meeting, it was suggested that board members compile a list of elements to work through with Village Planner Blais Brancheau.
MARCH 31, 2015 LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY HUGH R. MORLEY
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
* Multifamily housing, warehouse construction put 7,900 more on payrolls so far this year
The recovering New Jersey housing sector and a surge in warehouse projects has helped spark a dramatic increase in construction employment around the state, which last year added the most construction jobs in a decade.
The increase of 10,000 jobs in the sector in 2014, up 7.5 percent, far outstripped the 1 percent increase in all jobs over the period, figures from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development show.
And the addition of 7,900 construction jobs in January and February show the increase continuing into 2015.
Increased construction in the multifamily sector, particularly along the Gold Coast, the Hudson River waterfront from Jersey City to Fort Lee, is a key driver in the construction employment hike, said builders and economists.
“It’s getting more and more healthy each year, without question,” said George Vallone, principal of Hoboken Brownstone Co. and president of the New Jersey Builders Association, a Hamilton-based trade group. “And if you are in a particular sector, which is the multifam section on the Gold Coast — it’s blazing hot.”
Ridgewood officials say no deal is in place for North Walnut Street
March 26, 2015 Last updated: Thursday, March 26, 2015, 3:16 PM
By Mark Krulish
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Concerns that redevelopment at North Walnut Street was moving ahead without public disclosure were brought to Wednesday night’s council meeting as officials explained in more detail the steps that still needed to be taken before selecting a project.
Earlier this month, two different developers presented proposals to residents and council members for the 1.1-acre site on North Walnut Street that includes the Town Garage property.
On March 4, Kensington Senior Development proposed an assisted-living complex, which includes a garage that would be built and donated to the village in exchange for the right to build the facility. The project features a total of 98 assisted-living units along with commercial retailers on the first floor and a landscaped outdoor garden on the second floor.
Langan Development pitched a design that featured 13 high-end luxury duplex condominiums to be built above first floor retail space and allows for amenities such as rooftop dining, a billiard room and a pub room. The project included plans for both a standard garage and one that featured an automated parking system.
Reader says I do not understand why this council is so set on altering (damaging, destroying pick your adjective) this town to fit their own wishes.
“Mayor Paul Aronsohn ….he would like to find a way to incentivize the developers to build high end apartments” really? the developers need help? don’t build then.
I do not understand why this council is so set on altering (damaging, destroying pick your adjective) this town to fit their own wishes. The Mayor will NOT be re-elected to this office or any higher office if he keeps pushing through his own agenda while disregarding the majority of residents. He doesn’t even want to poll citizens as other towns have done recently…most likely he knows it will show the proposed changes are not wanted.
Update Ridgewood within the character that already exists and leave Hackensack in Hackensack.
Good lord, this will be huge and horrible. But someone stands to make a ton of bucks on this deal. Certainly not the taxpayers
60 foot tall buildings will become the new norm throughout the CBD if this goes through.
“the devil is in the details” – – that’s the problem with this amendment. it does not say what will or won’t be built. Once the density is changed, the developers can build what they want. There are no controls in place.
we don’t need these monstronsities in town. There are for rent signs on the existing apartment buildings. I don’t see any rush for people to move from their houses to the apartments.
Frankly, I think there is more than enough “density” as it is.
