The Village Council Meeting of March 23rd will be held at the Campus Center of the Ridgewood High School, located at 627 East Ridgewood Avenue.
Match 23,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ , 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.
The meeting will be streamed live using UTube. This location is not equiped to broadcast the meetings live on the cable stations. The meetings will be filmed and available both on UTube and the Village Public Access Channel (Cablevision 77; Fios 37) the following day.
The Final Downtown Zoning Impacts Analysis that address the four multifamily housing study areas is now available. For the complete document Click Here
Click Here for the Reexamination of the Master Plan and Development Regulations adopted by the Planning Board February 2, 2016.
I was not initially opposed to the proposed parking structure on Hudson Street in the center of Ridgewood but after seeing the renderings, I am entirely against it because of its enormous size and unfitting design. The residents that are vocally opposed to this structure know that it will destroy the character of Ridgewood. I am personally opposed to it because it will destroy the character of my neighborhood.
I live a couple blocks away with my wife and three children, and walk by this lot at least twice a day. My kids walk by it going to and from school. And my neighbors who have been here even longer than we have pass by it regularly. I have lived on South Broad Street for the past 16 years and have actually been looking forward to development that will improve the area. This will only make it worse.
Good architectural design makes an effort to work with the style of a neighborhood. This does not. If this structure has to be four or five above-grade stories then the right aesthetic approach would be to match the height of the apartments across the street, two-stories high, along South Broad Street and Hudson Street, and then use a set-back of 20 feet so that you could continue up from there without it being an eyesore. That way you get your height and space required but you do not create an ominous structure.
One rule of thumb is to never build something taller than the most attractive buildings. The three-story buildings with spires on the corner of South Broad Street and East Ridgewood Avenue are good examples of our town’s beautiful downtown architecture. To build a massive parking garage just next to them would dominate the center and detract from them. The idea of making a parking garage the most noticeable building in a town’s center is a cultural recipe for disaster.
Ironically the details of the roof on the corner of South Broad Street and Hudson Street, which is the only part of the structure with any kind of actual design sensibility, will not be seen by anyone on the street level because it is too high. And the only time this part of the street and the residences will get daylight is the late afternoon because it is south west of those apartment windows.
I heard that this structure is not supposed to significantly increase the traffic on my street. How is that even plausible? It’s a parking structure! It can only bring more cars…that’s the point. When the New York Sports Club moved in several years ago I was excited that the abandoned car showroom was being turned into something new and bringing life to a fairly run down street.
The problem is that not only did it bring a significant amount more of traffic but it brought a different kind of traffic. The traffic that existed prior to the Sports Club consisted of people who used South Broad Street as a straight shot to Glen Rock. They drove fast and polluted the street as people in cars do but they were also focused on getting in or out of town. The new traffic was a very different scene. People drive faster and a bit more recklessly because they are speeding to or from the gym, while texting on their phones, and they are making turns across busy pedestrian paths without checking.
I anticipate this extra traffic the parking garage will bring will be of this caliber: people hurrying to the structure because it will take extra time to park there than pulling into a spot on the street so they can go shopping and meet someone at a restaurant. On the way there they will be texting that they are arriving or leaving. While the developers are only responsible for the accidents that happen on their property, I worry about the accidents that will happen in the few block radius around their facility, as should the politicians in Ridgewood and the residences of my neighborhood as well as the residents of Ridgewood and people visiting our town.
I think we are at a point where we have to decide (as did the planners of many cities around the United States) whether we want Ridgewood to be a town that favors cars or people.
If I were mandated to build a parking garage in the center, the most natural place to put it would be actually down at the corner of East Ridgewood Avenue and Maple. That area is developed more for higher volume traffic and already has a large surface-level parking lot that could be built up in a way that keep all the stores intact, and already has a large ground-level underpass on Maple Street. But I would actually be in favor of less traffic in general.
The only people clamoring for the parking garage are shop owners who think their profits will magically double once the garage is built. At the town meeting I attended, I heard a senior lady propose an idea that I think would work very well. That is, why not close down some of the streets for cars and make them pedestrian ways. It worked well in Montclair, and it has had an amazing effect on midtown Manhattan. If we leave South Broad Street/North Broad Street open, but closed East Ridgewood Avenue from the Broad Streets to the Post Office and turned that into a pedestrian way and expanded the outdoor seating for restaurants, you would increase the tourist appeal of the center and it would only mean closing down part of one street. If you have been to the tree lighting in Ridgewood and have experienced these car-free nights of East Ridgewood Avenue, then you would see how popular it could be.
Some of my concerns may be a little too close to home but in my nearly fifty years of living in the United States and Europe I have taken note of projects that improve and detract from the character of towns and cities. I have lived in beautiful places including Santa Barbara and Prague. I would include Ridgewood as a beautiful place to live. These are places people want to go to in order to get away from strip malls, busy roads, and generic housing because by being in a unique place, people feel special.
Ridgewood has charm and character but that is in jeopardy with bad planning. The problem with parking garages is that even the best of them have the feeling of an incomplete building, or worse, an abandoned building because of their open structure, which makes them appear gutted. What makes the streets of Ridgewood so pleasant to walk down is that almost all of the buildings have storefront access. The proposed parking lot would just be a lifeless block of concrete. I would not be opposed to a parking garage with special details that would appeal to the public such as a public access green roof and storefront shops/galleries. They would not have to be big spaces, just something to continue the pedestrian window-shopping feel for the streets.
I have also been to and lived in many places that are not nice and one thing they have in common is a corruption of character. Corruption is a good word because it usually starts with individuals who do not have the best interests of the people. That may be a developer who does not have any interest in a region other than profit, or are simply evil people – like a bad government. An example of this is a small city I lived in, in the north of the Czech Republic. It had been bombed out in WWII and unlike cities such as Warsaw in Poland, which restored their historic downtown, the communists built a big concrete structure in their town center, which dominated the historic buildings that were saved. The townspeople had opposed it from the start even though the communist government assured them that they knew best. It was nicknamed “the bathtub” because it looked like the side of an old bathtub. After communism they tore it down.
So, when the style of a town center is lost to a new, ugly building like the proposed parking structure it becomes a symbol of wrongdoing and mistakes and can only be fixed by tearing it down.
Our Mayor has moved onto his own agenda..exclusively and Ridgewood is on the chopping block. Sleazy, self-centered government and years of scheming and plotting by some of our fellow residents has led our village down this dark hole. Ridgewood use to be a great town, under great stewardship for most of its history, until Aronsohn plotted and schemed to get the wrong people on the planning board and council. Collectively what is occurring right now will forever change the Village. A few will benefit from these sell outs, particularly Aronsohn in his bid for senator next year. All of this sleazy sellout of our village is what’s going to drive the good people away over the next decade, the decline will occur, and so the very thing you say you love you will have destroyed.
This is a shocking development on a couple of levels. First that Valley can sue us asserting that the needs of the region justify (in their estimation) such a profoundly negative impact on the town. Second, that Ridgewood can allow a Valley insider to negotiate a settlement when she had sworn an oath to represent the Village. It really is time for a citizens’ revolt at Village Hall since the Council majority are clearly using their remaining months in office to put their personal agendas in place. Shameful.
Ridgewood NJ, The Village Council has planned a public hearing and possibly a vote on March 23rd on High Density Housing Issue. It’s widely expected the three outgoing council members are going to vote to increase the residential density in some downtown lots from the current 12 units per acre to 36 units per acre, while the residents have asked them to consider 20-24 units per acre.
This is a big change for Ridgewood, which will probably alter our village forever. The local newspapers have so far reported from the press releases issued by the village administration or from the commentary of what happened at the meetings. Proactive journalism on this issue has been missing so far.
Residents have asked the reporters:
1. When are they going to cover the conflict of interest on the garage vote by Tony and Jim at HPC?
2. When will they be talking to taxpayers ahead of the 3/23 vote to measure opinions?
3. When will they be asking the candidates for VC office to state their positions on the 3/23 vote?
4. When will they talk to the superintendent about class sizes at the middle schools and high school which were not covered by the studies?
5. When will they ask Orchard and Ridge School principals if they can accept the increased class sized?
6. When will they ask the consultants (Ross Haber Associates) on how did he reach to a conclusion of 63 new kids from 4 new developments, while similar sized apartments in the village and the number of school aged children from those apartments suggest that it can be close to 225 new children in the Ridgewood schools?
7. When will they ask and report on the question of ‘what happens to all the 1 acre or more lots that are available in Ridgewood downtown and are waiting for these first four to be approved”?
8. What are the financial impacts to the taxpayer (police coverage, etc.?)?
If you would like our local reporting to question our village government on these very important questions, before next Wednesday’sMarch 23rd VOTE, see below for contact information.
Ridgewood News Ad Shows Out of Scale Picture of Hudson Parking Garage
March 13.2016
the staff of the Ridgewood Blog
Ridgewood Nj, Many readers point out the complete discrepancies discovered regarding the scale and measurements of this photo. The village green roof line is made to look significantly larger than it is. It is approximately 24 feet tall give or take a few feet. The place on the garage that meets that point is significantly distorted to make the garage look smaller than it actually is.
photo by Saurabh Dani
This photo would have you thinking the village green and the garage are similar in size. For a reference point, the lights shown on the garage are 11 feet.
During the recent HPC meeting it was called “Planes” this… and “Sight line” that.. when Councilwoman Knudsen tried to suggest adding labels or height markers so it would be more clear, she was summarily dismissed.
photo by Saurabh Dani
The claim is that it is because of the “plane”. Say whatever you want. It’s out of proportion. Giving viewers a sense that if the garage really was going to be this small, perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad. Do NOT be fooled. And please feel free to pass this information along to anyone who might be fooled by the ad in today’s paper.
Dear All, I never comment on this blog, but I feel the need to clarify a couple of comments being made. I did not approve the plan because it fits on the lot. I approved the plan because this plan works from a design standpoint. To err is human. I was asked to write the letter to the HPC since I could not make the meeting. I made the mistake of saying the 4th plan fit the footprint. More importantly, the sidewalk is 10′ from the building to the curb. The 5-6 parking spaces that will be deleted, are being deleted to accommodate the 5′ extension of the sidewalk. In defense of Mr. Parrillo, he simply stated that a liaison is not authorized to vote. In recollection, when I was president of the Chamber of Commerce, our liaison also was not permitted to vote. They simply were a conduit to the council. Thank you…
Tony Damiano P.S. Notice I signed my name, not like the cowards who make comments, mail distorted post cards, etc
Ridgewood NJ, The Historic Preservation Chairman, Vince Parillo, asked if any members of the HPC had any comments. When Councilwoman Susan Knudsen commented,Vince Parillo then asked, do any voting members have any comments?, thereby ignoring Councilwoman Knudsen’s comments. When it was time to vote, Councilwoman Knudsen explained her vote, the Mayor questioned the audience whether Councilwoman can vote, and the HPC Chairman Vince Parillo replied that her vote doesn’t count.
Basically Mayor Aronsohn and HPC Chairman Vince Parillo had teamed up to discredit Councilwoman Knudsen and make her presence irrelevant in the meeting.
Tony Damiano, a store owner and also President of The Ridgewood Guild, is a newly appointed HPC member. He sent a letter because he could not attend. In his letter he mentioned he is approving “Plan D” because this design fits the lot, which is not correct, as he well knows as he attends Village Council meetings at which this fact has been clearly discussed.
Jim Shimmel voted on the design while he should have recused himself because he owns a building next door to the proposed garage.
In the meeting it was also discovered that the resolution passed on January 27th for design D requires two lanes for traffic on Hudson Street but design D only provides one lane.
Lastly, a resident asked the architects why the archways of the garage, which are supposed to be 11.5 feet high, look smaller than the entrance door of The Village Green restaurant, which is probably six feet eight; the architects could not explain this apparent inaccuracy
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).
Ridgwood NJ, March 4th Edition of Ridgewood News features a letter to editor from Bob Hutton who is potentially running for the council in May.
Bob writes “The latest rendition seems to accomplish consensus on many levels – even one level less of a deck”.
This is absolutely WRONG. The plan D, which is currently being pushed by Council Majority is NOT one level less. It’s same as Plan A, with only few inches removed from each level – and is STILL 5 LEVELS. So, overall height is decreased by 3 feet, but a level is NOT reduced.
This type of misinformation is part of the campaign by current council majority and Bob Hutton will be one of them, and he has already proved this from this letter to editor.
Dana H. Glazer speech from the Wednesday Night Council Meeting
I am here to express my strong belief that the real agenda here is to make Ridgewood into another “Transit Village” like
Hackensack, in which a giant garage is built to primarily serve commuters from out of town; in which the master plan is radically amended to allow for high density housing which will create a large influx of new families into the CBD – thus straining our resources and permanently altering the face of our town.
I believe this is still the case, because on February 23rd the Executive of the County said in his State of the County address “I’m sure you’ve all read our partnership with Ridgewood. They’re looking to partner with the BCIA to fund their parking garage and partner with them.” He went on to describe this proposed garage as “a commuter garage to be used by commuters all day long..”
Now, on February 21st, two days before the State of the County, Mayor Aronsohn wrote to residents an email saying “in the spirit of getting this project done –once and for all – and in the spirit of doing it together as a community, I am willing to re-introduce the January bond ordinance at our March 2 Council meeting. “
If there’s no intention of making Ridgewood into a Transit Village, why was the County Executive announcing this Ridgewood partnership in his big speech two days later? Shouldn’t someone have told him not to include it? It makes no sense.
The only way it makes sense is if making Ridgewood into a Transit Village is still the only plan. Why else wouldn’t our Village Council immediately repeal the County Bond before funding the garage through the town? 1500 residents petitioned loudly against this, in an initiative Ridgewood has not seen in years – if ever, right? Our Council Majority would never let this happen because it would jeopardize the real plan– Ridgewood as a Transit Village.
That is why the “Plan E” garage proposal that Lorraine Reynolds and Gail McCarthy have so passionately worked behind the scenes to put together, having spoken with hundreds of residents, shopkeepers and Mt. Carmel – what is being called the “People’s Garage” – I believe is going to be sabotaged – or ignored completely.
I believe this “People’s Garage” will never see the light of day because the shenanigans will continue, whether they relate to the site plan, the financials, the traffic studies or anything else deemed necessary to do this right; and then on March 23rd, if Councilwoman Knudsen and Councilman Sedon stand up and say “No” the Council Majority or even just table the issue, the Council Majority will turn this against them, loudly proclaiming, “See, they are anti-garage. Now, let’s vote for people who are pro-garage and let’s vote to go to the County because there’s no other way to do this in Ridgewood.”
But here’s the thing: this upcoming election will not be about a garage. It will be about who votes in favor of the upcoming High Density Housing vote later this month. It will ultimately be about who trashed our town and made it into a Transit Village like Hackensack. That’s what’s at stake here.
So, Councilman Sedon and Councilwoman Knudsen, I am encouraging you to listen to the 1500 people who petitioned loudly that WE DON’T WANT A COUNTY GARAGE. I trust you will do anything and everything to keep this from happening.
RIDGEWOOD — The Village Council may introduce a bond ordinance Wednesday to fund a proposed municipal parking garage without using county money, despite recent approvals from the county.
The move is a sharp departure for the council, the majority of which agreed in January to ask the Bergen County Improvement Authority to bond for the garage’s approximate $12.3 million cost. That vote came after the governing body could not get the required four-vote super-majority necessary to authorize the municipality to bond for the project on its own.
But the idea of locally bonding the costs of the proposed Hudson Street deck was put forward again on Feb. 21 by Mayor Paul Aronsohn in an email to some community members. It’s seen as an attempt to assuage the unsatisfied council minority — as well as residents who’ve started a petition drive to force the funding issue into a public referendum.
“Although I still believe that a partnership with the BCIA would be a good thing for Ridgewood, I want to give my council colleagues another chance to make this happen,” Aronsohn said in the email.
The reintroduced ordinance will be for $11.5 million, a smaller number that reflects the garage’s newly reduced size — instead of 405 spaces, the garage would accommodate 325.
Some on the council initially favored the larger structure, but officials scaled back plans last month after vocal public opposition. Many residents said the building would be too large, protruding into Hudson Street and constricting local traffic.
photos by Boyd Loving
Wednesday Night Council Meeting features Back patting, Bloviation and the usual attacks on the Ridgewod blog
February 25,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Recycling bins were blowing all over the place due to the wind but the ” Bloviating” from the council majority was worse and so self serving. Albert praised himself and his cohorts for all the compromising they had done by making some garage changes. Of course there was no mention of the hundreds of citizens who spent countless hours and money to get them to make the changes that would have proven disastrous for the Hudson/Broad Street area.
Susan made a point of letting Paul know that his use of the word liar in his email was “unfortunate ” and based on real numbers that the petitioners used was actually untrue on his part. Albert introduced his ordinance that really amounts to letting people know in committee settings if you will be taping the meeting. No one except Susan seems to want to address the behavior in the courtroom/ the Dana Glazer incident. Roberta as usual spoke for “huge” amounts of time and made many little faces throughout.
Much talk about the BCIA and Paul stated he is in constant contact with them and will be pursuing funding through them while also admitting that funding the garage ourselves is also an option. Rurik Halaby praised the council majority, spoke negatively about Susan and complained about The Blog but calls it Pravda so no one knows what he is talking about.
Ridgewood NJ, looks like the Mayor is scared, and running on the defensive. On one hand the Mayors trying to be conciliatory , while calling the petition signers outright liars and of coarse still trying to back Susan and Mike into a corner of blame and shame.
On Saturday the Mayor was in the Kings lot watching the people go in and out of the Elks Club. On Sunday he was over by the Village Green cafe watching the petitioners and one called out to him to come over and sign a petition and he turned and walked away. After that, and only after that, the latest email came out. Meanwhile the Ridgewood blog has been assured the petitioners are all redoubling they’re efforts to get as many signatures as they can.
I am writing to you with an update on our parking deck initiative … and I am doing so with a great deal of excitement.
Simply stated, we are very close to making a downtown parking deck a reality. After months – in fact, years – of hard work and after 3,236 Ridgewood residents (65%) voted in support of a parking deck in last November’s election, we are in the final stages of the process … fine tuning the design, working through the finances and getting ready to put shovel in the ground.
In January, the Council voted on an ordinance to finance the parking deck on our own. Specifically, we voted 3-2 in favor of bonding up to $12.3 million to pay for the deck. Unfortunately, for bonding purposes, a simple majority of the Council is not enough.
So, in February, we voted on a different ordinance – one that would allow the Village to partner with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA), which would borrow the necessary funding and finance the deck. Again, the vote was 3-2 in favor, but since the Village would not assume any debt under this arrangement, the simple majority was enough to pass the ordinance.
In my mind, either scenario is good for Ridgewood. Both would result in a much-needed parking deck at comparable costs.
Some, however, have suggested that our vote regarding the BCIA was taken to “circumvent” the bonding process. That is simply not true. We began exploring a partnership with the BCIA in May 2013 – long before our current discussion – because there are many advantages to doing so. Better interest rates. Better amortization (payment schedule). And such a partnership would allow the Village to finance and build a parking deck without adding to our overall debt burden. Further, I am a big believer in partnerships – public/public or public/private – because they can lead to enhanced efficiencies, enhanced effectiveness and saved dollars.
Regardless, there is now a petition drive underway to prevent our partnership with the BCIA – a drive that has been fueled, in part, by misinformation and outright lies. That is unfortunate. The people of Ridgewood deserve better.
That said, in the spirit of getting this project done –once and for all – and in the spirit of doing it together as a community, I am willing to re-introduce the January bond ordinance at our March 2 Council meeting. Although I still believe that a partnership with the BCIA would be a good thing for Ridgewood, I want to give my Council colleagues another chance to make this happen.
But let’s be clear – if the full Council is still not willing to support the bond ordinance – notwithstanding all of the statements recently made by Council members – we should continue to move forward with the BCIA.
Again, I sincerely believe that either approach – going it alone or in partnership with Bergen County – would be good for Ridgewood. Either way, we must seize this unique moment. Either way, we must keep moving forward.
Attached is a clip from his comments at the 1/27/2016 VC meeting at which he repeatedly said “don’t go to the BCIA.”
When the letter is available on line tomorrow, can you run the letter along with the clip so people can see how he’s flip flopped, changed sides like a Gemini?
