December 1,2015
Ridgewood the staff of the Ridgewood blog
NJ, Planning Board Meeting tonight 7:55 p.m. – 9:15 p.m. – Continued discussion of the reexamination of the Master Plan and development regulations – Residential Land Use.
Our Master Plan has not had a thorough re-examination in 30 years. According to our Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, 90% of the language needs to be re-written. This is a huge undertaking for our planning board. Please attend.
Planning Board Meeting – Cancelled November 17 – Scheduled November 9
PLANNING BOARD
AMENDMENT TO MEETING SCHEDULE
Cancelled: November 17, 2015, Public Meeting
Scheduled: Work Session & Special Public Meeting: Monday, November 9, 2015
In accordance with the provisions of the “Open Public Meetings Act,” please be advised that the Ridgewood Planning Board has scheduled a special public meeting and work session for Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the Annie Zusy Room on the ground floor at the Village Hall, at 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood. Formal action may or may not be taken. The meeting scheduled for November 17, 2015 has been cancelled.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following, subject to change:
1. An executive session to discuss pending litigation, beginning at 6:30 p.m. and concluding at approximately 7:30 p.m.
2. Continued discussion of the reexamination of the Master Plan and development regulations, pertaining to the topics of circulation and community facilities.
3. Discussion of the preparation of the housing element of the master plan.
4. Adoption of minutes.
With the exception of Executive Sessions, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work session meetings, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings which are always open to members of the general public.
Michael Cafarelli
Secretary to the Board
Ridgewood NJ, A spokesman for CBR just made an announcement at tonight council meeting that they are withdrawing their lawsuit against the village for the changes in the master plan for the Central Business District ( CBD ).
Stating that they trust the council with do the right thing after their decision to do more studies on the large project. Do you believe that. Something smells. They trust the “3 amigos”, (Paul Aronsohn ,Albert Pucciarelli, and Genn Hauck )after all they have done , what is that PT Barnum once said ….
OCTOBER 12, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2015, 9:41 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
With just a few months remaining to complete and adopt its state-mandated master plan reexamination report, village officials acknowledged the need to accelerate the process and tackled its next subject at last Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting.
The master plan reexamination report, which is an evaluation of a municipality’s master plan and its development regulations, is required to be undertaken by the Planning Board at least every 10 years. Ridgewood’s reexamination report is due in early February 2016.
With Planning Board meetings often dominated by higher-profile topics, such as the multifamily housing hearings, which wrapped in June, the reexamination has appeared sparingly on board agendas this year.
Village Planner Blais Brancheau expressed his opinion to the board that, due to the compressed timeframe, a “minimum requirement” examination be completed to satisfy state requirements before delving in depth into the numerous issues that need to be addressed.
“I think it’s important we get this adopted,” Brancheau said. “It’s not intended to limit discussion. We can continue discussion once we’ve adopted the reexamination. In fact, it’s my personal feeling a number of sections of the master plan really should be updated and we’ll get into that more as we move forward.”
If Ridgewood fails to meet the state’s deadline, it will be opened up to possible exposure in a legal challenge involving the village’s regulations.
In litigation, a village’s regulations are presumed valid and the litigant bears the burden of proof to show otherwise. Without a properly adopted reexamination report, the burden shifts to the village, said Brancheau.
Chairman Charles Nalbantian asked if the board could simply note, as part of the reexamination report, where the areas in the master plan are that warrant in-depth work.
https://www.northjersey.com/news/board-accelerates-reexam-process-1.1430654
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 “comprised” down to 35. The anchor number used should have been the 12 in the Master Plan, and they should have comprised at 18-24, reflecting current Village densities. Development is surely need in the CBD – it’s an eyesore with too much dead space and decaying remnants of the past – but Ordinance 3066 and the 50 number should have never happened in the first place. That’s Pfund’s folly…. These wheels have been in motion since 2007
I had little hope going into last night’s meeting. I am so proud of everyone who came and stood up for our village. Bottom line, we have to repeal ordinance 3066. Also, say no to ordinances requesting our Master Planner. Our Master Plan should be treated with the respect it deserves. It has been in place for decades, protecting our village from the potential high density developments that are on the table now. Should development occur, yes, but within the safeguards of the master plan. Developers: get a variance and if appropriate for Ridgewood it will pass. If the densities are to low for your project and potential profits, to bad, come to the table with something else. But don’t threaten residents with statements “if you don’t give us this, we’ll do something you really won’t like”. That is not neighborly or nice.
We should have been signing petitions to repeal Ordinance 3066 five years ago or more. I agree that 35 units is too high, but that’s because developers are allowed to submit proposals to amend the Master Plan under Ordinance 3066 (passed by then Mayor Pfund under cover of July summer vacations in 2007 to help out his pals at Valley), and its easy to anchor the debate initially at 50 units and then say you’ve “compromised down to 35 units even though the initial anchoring of the discussion should have been at 12 units as per the existing Master Plan.
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ , A huge turn out filled the the courtroom last night with some estimates saying there was another 300 people in the rooms downstairs watching it on the TV’s.It seems the people were finally heard. The council voted 4-1 (Al Pucciarelli the only no vote) to continue the hearings and conduct impact studies on the fiscal impacts, traffic (a comprehensive study that would include all off the proposed buildings as well as the 2 parking garages and the 98 unit assisted living facility), and schools.
They are in favor of development that compliments our existing CBD. “Our town has been reacting for far too long. It is time for a shared vision, a comprehensive plan that allows for extensive community input and can move us forward.”
The council has postponed the vote on the ordinances to increase the density from 12 to 35 until those studies have been done. The next meeting will be held Monday, November 9th. Many people left because it just ran too late so If you want your chance to speak Nov 9th, you will be able to.
Reader said , “Partial victory tonight… tabled the vote! However the real solution here is to roll back the “Valley Hospital inspired” master plan changes which allowed these ordinances even be proposed in the first place.”
file photo by Boyd Loving
NOTICE: Village Council Meeting – September 30, 2015
NOTICE – VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 – The doors of the Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Courtroom of the Ridgewood Village Hall will open at 7:00 p.m. on September 30, 2015 for the Village Council’s Work Session and Special Public Meeting. If the Courtroom is filled, overflow seating will be provided on the first floor of the Ridgewood Village Hall with audiovisual equipment available to see and hear the meeting. All members of the public wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so.
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
We are overwhelmed by the number of residents who have emailed council members, canvassed the community to help spread the word, and shared thoughtful opinions on social media. You are all awesome! Ridgewood is amazing — and worth every effort!
THIS IS IT.
TODAY….THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE TO CHANGE OUR VILLAGE FOREVER.
THE FINAL VOTE WILL BE HELD WEDNESDAY AT VILLAGE HALL.
The agenda says the meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but please arrive by 7 pm to get a seat.
RESIDENT ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS CRITICAL
PLEASE bring your friends, family members, neighbors. A room filled with concerned citizens is our only chance to urge Council members to reconsider enacting these ordinances in their present form.
Details about the Meeting
Please come early and carpool, if possible. Park on both sides of Vets, at Graydon and on side streets, if needed.
The Mayor has stated that ALL residents will be heard (https://ridgewood.dailyvoice.com/…/ridgewood-mayor-a…/592174/).
If the meeting room on the fourth floor fills to capacity, overflow will be directed to the senior lounge on the first floor with a live stream of the meeting.
We encourage EVERYONE to sign his/her name, take a number and get into the cue to speak. Please approach the podium and say something as simple as “I oppose raising the density to 35 units per acre. Please vote NO.” The more people who voice opposition, the better. Short and sweet is good! It’s going to be a long evening.
This is YOUR village and you do have a voice. This will be your last chance to speak up!!
Thank you for your continued support! We hope to see you tomorrow!
Citizens For A Better Ridgewood
3 DAYS LEFT…..Email council to VOTE NO!Paul Aronsohn – paronsohn@ridgewoodnj.netAlbert Pucciarelli – apucciarelli@…
Posted by Citizens For A Better Ridgewood on Sunday, September 27, 2015
Ridgewood should not rush public hearing process
JULY 10, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Council should not rush hearings on downtown housing
To the Editor:
Re: “Council sets up meeting timeline,” The Ridgewood News, July 3, page A1.
Why is the Village Council eyeing its mid-September public meeting as the one and only date on which an official public hearing will be held for as many as four ordinances related to a master plan amendment approved by the Planning Board last month which would permit high-density multifamily housing in the village’s Central Business District?
In 2011, Village Council members scheduled its official public hearing on The Valley Hospital’s proposed expansion over six separate dates. The schedule was developed to ensure there would be ample opportunity for residents to express their views on the issue, and that no individual(s) would miss out due to planned business travel/vacation, family emergency, illness, etc. Council members then were also concerned about meeting room capacity and allowing ample time for comments. Current Mayor Paul Aronsohn was a member of that council.
Although Mayor Aronsohn has indicated that the issue may be brought up during the public comment portion of any council meeting held between now and mid-September, strict time limits may be imposed on comments made during those meetings, and individual speakers desirous of speaking again may not be given the opportunity to do so as is required during an official public hearing.
The question now becomes, what’s the rush here? Why are Mayor Aronsohn and his fellow council members planning to schedule just one official opportunity for residents to comment? The mayor was a primary proponent of a former council’s plan to allow multiple opportunities for official public comment regarding The Valley Hospital expansion plan. Why the change in attitude related to a proposal for high-density, multifamily housing in our Central Business District? Am I missing something here?
Boyd A. Loving
Ridgewood
In the Ridgewood News today ther is a story about a large turnout at the BOE meeting, complaining about class size.
In the same meeting someone complained that we do not have full day kindergarten. ( They somehow ignore the fact that the district will need more space and have to hire more teachers. One complains about the needs of working parents. I do not want to permanently share in the child care expenses of working parents. They work so they should pay for kindergarten enrichment classes if they think that their children need this to get into college)
We pay very high taxes, mostly for the schools. People keep moving to Ridgewood for the schools. There is a disincentive for people without children in the schools to stay in town – and the cycle of postgraduation home selling continues. This issue has been discussed on this blog but I think that it deserves as much attention as the high density housing and parking.
The council and BOE should get together and do some master planning for the schools. We can’t keep up with the wants and needs of the parents, the town does not exist to please the parents of school children. Something has to give!
The council should consider a tax incentive for residents who have lived in Ridgewood X number of years and no longer have dependents in the schools. The spiral of selling homes after graduation needs to end. I will probably sell my 5 bedroom home in the next few years. A family with 4 children would love to have this house and pay my taxes for the schools. At a cost of $17,000 per student the town will start losing money immediately. I will not stay and spend my savings to help prop up this system.
Where is the Master Plan for Ridgewood Public Schools?
June 24,2015
Boyd A. Loving
Ridgewood NJ, Despite the contention by Ridgewood Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli that nobody on the dais knows exactly how much the new parking garage will cost (“. . . no price has been set. . . “) the number $15 million was put into play during Wednesday evening’s Village Council Work Session. The last I heard (just a few weeks ago), the number being kicked around was $10 million. A 50% increase in less than 60 days; I must say, somewhat surprising, but not utterly shocking.
Ridgewood Mayor Paul Aronsohn said on Wednesday evening that between $10-$15 million in public finding would “presumably” be “asked for.” Then the Mayor read the draft of a question intended to be part of a non-binding referendum the Council is considering including on the ballot of November’s general election.
The draft question was read as follows: “Do you support a proposal to finance and build a downtown parking garage on the Hudson Street lot, located on the corner of Hudson Street and South Broad Street, by bonding up to $15 million of public funds through Parking Utility revenues.”
Remember folks; following damage caused by Hurricane Floyd, renovations to Village Hall were expected to cost $4.5 million (or at least that’s what taxpayers were told). Change orders approved by the Village Council back then escalated the actual costs to above $11 million. How far above $11 million we spent is a closely guarded secret.
So now we’re being told, by our mayor, that we might spend up to $15 million to build a single garage. Anyone out there want to hazard a guess on what the real number will turn out to be? Will history (the Village Hall renovation fiasco) repeat itself?
And what about the language of that draft question (and you can insert any number you want into the equation). Is it just me, or would many of you interpret that language to indicate Parking Utility revenues will completely pay for the project (including bond interest?). Translation, our property taxes won’t increase? Am I the only one who’s a bit worried by that statement?
I am neither for nor against the financing and construction a parking garage at this point, but I am completely against being misled as to projected costs and the impact on an average homeowner’s property tax bill. I refuse to be fooled again.
If there is a non-binding referendum on your November ballot, be sure to read the entire financing plan very carefully before you make a choice.
JUNE 22, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2015, 10:46 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Ridgewood Planning Board passed resolutions on June 16 memorializing official action on amendments to the land use element of the master plan regarding multifamily housing in downtown Ridgewood.
The resolutions contain a full review of the steps taken in arriving at the decision to approve the master plan amendment, as well as a broad overview of testimony presented during the public hearings. With their ratification, the decision to introduce and adopt ordinances will be given to the Village Council.
Before approving the resolutions, the board discussed a few minor changes.
The modifications included an additional sentence to reflect the votes of the alternates and language that more accurately reflected the opinions of the dissenting voters.
Vice Chairman Richard Joel suggested the votes of the two alternate members, Isabella Altano and Khadir Abdalla, be included in the resolution, although their votes are not officially counted since the full board was eligible to vote.
“I’m just making it all-inclusive,” Joel said. “There was a certain vote and we also had two alternates that voted.”
https://www.northjersey.com/news/planning-board-vote-now-official-1.1360611
PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE/AGENDA
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Village Hall Court Room– 7:30 P.M.
(all timeframes and the order of agenda items below are approximate and subject to change)
Roll call: Aronsohn, Bigos, Knudsen, Nalbantian, Joel, Reilly, Dockray, Peters, Thurston, Altano, Abdalla
In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work sessions, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings, which are always open to members of the general public.
Members: Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Nancy Bigos, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly, Wendy Dockray, Michele Peters, David Thurston, Isabella Altano, Khidir Abdalla
Professional Staff: Blais L. Brancheau, Planner; Gail L. Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher J. Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary
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:
Thank you for your continued support.
Citizensfora BetterRidgewood
[email protected]
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?”
David Slomin
Ridgewood
