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.
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.
Attorneys debate whether Valley Hospital exhausted all remedies
MARCH 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Oral arguments in the Valley Hospital lawsuit against the Village of Ridgewood and its Planning Board began last Thursday with the village’s motion to dismiss, but attendees were left with a cliffhanger until mid-April when additional issues can be briefed and may be argued.
The lawsuit comes after the Planning Board rejected Valley’s latest expansion proposal, which sought to nearly double the size of the hospital and would require years of construction in an otherwise residential neighborhood.
The June 2014 decision came after Valley successfully applied for a master plan amendment in 2010 at the Planning Board level, only to have the proposal rejected by the Village Council in 2011.
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.
Here is the photo of The Kensington Assisted Living Facility in Westchester.
Village Council Meeting Wednesday on Redevelopment Zone
*** Important Information about Redevelopment Zone ***
Ridgewood NJ, TOMORROW, Wednesday, March 25th, at the end of the Village Council Meeting, there will be a CLOSED Village Council Session to address “Contract Negotiations for the North Walnut Street Redevelopment Zone.”
The Village Council is moving forward with closed-door discussions to evaluate two proposals for the Redevelopment Zone. We recommend that you attend this Village Council meeting (or watch the televised feed) if you have questions about the Redevelopment Zone.
One proposal is for an assisted living facility that would feature commercial space on the ground floor and five floors of residential space. The 5-story building would include a parking garage with 135 parking spaces set aside for public parking, and is expected to generate 18,000 visits per year by the residents’ family and friends. The second proposal would feature 13 duplex apartments in the luxury price range and a massive parking garage that would accommodate 230 standard parking spaces, 118 set aside for residential and retail. (During his presentation, the developer said the parking garage could theoretically accommodate 627 cars with a semi-automatic parking system where cars are stored on pallets and are stacked to save space.) Both proposals would be built to the maximum allowable height of 60 feet.
Most likely, the Village Council will choose one of these two developers to build at the site without engaging residents and without undertaking a Comprehensive Master Plan Review. The American Planning Association guidelines for the state of NJ encourage local government and redevelopers to increase their levels of outreach and engagement efforts as a way to ensure public involvement throughout any redevelopment planning process.
****
In response to many of you who have asked about CBR’s position with respect to the Redevelopment Zone, we have quickly prepared some thoughts below, but admit that these are only preliminary thoughts…… We encourage anyone who feels that such an important decision requires more public input and more review, to attend the meeting in Village Hall at 7:30 pm on Wednesday night.
Insights from CBR: Attached is a picture of an Assisted Living facility in Westchester, NY owned by Kensington, the same developer whose proposal is currently in front of the Village Council. The dimensions of this building are actually smaller than what is being proposed for Ridgewood. If three of our five council members favor the Kensington proposal, a similar facility could easily be erected in downtown Ridgewood next year! The Ridgewood building would be 60 feet tall and would have a 5 or 6 story parking garage in the rear. Please look at this picture and notice the garage in the background. The garage would sit on N. Walnut Street. The other proposal is from Langan Development and would include retail space along Franklin Avenue on the first floor of an L-shaped residential building, with a significant parking structure also accessed from N. Walnut Street. The density of the development, which includes 3-bedroom / 2.5-bathroom duplex units, is 12-units per acre.
At CBR, we have always been concerned with development that is out of scale with the surroundings. The sheer size and scale of these developments is even larger than any of the high density developments that have been proposed so far. We are not sure why our Village Council would even entertain building something that is so mega-sized in downtown Ridgewood!
Redevelopment should occur with ample public input. We feel as if our Village Council has not encouraged public input and is moving along very quickly. In fact, are you even aware of the size of these proposals, or that the Village of Ridgewood owns this very valuable piece of real estate in our CBD? Most residents are not. Usually, when a municipality is undertaking a massive redevelopment, they are very excited and community support is strong. We feel as if the community has been left in the dark. Even residents on Walnut Street are unaware of the proposals.
To be clear, this is not a discussion about assisted living or housing. This is a discussion about developing within the character of our town. We are wary of moving forward and building a 60-foot high building in the center of our town without a clear vision for the future. Once again, we have sophisticated developers on the scene ready to “save the day” while our town officials have not done adequate due diligence. This will most certainly pave the way for builders in the future to argue their case for sympathetic zoning benefits. Why is there a big rush / push to urbanize our downtown? And why have the residents been kept out of the planning process? This is a serious issue. Other towns value public input, while Ridgewood seems to have a disdain for its residents and their input.
By way of background, years ago the Hillman family owned the Walnut Street parking lot and our village government took it away from them on the principle of eminent domain, to build a parking garage. Sadly, for years, our village never dealt with funding in order to construct a parking garage. Municipalities all over Northern NJ have addressed their parking problems, issued referendums, bonded out the construction of their own garages and moved forward with viable parking plans.
Both proposals will give Ridgewood a mere 100-135 additional public parking spaces, in return for approval to build on a prime piece of village-owned property that sits in the center of our downtown. 100 plus parking spots? Our parking deficit is estimated to be 1,000 parking spots or greater. The Kensington facility will amount to 98 housing units on little more than an acre. While we like assisted living and suspect that our Village Council is hoping to bring in much needed tax revenue from this business, we have not seen or know of any financial studies that prove this is the best choice for this property. We are also not sure an assisted living facility belongs smack in the the center of downtown. The promise of an additional 100 parking spots is questionable, as these spots could easily be filled by visitors, volunteers, and members of local groups that cater to the assisted living residents. We believe this business will add to our Village’s parking woes rather than solve an age old problem.
Why not build a two or three story parking deck on this property? The property was acquired by the Village for the purpose of parking! CBR has raised the idea of funding and building a parking deck but feel as if it has fallen on deaf ears. For some reason, a few Village Council members are suggesting that residents will not support funding a 2 or 3 story parking deck at this location. Why is the Council so sure that residents won’t support a parking deck on this lot — when we haven’t even been included in the discussions? And on the flip side, why is the Council so sure that the residents of this town will support a 6-story building when there is nothing in the CBD that is currently 6 stories tall? A parking deck with 300 or more spots, dedicated to employees and customers, will increase sales in all of our shops and businesses downtown. (This could, in turn, increase overall tax revenue).
How does all of this fit into Ridgewood’s plan for the future? We wish we could answer that question! Unfortunately, there is currently no plan for the future of Ridgewood. There are separate discussions taking place behind closed doors all over town and no one, except the residents, seem to understand the importance of having a long-term vision for the future of this town. We think we are in the midst of a very sad time in our town right now. Instead of feeling positive about our future, we feel very uncertain.
ReCap of Planning Board Meeting
from Citizens for a Better Ridgewood ( CBR)
Hello CBR Friends and Neighbors,
On March 17, the Planning Board met to deliberate the proposed Master Plan amendment that would allow for high density housing in our Central Business District. After several hours of discussion, Planning Board Chairman Nalbantian asked Village Planner Blais Brancheau to come to the next meeting prepared to address the concerns mentioned by board members, including density, height, parking and affordable housing. Please see below for a recap of last week’s meeting and please join us at the next meeting on April 7.
Planning Board Meeting: Tuesday, April 7 at 7:30 pm at Village Hall
Agenda: The Planning Board will continue deliberating
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.
Click on this link to read the recap from the Ridgewood News
Ridgewood Planning Board members weigh in on housing proposals
MARCH 19, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2015, 3:13 PM
BY BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
With the completion of public comment and attorney summations, members of the Ridgewood Planning Board were given the chance to weigh in on the proposed master plan amendment at a deliberation meeting on Tuesday night.
Many of the board members stated their belief that some form of multifamily housing downtown would benefit the village, while opinions diverged on subtopics such as density, building height, traffic and impact on the school system.
Planning Board Chairman Charles Nalbantian began with his observation that higher-density, multifamily housing in and around the Central Business District (CBD) would be good for Ridgewood and that an amendment of some kind to the housing element of the master plan is timely due to the under-utilization of the chosen sites.
However, he noted that “the devil is always in the details,” and while he believes the amendment reflects appropriate use, there are reasonable questions regarding many of the smaller issues – height, affordable housing and density chief among them – that form the larger picture.
FEBRUARY 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
If Glen Rock can do it, why not Ridgewood?
Martin Walker
Ridgewood
to the editor:
The Record reported on Feb. 21 that Glen Park Village LLC plans three buildings to house a combined 67 apartment units restricted to residents aged 62 or older.
Why is there a relative lack of attention to this option in planning discussions about higher density in Ridgewood?
I have written several letters to the editor on this topic and spoken in at least three public meetings over the last 12 months. The Ridgewood News’ otherwise excellent New Year’s summary of housing issues in town made no mention of it at all. Commonly designated as over 55 housing, the issue was also absent from the council elections last year, save a single comment by one of the winning candidates that age 55 no longer guarantees families without children.
The only reference I’ve seen reported here was Mayor Aronhson’s question to the developer of the Dayton project, Scott Loventhal, as to why he had not considered this option. Mr. Loventhal’s unfortunate response was that an over 55 residency requirement would diminish the property’s “vibrancy.” As an over 55er, I am personally offended by It’s unlikely that any other major social group, much less the largest growing one in America, would be subject to such an implicitly negative stereotype without eliciting public opobrium.
What gives Ridgewood? Where is the public outcry and the political leadership for the most obvious and beneficial solution to downtown blight and low business activity? Where is the support for the only higher density plan that will both decrease school utilization and provide a wider distribution of our tax load?
Requiring that new higher density housing downtown be limited to an over 55 age demographic is a good start, but additional steps such as downtown assisted living facilities, and zoning changes to promote “in law” apartments in private residences are also called for.
A recent letter to the editor said we should plan for 2025, the very least we should expect from effective leaders. The demographic shift toward baby boomers, as well as the urban job creation trends at the expense of suburbs are unmistakable. For Ridgewood to miss out on the largest growing sector of the American service economy would be tragic.
Developers, opponents sum up points on Ridgewood proposal to allow density housing downtown
FEBRUARY 19, 2015, 9:57 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015, 9:57 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Attorneys representing developers with plans for high-density multifamily housing complexes downtown have made their final pitches on a pending amendment to the village’s master plan.
Ridgewood’s Planning Board heard final summations Thursday night from two attorneys for the three developers that have requested the master plan change, and another that was retained by a grassroots citizens group opposed to the village ordinance that permitted the developers to ask for such an amendment.
If approved by village officials, the proposed master plan amendment would clear the way for all three projects, slated for various parcels throughout the downtown.
The three developers have plans to construct a combined 208 apartments downtown.
Attorney Thomas Wells, who represents two of the developers, said that experts have testified there is a need for more housing options in Ridgewood, especially for empty-nesters.
Wells said experts also postulated that traffic in the village would barely be impacted by the new housing developments and that the projects would not worsen Ridgewood’s well-established dearth of parking space.
The proposed housing projects will be a boon to business in the village, Wells said.
February 6, 2015 Last updated: Friday, February 6, 2015, 12:31 AM
The Ridgewood News
Print
Under-development is the problem
To The Editor:
I’m one of many “empty nesters” with no organized campaign but love Ridgewood, want to continue living here when downsizing occurs, and am enthusiastic about the option of modern apartments near the Central Business District. But leave aside my personal interest. As I told a victorious Village Council candidate, last year’s campaigners talked of “over-development” but Ridgewood’s problem is clearly under-development – vacant storefronts and auto dealerships and large empty tracts along the railroad.
The proposed apartments would boost our image as a thriving town, help the tax base, and add foot traffic for stores. The building plans are visually attractive. We’re fortunate that developers believe in Ridgewood and want to invest. Of course village officials must consider adequate on-site parking, traffic and pedestrian patterns, and school enrollment (unless apartments are designated for seniors). But any issues can surely be negotiated as necessary so these valuable projects can proceed. This, plus a major new parking facility a la Montclair, will help our merchants prosper and benefit everyone.
Reader says instead of trying to change the town to fit his fancy, Mr Simoncini should move somewhere else
Who the hell let this miserable carpet bagger into town?
First of all, I don’t recall any discussion of student population falling.
Second, there is no proposal for “luxury housing” — there is a proposal for increased density so that the developers can develop like Newark or Hackensack. As Blaise said, the devil is in the details, and the details shown so far as for illustrative purposes only. Once the increased density is approved then the developers can go in with plans for whatever they want approved. Of course, the site is presently zoned in a manner that would allow luxury condo’s or townhouses, but not at the profit this sycophant and his master are looking for.
Third, I have heard a couple of the developer’s friends and investors talk about how lovely it would be to have a place in town, but I have heard no groundswell of support for “change.”
Finally, getting back to my original point, who the hell let this jackass into town, and if he feels the way he does, why did he pick Ridgewood to live in? We do feel is a special place. He doesn’t need to agree, but instead of trying to change the town to fit his fancy, he should move his sorry ass somewhere else.
Really?! Yes, Really!! You don’t like the town, Mr. Lapdog, go move somewhere else where you and your master can develop to your heart’s content without having to worry about the democratic process slowing you down.
Reader disgusted Mr Simoncicini Plays the Race Card
I just re-read Mr. Simoncinci’s racial prejudice comment and am thoroughly disgusted.
Is he suggesting that only if we have high density housing will diverse people move into town?? Really?? Why? Is it because that is all they can afford? Because they won’t be comfortable living in houses? Or maybe “luxury” is the ultimate racist code word and he’s trying to say, don’t worry, only wealthy white folks will move into these apartments.
I am really not sure what this miscreant is trying to say, However, I have heard people say that we need density in housing to attract diversity in population and such talk exhibits a reverse prejudice that I really find disturbing. Believe it or not, folks of all colors, religions, sexual preferences, etc., like nice houses in nice neighborhoods. Our role as citizens is to be welcoming, and we have no place in Ridgewood for those who condemn others. But the sweeping generalization that diversity is only achieved through housing density is really, trully disgusting. And to make such an argument in support of pursuing a commercial goal is beyond the lowest level of depravity.
I realize he has to make a buck serving his master, but, at long last, after four years, has Mr. Simoncini no shame?
Submission of Documents by the Public – Master Plan Amendment Hearings on Multifamily Housing in CBD
SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS BY INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC – MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT HEARINGS ON MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
The Planning Board has scheduled January 29 and February 3 as hearing dates for interested members of the public to comment on the proposed master plan amendment. If any individuals intend to submit one or more documents for consideration by the Board, they are strongly encouraged to submit such documents as far in advance of these hearing dates as possible, so that the admissibility of the documents can be reviewed beforehand.
Any documents must be submitted to the Planning Board Secretary, Michael Cafarelli, either in person or by mail at Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, or by email at [email protected].
For those of you who still believe that luxury apartments in Ridgewood’s Central Business District would not attract families with school aged children, this word from Board of Education officials in Edgewater regarding the number of school aged children living in the fire scorched Avalon apartment complex.
From nj.com:
“Of those displaced, school officials said Friday approximately 165 students in pre-kindergarten through grade 12 resided in the Avalon complex.”
