Reader says Some really bad decisions are being made because the town is looking for a buck
I do think that is a factor right now. Think about it, the ridiculous bike lane was done bc the town received outside money , a study is being funded by the freeholders (not the town) to study parking, Blais said at the meeting the other night that no independent studies have been/would be conducted on housing bc we don’t have 100k to spend, etc, and they want developers to take over so they can fund traffic improvements that we can’t. Some really bad decisions are being made bc the town is looking for a buck.
Reader says When the developers financial interests matter more than the increased burden on residents they are no longer representing our best interests
Our government should absolutely be representing our best interests, and repealing the proposition that lead to the multi-family housing and Valley expansion fiascos would be a great start. When the developers financial interests matter more than the increased burden on residents they are no longer representing our best interests. If I owned a 3 bedroom home right now in need of any updating, I would be very worried about my home value decreasing too ( all values might go down a bit but that would seem the hardest hit).
Reader asks an increase of 300-500 new residential units how might affect Village Services ,Schools ,Water ,Recreation and so on
To ask them how an increase of 300-500 new residential units might affect their dept. Would they need to hire more staff? Would they need more equipment? What might these additions cost? Can our parks, both passive & recreational. handle more residents effectively? Would we need additional water treatment facilities? Would we have to float another bond to expand our schools? Would we need to hire more teachers? All of these departments are impacted by a potential increase of 300-500 apartments. Sure, our downtown would get more foot traffic, but we should also be researching how it will affect the village as a whole. That’s why you need reports.
Readers says the council can issue a non-binding referendum to get a sense of whether residents like the Idea or Not
Reader also suggests the Village Planner should other opportunities of employment
The council can issue a non-binding referendum to get a sense of whether residents like the idea or not (this is what Upper Saddle River just did, when it was voted down 11-1).
There is also a way for residents to petition for a referendum vote of the ordinance that made this whole process possible, 3066.
What I would love to know is a way to petition to get Blais fired. He was almost incoherent last night, answering few questions, and admitting that no independent studies were done (all studies on impact were paid for by builders). We have no sense of the financial burden to the town nor is it relevant in his opinion. Traffic, number of new school children are also not a problem…well, because the builders say so.
That snippet of an article does not represent at all just how clueless Brancheau sounded. We have no concrete numbers on anything basically: the number of units, number of new schoolchildren, costs to village, new traffic/accidents, burden on facilities, etc. All figures to date have been derived from the builder’s research and there have been 0 independent studies. If there is ever a transcript available it should be required reading before deciding what is or is not a fair minded report.
About Brancheau and his research abilities: You all need to remember back during the first round of the Valley expansion when, after many hearings, it was suddenly revealed that the project was hundreds of thousands of feet larger than they had been discussing — Brancheau had failed to count the basement floors!
Brancheau said it was difficult to predict the future, but that his numbers suggested that for every five units built, there would be one additional child signing up for instruction.
“There will be some impact,” Brancheau explained. “The schools are at capacity now
Reader asks Why can’t the officials in Ridgewood seem to look at these applications with a critical eye?
Doesn’t anyone in this town have any balls?!?!?! No one with a village job wants to be on the record as having an opinion on this stuff. It’s crazy! Blaise talks out of both sides of his mouth.
The superintendent of schools does not speak up on behalf of our schools (except once over a year ago). Where is a report from the police? The fire dept? The sanitation dept? Where is a report from Parks & Rec? And you know Rutishauser will tell you that there’s plenty of capacity in our water & sewer system to handle 500 new apts AND an expanded hospital.
Why can’t the officials in Ridgewood seem to look at these applications with a critical eye? They should be questioning everything a developer is telling them. They should be researching what other towns are doing and figuring out what Ridgewood wants to be.
They should be asking for resident input. Instead, they attend meeting after meeting and talk in circles. The developer tells them everything will be great and the residents have to hire lawyers to prove them otherwise. While I appreciate the time the Planning Board members sacrifice to be on the Board, I think it’s time for them to work smarter, not longer.
Ridgewood residents grill village planner on strategies to limit downtown development
NOVEMBER 19, 2014 LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2014, 1:21 AM BY CHRIS HARRIS STAFF WRITER | THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Age-based restrictions on housing planned for the downtown. Open space. A referendum.
All were suggestions floated by residents hoping to find ways to limit proposed high-density, multifamily housing developments in Ridgewood’s downtown if an amendment to the master plan is approved.
Several residents peppered the village’s longtime planner, Blais Brancheau, with questions about other projects that could be permitted in the area.
Could age-based restrictions be placed on these planned complexes, ensuring the school system would not be additionally burdened?
Could the village purchase or otherwise acquire the sites of the proposed projects to convert the land into open space?
Could the master plan amendment be put to the voters on a village-wide ballot question?
Ridgewood residents continue challenges to proposed master plan change for downtown housing
NOVEMBER 17, 2014, 10:16 PM LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2014, 10:16 PM BY CHRIS HARRIS STAFF WRITER | THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Village residents on Monday night continued to question the possible fiscal impacts associated with a proposed master plan amendment that would set the stage for high-density housing downtown.
Blais Brancheau was back in the hot seat for Monday night’s Planning Board meeting, fielding queries from a handful of Ridgewood denizens who continued their collective cross examination of the village’s planner.
Two weeks prior, Brancheau presented his analysis of the proposed master plan change before endorsing it, adding the anticipated effects of any resultant housing complexes would be negligible.
The proposed change is being sought by three different developers. If approved by village officials, it could clear the way for the construction of a trio of high-density, multifamily housing projects downtown. Public hearings are continuing and the issue still is some way from being formally considered by the full Planning Board.
More than 30 people attended the board’s meeting.
Brancheau has said that 300 to 500 units could be constructed in a built-out village, under the amended master plan. The village planner anticipated impacts on village schools and traffic downtown would be minimal.
Just say ‘no’ to apartments.Let the NYC people move back to manhattan
Bergen County’s suburbs embrace a touch of the city NOVEMBER 16, 2014 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2014, 12:48 AMBY JOAN VERDON https://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen-county-s-suburbs-embrace-a-touch-of-the-city-1.1134517
Small movement in the right direction rather than a giant leap off a cliff – yes, that might be brilliant, or at least not stupid.
The full article (which I suggest you read) includes “Ridgewood’s downtown, which during the worst years of the recession had dozens of vacant stores, is one of the most successful in North Jersey. The occupancy rate for storefronts along Ridgewood Avenue, the downtown’s main thoroughfare, is over 90 percent, according to the Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce, and empty stores tend to be re-leased quickly.”
The Chamber of Commerce can’t have it both ways.
My favorite part of the article is:
“Bruce Meisel, who is developing the former Valley Ford car dealership site in Westwood as a mixed-use project with 14 apartments above retail stores, said residential projects should fit the character of the downtown.
Meisel, who owns 20 properties in Westwood and is one of the leading downtown landlords, said he doesn’t believe a high-density apartment building is right for Westwood. “Just like Westwood’s stores are boutiques, the residential developments in Westwood are boutique in nature,” said Meisel.”
I wish we had landlords like this in Ridgewood.
How about a unique idea. IF you want a city..MOVE THERE. The success and ‘draw’ of this place is a smaller town VILLAGE atmosphere, located close ENOUGH to the city for those who need to be there, but far enough away to not have the negative things that come along with large amounts of people crammed into living a foot from each other .
I could see allowing a current store size building to put one living unit upstairs (like the old shopkeeper living above his store)But to turn a nice place into Hackensack or Montclair..forget it.
PS. You are allowing speculators who bought property to have a winning lottery ticket if the change in zoning is allowed.
Reader says How about we get someone other than a builder, developer or spokesperson for the developer to write letters
How about we get someone other than a builder, developer or spokesperson for the developer to write letters. Then I might take you half seriously.
Would the author of this piece be the same Louis J Reynolds that owns LJ Reynolds construction in Ridgewood? The website mentions they are multi family property pros. If so, no conflict of interest here folks, move along, nothing to see.
https://ljreynolds.com/
WOW! You really can’t make this stuff up. Damn Hudson County contractor (specializing in multi-family conversions) newbie living in the Heights. Those of us who have been around a while and have put kids through RHS can tell you, with certainty, that many families move into rental units in Ridgewood for a limited duration just to have their kids go through RHS. My kids friends live in a one bedroom with two parents and a sibling. How? Two kids kids share the bedroom and mom/dad sleep on the pull-out couch, that’s how. And then they move on after 4 years or so.
Mr Reynolds, why did you move to Ridgewood instead of Hoboken? Did you like our low density feel, our good schools, etc? I didn’t move here for the urban vibe.
NOVEMBER 14, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014, 12:31 AM THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Downtown housing: pros outweigh cons
To the Editor:
Like many other passionate residents of Ridgewood, I’ve been closely following the discussions around the proposals for new multifamily housing in downtown and I believe the benefits will outweigh any negative impacts.
While I wouldn’t live anywhere else, I have the uneasy feeling that Ridgewood is kind of idling. The vacant storefronts, the empty car dealership lots, give me, and others, a sense that Ridgewood is stuck, with no plan for the future.
So along comes a group of developers with proposals to do something – and it’s up to all of us to figure out if it’s a good idea, given any number of inevitable alternatives. I think it is.
As we and our neighbors age, new downtown housing will give all of us the opportunity to downsize one day into a modern apartment without having to leave the town we love. And who knows – maybe our young adult kids will move back into town with other young professionals, who aren’t ready to buy a house yet and want an easy commute.
Stores and restaurants will also benefit by having patrons not just on the busy weekends, but on the off-days too – shopping and dining without the need for a car.
But most importantly, I’ve learned our schools would see minimal impact. According to the Board of Education, 277 non-garden style apartments in town yield a mere 17 public school children.
The use of non-garden apartment data is the most accurate predictive measure of school age children in this case, since the proposals fit this category of housing. And besides, how many families with kids would rent a luxury apartment when they can already rent a house in town with a backyard for the same price?
The schools superintendent also says that some schools do have capacity, such as Orchard, which would be fed by The Dayton, for instance. Using the data above, The Dayton would yield very few children, certainly at a level that could be absorbed across K-12th grade classrooms.
So when looking at the full picture, I believe the Planning Board and Village Council must act to bring some degree of new housing, and progress, to Ridgewood.
Bergen County’s suburbs embrace a touch of the city
NOVEMBER 16, 2014 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2014, 12:48 AM BY JOAN VERDON STAFF WRITER | THE RECORD
Robert Weiner, co-owner of the Bruce the Bed King mattress and furniture store on Hackensack’s Main Street, last week took his 96-year-old father to see a first in the 60 years since his family opened its store — a 222-unit apartment building rising on State Street, a block from downtown.
That project and two others that will put an additional 700 apartments on Main Street are the result of zoning revisions that Hackensack put in place two years ago and the first signs of a policy shift that could produce the biggest transformation of North Jersey’s downtowns since the arrival of the malls pulled shoppers away from town centers in the 1960s and 1970s.
A growing number of North Jersey municipalities, like Hackensack, believe that adding rental apartments in their downtowns is the key to revitalizing their Main Streets. Not everyone, though, is convinced that downtowns and residential apartments are a perfect fit.
North Jersey, and particularly Bergen County, was an example of suburban prosperity in the latter part of the 20th century, typified by single-family homes and shopping centers along highways. But now North Jersey’s suburbs are responding to a 21st-century sensibility of millennials — those between the ages of 18 and 33 — who want to live in urban environments such as Hoboken or Brooklyn, as well as aging suburbanites who want to downsize without leaving their hometowns.
Demand for rental apartments, especially near train stations, is driving the change. “People want to live in places where they have that downtown, where they can live close to things that they’re going to eat and things that they’re going to buy, and the market is following,” said Maggie Peters, director of the Bergen County Economic Development Corp. Developers, she said, have known this already “and now municipalities are starting to react.”
Ridgewood Planner’s report on multifamily housing misses the point
To the editor:
After recently moving to a home that is only a block outside of our Central Business District, I had an even more vested interest in attending the last Planning Board meeting. I was curious to hear our village planner, Blais Brancheau, as he told our Planning Board about this new high-density zoning change. I was incredibly disappointed with Blais’ presentation. He talked in circles and back peddled, saying not much about very little.
We want our village planner to have a plan, not just deal with developers as they come along! We need to know the long-term repercussions of this zoning change. We deserve this, as citizens and taxpayers of this town. He has yet to set forth facts on how these developments will impact our municipal services, traffic, our schools and the future of Ridgewood.
Instead, we heard about State of NJ planning guidelines and recommendations from NJ Transit. Why didn’t Blais discuss local and regional issues ahead of generalized state planning recommendations? Our schools are at or are near maximum capacity, yet Blais told the Planning Board this should not be a primary concern. Really? That is why we live here … the schools are the best.
According to Blais’ report, Page 14, using the Rutgers Study, the actual number of schoolchildren attending Ridgewood schools from apartments in/around the CBD was almost four times higher than the projected amount. And Blais neglected to highlight data that would make this projection even higher.
Our lack of parking is a huge issue right now, yet all of these high-density zoning changes will come with less than the state required parking. Our town’s Open Space committee gave a full presentation on our severe deficit of open space in this town, yet rezoning for up to 500-700 new apartments will surely exacerbate this problem.
Our Planning Board needs to think long and hard about the decisions before them. Yes, there is a need for beautiful, higher-end apartments to keep empty nesters in Ridgewood, their town they love and invested in for years. But people cannot be expected to sit through endless testimony, read through ridiculous blogs, or pay for attorneys in order to fight for their town. But that is the way it is today.
Why not put forth a non-binding referendum to see what the taxpayers of Ridgewood see for the future of Ridgewood? Upper Saddle River just did it. How about a village-wide mailing of the facts to every resident to educate us on exactly what the Master Plan amendment includes? Upper Saddle River just did that, too. (Oh, and Upper Saddle River just voted 11-1 against high-density zoning.)
It is up to the Planning Board to do what is right for Ridgewood, not for the developers, today and in the future. As leaders of our community, we truly hope they will.
Different views offered on Ridgewood planner’s housing estimate
NOVEMBER 14, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014, 12:31 AM BY LAURA HERZOG STAFF WRITER | THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS Print PAGES: 1 2 > DISPLAY ON ONE PAGE
One figure quoted briefly at last week’s Planning Board hearing has attendees talking.
That figure is the “500-700 units” that, as the village planner noted in response to a resident’s question last Monday, could be built in Ridgewood if the currently proposed amendment to allow high-density multifamily housing in the Central Business District is approved and fully “built out” – i.e. a possible snapshot of how the amendment under consideration might affect the village in a “worst-case” scenario.
Village Planner Blais Brancheau noted that this number would require buildings comprising at least an acre of land to be torn down, and he believed the figure was unlikely. Members of Citizens for a Better Ridgewood (CBR), however, had serious concerns about that figure, which they believe is low.
The citizens action group has long been asking the village to reassess a density increase that is currently being deliberated – from 12 units per acre to 40-50 units per acre – and, through study and master plan reexamination, find a lower maximum density for new proposed apartments that might better suit Ridgewood.
On Tuesday, CBR trustee Amy Bourque said that the organization considers Brancheau’s cited estimate a “conservative number.”
Hoping for a parking garage, Ridgewood to survey Hudson St. lot
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2014, 5:40 PM BY LAURA HERZOG STAFF WRITER | THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
One lot = a lot of parking hopes.
In preparation for a parking garage, to be built by either the county or Ridgewood, the village is planning to survey the Hudson Street lot.
This survey follows a recent vote by the Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders to transfer $180,000 from a 2002 rail network capital bond to the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA), which will then lead to a parking feasibility study in Ridgewood, with eyes on the Hudson Street lot.
Ridgewood officials and BICA representatives have been talking for about a year on the potential partnership to create a multistory parking garage on Hudson Street.
Last Thursday, the BCIA planned to “take up a resolution to approve funding for a study of Ridgewood,” according to Mayor Paul Aronsohn.
According to Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, the village’s survey of the lot would show the county that “we’re sharing the cost.”
“As we all know, we’re really serious about building a parking garage, particularly at the Hudson Street site. Regardless of how that garage gets built, we have some work to do,” said Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld, noting that a preparatory environmental engineering study of the site will also need to be paid for. “This [survey] is about $6,300 worth of work … We’re going out with [a request for proposal] for the environmental.”
At last Wednesday’s public work session, the council also discussed its latest plans for new parking measures that would offer short-term alleviation for parking woes, while the village remains focused on plans to build a garage, one way or another.
Planning Board Amendment to Meeting Schedule – November 17th
PLANNING BOARD
AMENDMENT TO MEETING SCHEDULE
Special Public Meeting: Monday, November 17, 2014
Change of Date and Location
In accordance with the provisions of the “Open Public Meetings Act,” please be advised that the Planning Board has scheduled a special public meeting and work session for MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2014, in the RIDGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT CENTER, 627 E. RIDGEWOOD AVENUE, RIDGEWOOD, NJ beginning AT 7:30 p.m.
The Board may take official action during this Special Public Meeting at which time the Board will continue the public hearing concerning a proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan which would recommend changes in zone district classifications and boundaries within the Central Business District and surrounding area including AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts.
The proposed master plan amendment and related exhibits are at the office of the Secretary of the Ridgewood Planning Board on the third floor of Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey and are available for public inspection Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The amendment and exhibits are also posted as a courtesy on the Village’s website at www.ridgewoodnj.net.
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.
