Reader says No one is against development, just gross and stupid over-development.
Number 1 Sure — very simple. One option, the developer who purchased the property follows the existing code — which will include some apartments and some single family homes as well as some business. Another option, the Village condemns the property using eminent domain and turns it into a park.
No one is against development, just gross and stupid over-development. You have exactly made the point as to why the developers are all wrong. Your argument is in effect, we need to approve the hundreds of units the developers want to build or we will have urban blight. Just the opposite is true — say no to over-development and the master plan as written will allow more sensible building with no need for amendments to the master plan or zoning adjustments.
Why do you suppose the speculator who bought that property is happy to have junky trucks sitting there now? Its exactly to bait people into voting for change without realizing the problems change will bring.
Now that you have heard these alternative solutions, I suppose you will agree with one of them?
Tag: multi-family housing
Can this town handle 50 units an acre?
Copied from CBR Facebook page:Can this town handle 50 units an acre?
We need more members of the public to attend this meeting tomorrow night at RHS.(Sept 16, 7:30pm) There are only a few meetings left before the planning board comes to a decision on higher density housing in Ridgewood. Can this town handle 50 units an acre? What happens next? Will more developers seek the same zoning benefits? Will our town have to grant those requests or else fall victim to “spot zoning” claims and expensive litigation brought on by other land owners seeking the same density increases? Once this new zone is created, there is no turning back. 50 units an acre that cover 10 acres of our town. Our planning board needs to proceed cautiously and settle on a number that makes sense. This is what planning boards do. Planning Boards plan for communities and amend master plans to ensure a better quality of life for the residents. At what number should the density increase, in order to stimulate development, yet still compliment existing structures and not fundamentally change the character of this town? This whole process is like a walk on a tight rope. The answer lies in a delicate balance. We are hopeful that our planning board finds that balance and does not fall. Please come tomorrow night.
Change of Location : Special Public Meeting for Planning Board – September 16
Change of Location : Special Public Meeting for Planning Board – September 16
PLANNING BOARD
AMENDMENT TO MEETING SCHEDULE
Special Public Meeting: Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Change of 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 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014, in the RIDGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT CENTER, 627 E. RIDGEWOOD AVENUE, RIDGEWOOD, NJ beginning AT 7:30 p.m.
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.
Jane Wondergem
Secretary to the Board
Reader says It is time to just say no to Urbanization
Reader says It is time to just say no to Urbanization
Mr. Wrubel is right — the new housing will be a great accommodation for those looking to live in a more urban environment.
But he’s wrong in suggesting Ridgewood should be the site of that migration. The thing is, those of us not looking to living a denser environment are being asked to foot the bill for developers hoping to increase their profit. Those of us who have worked and paid taxes to maintain the standards of our Village are being told we need to open up the downtown for others to come in and enjoy the benefits of what has been built.
Mr. Wrubel’s basic premise is entirely backwards looking. Its been said many times on this blog before and it is worth repeating: A downtown exists to serve the town and not the other way around. If the functionality of Ridgewood’s downtown has reached a historic end, because its been replaced say, by Route 17 shopping, then the downtown parcel should revert to open space or single family homes in keeping with Ridgewood’s community purpose. The death of the downtown should not be allowed to kill off Ridgewood altogether, and that is what a lot of well meaning people seem to overlook.
Let’s look to the future and beyond the self interest of the developers and the yarns they have spun: Young families continue to want to live in a safe, suburban environment in the long desirable Village of Ridgewood — why are folks in such a rush to take away that opportunity? Why is our Planning Board and Council even considering allowing that to happen?
It is time to just say no.
“crumbling infrastructure” : Reader asks what will be the ultimate cost to the Village taxpayers
“crumbling infrastructure” : Reader asks what will be the ultimate cost to the Village taxpayers
What is perhaps most interesting about this article is the fact that when he has testified about the effect of adding 500 new families to downtown with the apartment projects, Ruitshauser has not been concerned about the effect on infra structure. For instance, at one hearing he noted that new sewer pipes would need to be dug under the streets downtown to accept the flow of sewage from the projects, and these would feed into the old pipes. But, then he suggested there would be no effect on the existing decades old pipes that flow to the sewage treatment plants.
Its clear as the apartment projects move forward and as we hear remarks about “crumbling infrastructure” that we really don’t know what the ultimate cost to the Village taxpayers will be. The projects are going to be an eyesore as well as a pocketbook sore in years to come.

Support for downtown housing
Support for downtown housing
September 12, 2014 Last updated: Friday, September 12, 2014, 9:28 AM
Print
Support for housing proposal
Arthur Wrubel
To the Editor:
The higher density housing proposed for downtown Ridgewood is in accordance with its historical development. The downtown has changed, adapting to the needs of its growing population.
The area used to be a pedestrian-oriented destination which could supply its population with food and services. Shop owners once lived above their stores. The proximity to the surrounding residential area encouraged walking to shop and take the train to jobs.
The proposed changes to the master plan permit these ideas to flourish again. Further, there is a national trend to living in higher-density urban areas to satisfy people who want to be close to shops, work and services.
The Planning Board and others have studied the various impacts of the development, such as traffic generation, school children, water supply, fire and safety, etc. The studies indicate little or no impact. The traffic in particular is reduced compared to commercial development.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-support-for-downtown-housing-1.1086864#sthash.EGFdodJb.dpuf
Crumbling pipes cause concern in Ridgewood
file photo Boyd Loving
Crumbling pipes cause concern in Ridgewood
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2014, 2:39 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
STAFF WRITER
Print
Oh Danny Boy, the pipes, the crumbling pipes, are calling for repair in Ridgewood.
According to Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld, who detailed the issue in her manager’s report at last week’s Village Council meeting, Ridgewood recently discovered that many of its sewer drainage pipes are “crumbling.”
The problem, she said, was discovered when a contractor employed by PSE&G was doing gas main work around Downs Street and Pearsall Avenue in August. The contractor noticed that the “pipe material was crumbling” in some nearby sewer drainage pipes.
The pipe cost about $1,300 to replace, she said.
According to Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, the now-deteriorated, aluminum-corrugated metal pipes in Ridgewood’s sewer drainage system were installed 35 to 40 years ago, and are located “all over” the village. But “it’s hard to say” what percentage of the pipes – all in the storm drainage, not sanitary system – are made of this material and need replacement, he said.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn expressed concern when the pipe issue was raised at the meeting on Sept. 3.
“You’re saying this type of pipe, that crumbles at the touch, is all throughout the village,” he said. The mayor also asked Rutishauser if he was concerned.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/crumbling-pipes-cause-concern-1.1087035#sthash.28ETplWZ.dpuf
Village’s plan to lease Gilsenan/Gap property falls flat
Village’s plan to lease Gilsenan/Gap property falls flat
September 10 ,2014
11:17 PMRidgewood NJ, The following resolution was unanimously approved by Village Council members on 09/08:
#14-219: Reject Bids for Lot 12 – The Gap Parking Lot – Rejects the bids for this project due to the fact that revenues did not meet the Village’s financial expectations and there were too many zoning variances required for both bids that were received.
In a nutshell, there will be no building constructed on the Village owned property between Gilsenan Insurance/Realty and The Gap. Those who were interested in the lease proposed offering way too little in terms of annual rent, and wanted to build a structure(s) much larger than what the Village Council had envisioned.
Village Council members, and select Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce members, had hoped a real estate development firm would step forward and offer big bucks to construct a 2-story retail/office building on the property. The revenues would have been earmarked for the construction of a parking deck at the Hudson Street parking lot.
This is the second complete failure associated with this plan

![]()
Ridgewood developers would add parking
Ridgewood developers would add parking
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014, 1:21 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER
THE RECORD
Print
RIDGEWOOD — The village will be getting some much-needed parking along North Walnut Street under the terms outlined in a 42-page bid soliciting potential developers for the downtown’s redevelopment zone.
A new Request for Proposal and Qualifications, or RFP, has been issued by Ridgewood officials and seeks the redevelopment of 10 properties the heart of the Central Business District.
The 2.07 acres — some of it municipally owned — was designated a “redevelopment zone” by officials in 2007, which permits mostly retail and restaurant uses.
The redevelopment zone — currently the site of an ice cream shop, an 89-space parking lot, a mechanic’s shop, restaurants and retail stores — further allows for residential developments and is already being considered by at least one developer for a future assisted-living facility for seniors.
The RFP states that all proposals and plans from interested developers must be submitted by December and must include some manner of parking garage.
While an issue for decades, the village’s lack of parking has become an increasing concern for businesses and residents.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-developers-would-add-parking-1.1084530
Special Public Meeting for Planning Board – September 16
NOTICE – Special Public Meeting for Planning Board – September 16
PLANNING BOARD
AMENDMENT TO MEETING SCHEDULE
Special Public Meeting: Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Change of 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 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 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.
Jane Wondergem
Secretary to the Board

![]()
Ridgewood Planning Board details process, payment for hearings
Ridgewood Planning Board details process, payment for hearings
SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014, 6:00 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
STAFF WRITER
“Rights” related to money spent by amendment applicants on hearings before the Ridgewood Planning Board – including the payment of village professionals, as detailed in Ordinance 3066 – were among the topics discussed during a review on Tuesday of proper board behavior.
The idea that Ridgewood’s applicants are afforded additional rights – beyond those afforded to applicants in other communities, who may not foot the bill for municipal experts during the hearing process – was ultimately rejected by the board attorneys.
But one key point was revealed: Ridgewood has the right to foot the bill for a master plan amendment application hearing, with or without Ordinance 3066 on the books, and thereby bring only its own experts in for a hearing, rather than also including an applicants’ experts.
During the discussion, Planning Board Attorney Gail Price also presented a legal overview regarding Open Public Meetings Act requirements and board obligations related to the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-planning-board-details-process-payment-for-hearings-1.1083491#sthash.uZY7zkt6.dpuf
Ridgewood soliciting ideas for redevelopment area
Ridgewood soliciting ideas for redevelopment area
SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2014, 3:38 PM
BY BY JODI WEINBERGER
STAFF WRITER
“Carnival enterprises, such as palmistry, phrenology, astrology and the like” are just some of the businesses banned from the Central Business District, according to the Request for Proposals and Qualifications (RFP) for the redevelopment of the North Walnut Street area published last month.
Drive-through windows, car sales lots and auto repair shops are also on the “prohibited” list in the 42-page document that will guide the look and substance of the 2.07 acres to be redeveloped.
On Oct. 8, the village will hold a meeting where RFP responders can ask questions or make comments about the document. Plans must be submitted by Dec. 1. By Feb. 4, concepts will be presented to the Village Council, which will choose one, if any, of the firms in March.
The rest of the timeline, like acquiring vacant property and beginning construction, is “to be determined.”
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-soliciting-ideas-for-redevelopment-area-1.1081324#sthash.4v7nIX36.dpuf
The Name-Dropper: Van Neste Square
The Name-Dropper: Van Neste Square
SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2014, 1:21 AM
BY JEFFREY PAGE
SPECIAL TO THE RECORD
THE RECORD
Who was Lee of Fort Lee, Votee of Votee Park and Merritt of Camp Merritt? The Name-Dropper gives you the lowdown on some of the people whose names you see on public statues, memorial plaques, park signs, highways and even some local streets around North Jersey. Have suggestions? Email them to features@northjersey. com and put Name-Dropper in the subject field.
In the legendary first intercollegiate football game, when Rutgers beat Princeton, 6-4, John Alfred Van Neste of the Rutgers team may have kicked the ball, may have helped score a point, may have blocked a Princeton player.
Then again, maybe not.
Accounts of that game played in New Brunswick in 1869 report the score, but provide little about how individual players performed.
It seems easy, 145 years later, to assume Van Neste got a chance to play since the rules of that time dictated large lineups, 25 players per side.
But in one respect, how Van Neste played doesn’t matter since it was not his exploits on the gridiron that caused the Village of Ridgewood to name a sweet little downtown park in his memory. Rather it was for the remembrance of Van Neste as an adored minister in mid-19th to early-20th-century Ridgewood. He was the Reformed Church pastor who helped people of other denominations establish and build their own places of worship, and in the meantime allowed them to use his church.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/education/ridgewood-park-ministers-to-all-as-did-its-namesake-1.1081013#sthash.y4WRDtCp.dpuf
“Parking Authority” vs. “Parking Utility”
“Parking Authority” vs. “Parking Utility”
September 3rd 2014
11:46 PM
What are the differences between Parking Authorities and Parking Utilities in the State of NJ, and why does Ridgewood choose to retain a Parking Utility?
Parking Authority
The Legislature of the State of New Jersey in 1948 adopted N.J.S.A. 40:11A et seq., commonly known as the “Parking Authority Law,” which authorized municipal governments to create an independent parking authority. A parking authority has the same geographic boundaries as the city that created it but is “a public body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State (of New Jersey).” ANew Jersey parking authority has five commissioners who are appointed by the governing body of the municipality (city council or city commissioners) for staggered five-year terms, or seven commissioners with two mayoral appointments and five governing body appointments. A parking authority may employ an executive director, attorney, engineer, accountant, and any other professionals and staff necessary to manage and deliver parking services to the city’s residents and the general public.
As noted elsewhere in this report, New Jersey parking authorities have extraordinary statutory authority. N.J.S.A. 40:11A-6 grants parking authorities the powers necessary to carry out and effectuate essential government purposes. Furthermore, parking authorities may buy, sell and/or lease property as a lessee or lessor; construct multiuse projects and parking facilities; borrow money; issue bonds; mortgage or otherwise encumber its assets; enter into contracts; and retain earnings.
Because parking authorities fund their operations from revenue derived from parking user fees rather than through real estate taxation, and board members traditionally are appointed from the business community, parking authorities tend to be operated like a business. Parking authorities are conscious of the fact that annual expenses should not exceed parking revenue. Surplus annual revenue is retained to pay for renewal and replacement repairs at existing parking facilities and to purchase real estate or build new facilities.
The strength of a parking authority is its independence. The parking authority’s commissioners are appointed, not elected, public officials. Consequently, a parking authority board of commissioners can make difficult planning decisions such as raising parking rates, installing parking meters, increasing parking enforcement, acquiring property by eminent domain, or selecting a location to construct a parking facility without regard to its immediate political consequence. A parking authority provides elected officials with a measure of political cover in that the authority’s decisions are the result of the actions of the authority’s board rather than the city’s governing council/commission.
Among the other advantages of a parking authority:
• Its debt is outside the municipalities bonding limit (Cap)
• Its sole purpose and function is to construct, maintain, and operate public parking
• It can retain earnings and accumulate surplus revenue for capital projects
• It can develop income-producing mixed-use projects exempt from real estate taxes, which are intended to subsidize the cost of providing public parking.
The negatives of a parking authority are the reverse side of its strengths. Parking authorities are independent and, on occasion, choose to raise parking fees or pursue goals, objectives, or projects that are not supported by a majority of the municipal governing body. Parking authorities are not directly controlled by the local governing body, which has the power only to appoint or reappoint one authority commissioner per year to the authority’s member board. Parking authorities traditionally have generated revenue surpluses at year end or have accumulated significant financial reserves through retained earnings that local municipal governments prefer be utilized for taxpayer relief or be transferred to the municipality’s general fund to offset the city’s operating budget expenses.
Based upon a review of Who’s Who in Parking 2005, published by the International Parking Institute (IPI), there are seven states—Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—that have parking authorities. However, it should be noted that Miami is the only parking authority in the state of Florida that was created by a special act of the legislature. The state of New Jersey has approximately thirty parking authorities, more than any other state in the nation.
Parking Utility
A municipality, as an alternative to a parking authority, may create a parking utility. A parking utility has a number of the strengths of a parking authority: executive director; operating budget and debt service separate from the municipality; ability to generate annual surplus revenue and retain earnings; ability to set its own rates and fees; and a function strictly limited to providing public parking.
The good news/bad news aspects of a parking utility are that the municipal governing body maintains virtual control of the parking entity. However, the hands-on control exercised by the municipal governing body places parking planning and decision making within the political process.
In municipal environments where control of the mayor’s office and governing body are continually contested, parking can become a political rather than a planning issue, which may affect a parking utility’s ability to aggressively pursue public parking improvements and objectives.
There are at least four parking utilities within the state of New Jersey: East Brunswick, Hoboken, Princeton, and Trenton.
The Answer:
Parking Utility revenues in excess of annual operating expenses are moved over to the Village’s general fund. If Ridgewood had a Parking Authority all these years, all revenues collected (and not stolen) would have been used exclusively to maintain and/or improve parking. There would be no parking problem now, because there would have been plenty of money to resolve it.
Proving once again ladies and gentlemen that you can’t have your cake and eat it too!
(Special thanks go to James Ten Hoeve, who revealed the answer publicly several years ago.)

NEW FREINDSHIP HAS EMERGED
NEW FREINDSHIP HAS EMERGED

















