Ridgewoood NJ, If you’ve ever received a summons for overtime parking at meter #218 on North Walnut Street alongside the Post Office, this may be your lucky day.
Meter #218 is currently configured to allow 15-minute parking only. However, the current Village Code stipulates that particular parking spot should be equipped with a meter that permits up to 3-hour parking.
Section 265-29 of the Village Code specifically designates only two (2) 15-minute (1/4 hour) parking spaces on the East side of North Walnut Street between East Ridgewood and Franklin Avenues. Meter #218 is the third in a series of three (3) 15-minute (1/4 hour) spaces there.
So, if you received a summons for overtime parking at meter #218, and you were parked for less than 3-hours, your summons may be bogus. I suggest you visit the Violations Bureau at Village Hall if you think that you might have been bamboozled.
Village Council members are expected to introduce & approve a revision the Village Code authorizing an additional 15-minute parking space alongside the Post Office, but that could take months. Until then, just remember that any summons issued for overtime parking (for less than 3-hours) at meter #218 may not be legit.
A parking garage that close to the train station and bus stop would be sufficient to serve commuters. The street level spaces near the should all be limited to 3 hors for the benefit of CBD businesses and their customers. Oh, and parking should be free on Sundays. Okay, now someone else can be king for a day…
The chamber wants it for increase parking for the business but you say it for the commuters. Can’t have it both way. And if you think that the commuter are going to get off the train and eat and shop in Ridgewood I don’t think so. Commuter just want to get home after a long day. On a side not if they get off the train after 5:30 they couldn’t shop anyway all the store are closed. Which is it?
If it is meant to be a place for long-term commuter parking, then I can see a better chance of it working. For this to happen, the existing all-day parking bays at/near the train station and the bus station will need to be changed to meters that only allow short-term parking intended for shoppers and diners.
The parking garage under consideration would be constructed across the street from Our Lady if Mount Carmel Church. Has this location been determined to be the best? What happened to the lot across the street from TD Bank on Franklin Avenue? Wasn’t that lot condemned for the purpose of erecting a parking garage? And wasn’t a bond issued at the time that we never used to build the structure?
Ridgewood NJ, Walker Parking study compares a traditional self storage parking complex of 5 stories to using an automated vehicle storage and retrieval system(AVSRS). A 5 level self park structure would increase parking approximately 350 spaces while the AVSRS at a significantly higher cost would add approximately 393 spaces according to Walker.
Walker looked at 2 types of automated parking systems Puzzle and Rack .
Self park would cost roughly $42,200 per car and total cost estimate of $11,500,000.
Puzzle Automated Park $60,900 per car and total cost estimate of $23,900,000.
Rack Automated Park $53,800 per car and total cost estimate of $17,310,000.
Larger capacity self park 394 spaces , $30,800 per car and total cost estimate $12,140,000.
Walker Parking Consultant Study – Ridgewood Hudson Street – July 5th
Ridgewood NJ, Is it just me, or does the draft wording of the proposed non-binding referendum question suggest that property tax revenues will not be required to finance or build a “downtown parking garage?”
The proposed wording of the question voters would see on Election Day, read aloud by Mayor Paul Aronsohn during last Wednesday evening’s Village Council Work Session, is as follows:
“Do you support a proposal to finance and build a downtown parking garage on the Hudson Street lot, located at the corner of Hudson Street and South Broad Street, by bonding up to 15 million dollars of public funds, which would be paid for by using parking revenues.”
Doesn’t the wording of this question imply that parking revenues will be the sole source of funding required garage financing and construction?
So what happens if there’s a recession, like we had in 2008, and people cut way back on shopping and dining out. No shoppers, and no diners means no parking revenue. Then who’s left holding the bag? You guessed it folks!
Remember fellow voters, the Village Hall renovation project was sold to taxpayers with a projected cost of $4.5 million. At $11 million, they stopped counting. To this day, we still don’t know how much was spent renovating Village Hall.
I’m skeptical that parking revenues alone can pay for a $15 million garage. I’m also skeptical that the brain trust at Village Hall would be actually able to bring in a project on time and on budget.
Before you enter the voting booth this coming November, know exactly what you’re voting for and how it might impact your pocketbook/wallet (i.e., property tax increases).
NONBINDING REFERENDA – ALL MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES
The governing body of any municipality or county may “ascertain the sentiment of the legal voters of the municipality or county upon any question or policy pertaining to the government or internal affairs thereof” by adopting an ordinance or resolution at a regular meeting requesting that the proposition appear on the ballot at the next general election. The request must be filed with the county clerk no later than 74 days before the election. (N.J.S.A. 19:37-1 et seq.)
Once a municipal governing body has adopted a resolution or ordinance placing a nonbinding proposition before the voters and transmitted the request to the county clerk, the voters of the municipality have the power to place a reasonably related nonbinding question or policy before the voters by presenting to the governing body a petition signed by 10% or more of the registered and qualified voters of the municipality. The governing body must adopt a resolution at its next regular meeting requesting the county clerk to print the proposition as formulated and expressed in the petition on the ballot and must file the request with the clerk no later than 60 days prior to the election. (N.J.S.A. 19:37-1.1)
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?
JULY 9, 2015, 5:48 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2015, 5:53 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — When they enter polling booths this fall, village residents will be invited to weigh in on the proposed expenditure of $15 million for a parking garage in the central business district.
The language for a non-binding referendum will ask Ridgewood voters whether they favor bonding $15 million “in public funds” for the construction of a parking garage at Hudson and South Broad streets.
The outcome of the vote will have no impact on the council’s final decision on the garage’s construction, which Ridgewood officials have been considering for months.
The financing of the garage “would be paid for by using parking revenues,” according the referendum’s language, which was read at Wednesday night’s council meeting.
Councilman Mike Sedon said Wednesday he supported gauging public sentiment on the building of a parking garage downtown. Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli also backed adding the referendum question to this fall’s ballot.
Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck said she thought it was important that Ridgewood residents understand their annual municipal taxes won’t be impacted by any garage-related costs. Councilwoman Susan Knudsen also endorsed the ballot measure.
Readers say : non binding = if the residents approve great they will move forward. If the residents do not approve it is non binding (on the mayor and council) and they will move forward. It’s a done deal folks.
So let’s get the business owners in the CBD who want this (Fish, Greek to Me) to help pay for the garage if it’s a done deal. If they have skin in the game, at least they’ll help protect Village taxpayers from cost overruns and “slippage” better than the Village ever could or would. Why should taxpayers be liable for 100% of the cost and inevitable overruns when this garage will benefit the businesses in the CBD? C’mon, this is North Bergen in NJ. Everything costs multiples of what it should so that everyone can get their “taste”.
The CBD business interests and landlords like to say that Ridgewood always says no to change. Not true. In the past couple of decades we built a new Village Hall, expanded the High School, built a new library, turfed Maple and the HS fields, upgraded Graydon, built a new track facility at BF, added a new gym at GW, converted Habernickel to public use. Whether you agree with all of these actions or not, Ridgewood has not sat still and has spent when needed. Contrast that with the decades long debate about a parking garage. It has NOT been built because there has been a consistent view by most residents that it is not needed and will detract from the Village. The only thing that has changed is that the commercial interests seem to have gotten a firmer foothold with the VC.
so why aren’t these CBD business interests helping to pay for it? Why should taxpayers be on the hook for 100% of this? Makes no sense.
JUNE 29, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — When it meets on July 15, the Village Council could move to add a non-binding referendum to November’s ballot, gauging public support for the financing of a parking garage downtown.
For well over a year, Ridgewood officials have been implementing various measures aimed at providing additional parking throughout the central business district.
Business leaders agree with the council that constructing a garage on Hudson Street would lure more dollars to the village.
Last week, Ridgewood’s council reviewed a draft resolution regarding the non-binding ballot question; a final version of the resolution will be prepared in time for the council’s July 8 meeting, with a vote likely a week later.
Discussion? No need for discussion! Gwenn, Paul, and Albert are our 3-person council. Ms. Gwenn might want to recall that she won by 6 votes, while Mike and Susan were voted in on a huge margin. It won’t be too much longer before sanity will rule again. No way are the thre of them getting re-elected
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: Paul Aronsohn and Albert Pucciarelli will not, I repeat WILL NOT, be swayed by public opinion, common sense, or realistic facts. They are going to build this god-forsaken garage and look out anybody who gets in their way. They feel this will make their mark in town. Yep, it will be a mark alright, a gigantic debt and a garage with so few cars in it that it will look like an abandoned property. But they won’t care. In a couple of years Aronsohn will be in DC (he hopes) working as a gopher for Hillary, and Pucciarelli will be living in MidlandPark, and we will be left with this mess, their legacy.
maybe, maybe Gwenn will decide to rein this project in and make it mor sensible and less colossal. Say what you will about Gwenn, but she of the three of them truly TRULY cares about Ridgewood. lately there have been glimmers of hope that she might be standing on her own away from the two of them on a couple of issues. Maybe she will back off on this folly. We can hope.
JUNE 26, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
On Wednesday night, the Village Council revisited the notion of a non-binding referendum for a municipal garage on Hudson Street and also debated the merits of having a similar vote on the plans for the North Walnut Street redevelopment zone since it could mark a significant change to downtown Ridgewood.
The village is in the midst of doing environmental work at Hudson Street while waiting for results from a parking consultant on a recommendation of a traditional or automated parking garage. A $500,000 bond ordinance for pre-construction activities has been introduced and will be subject to a public hearing on July 15.
Meanwhile, officials are currently working with Kensington Senior Development, which has pitched an assisted living facility for the Town Garage property at Franklin Avnue and North Walnut Street. The village is in the process of reviewing financial information from the developer.
RIDGEWOOD NJ, On its June 2nd Vote the Planning Board has approved resolutions of four master plan amendments permitting high-density, multifamily housing projects downtown.The resolutions were passed by the Village Planning board last week in its first meeting since its recent vote increasing the number of allowable housing units per acre in four distinct village zones to 35 from 12.
35 Units per acre was approved by the Ridgewood Planning Board in a 6 to 3 vote, in what can only be described as a victory for special interests over the residents of the Village . Last night the Planning Board approved a change to the Village master plan from a density of 12 units per acre (current) to a density of 35 units per acre (almost triple) , giving the Village Central Business District a higher density than Hackensack 22 units per acre, Teaneck 28 units per acre, or Fair Lawn 17 units per acre. https://theridgewoodblog.net/ridgewood-planning-board-approves-high-density-35-unit-per-acre-plan-for-central-business-district/
The Village Council still has to approve the changes in the Master Plan .The amendments will be discussed by the council for the first time at its meeting Wednesday July 8, were the council will review the draft ordinances and suggest changes. These changes could be formally adopted by September.
There are three proposed developments are The Dayton, a 106-unit luxury garden apartment complex at the site of the former Brogan Cadillac dealership; the 50-unit Chestnut Village, on Chestnut Street; and the 52-unit Enclave, on East Ridgewood and North Maple avenues and of coarse there is also the matter of the new parking garaged planned for Hudson Street.
All three developers still need to file applications with the village, seeking approval from the Planning Board for each of their projects.
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 18, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2015, 2:04 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The sixth in a series of Central Business District (CBD) forums took place on Wednesday night.
Residents and local business owners gathered to hear a comprehensive overview on the parking changes that have been made over the past few months, as well as a review of the current progress on the potential parking garage projects downtown.
One of the most noticeable changes made to the parking process in the CBD is the implementation of ParkMobile, which went live in the second week of May. ParkMobile is a pay-by-phone application and is currently in use at the downtown parking lots. It is also exclusively in use at the Chestnut Street lot and Route 17 Park & Ride.
Village officials expect to add this service to street meters no later than July 1, according to Janet Fricke, assistant to the village manager.
The village has also overhauled its hourly parking rates as well as the options for parking available to residents and non-residents during the first half of 2015.
The Ridgewood Parking Permit (RPP) is available for all Ridgewood residents and gives them unlimited parking in all lots at a cost of $750 per year, prorated monthly depending upon the point during the year in which it is purchased. Non-residents can purchase unlimited parking at either Cottage Place or the Park & Ride for $1,500 per year.
Employees working in the CBD can purchase a permit for $80 per month or $40 for half of a month. These permits are interchangeable among employees if they wish to split the cost. The pass must be displayed in the windshield and can be used at either Cottage Place or the Ken Smith property.
Eight hour parking has also become available at Cottage Place for 75 cents per hour, using coins or ParkMobile. Metered times are 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.
Village of Ridgewood 6th Central Business District Forum – Parking – Wednesday, June 17th 7:30pm – 9:00pm
The 6th Central Business District Forum will take place on Wednesday, June 17, 7:30 to 9:00 PM in the Courtroom in the Village Hall. An open mic will be available until 8:00 PM for anyone with ideas, comments and suggestions concerning the CBD. Then Bob Rooney, Director of the Parking Utility, Janet Fricke, our Assistant to the Village Manager and Charley DeBow of Park Mobile will conduct a seminar on using Park Mobile, review the new parking rules and times in the CBD and discuss the proposal for a parking garage on Hudson and Broad Streets. We are especially interested in hearing from commuters and welcome everyone who has not yet tried Park Mobile. Please join us.
It’s certainly not needed like it once was. Maybe if we keep talking about it we will never need it. Outside of inconveniencing a few restaurant goers on Saturday nights, Ridgewood Sales Days, and Christmas shopping, what the hell is the point in spending $10 million on this thing ?
Dont build for max capacity at peak useage. Bad business reasoning. This is Eco 101
It’s horiffic.. Where are the residents of Ridgewood when the council meets? a huge parking garage will cause huge congestion in that small street as cars line up to park and get out of garage. Will they charge in the garage after 6 p.m.
How much to park in the garage during daytime? It will change character of town. Will look monstrous; but fit in with high buildings of new high density housing.
