The business owner speaking here, Ed Sullivan, owner of 17-29 Chestnut St in the Village, spent 5 minutes citing a 1967 traffic study and then telling residents their taxes were too low.
Impressive strategy… if you want to make sure no one ever frequents your properties again.
Referencing data from 1967 is interesting. But not relevant. Not a single reference to the Internet which of course wasn’t publicly available in ’67. The Internet, as we know now, changed everything for businesses that used to rely on people going into a store and purchasing something.
In person shopping is an anachronism.
The taxpayers (read: homeowners) should not have to bear any burden associated with failing businesses.
Ed’s wrong…things have drastically changed in 48+ years.
Ridgewood NJ, Questions arise over why the Traffic Study for Hudson Street Parking Deck was not released until after the vote , when some of the Village Council and and the Village manager had access to this key piece of information in October . While both Councilman Michael Sedon and Council Women Susan Knudsen both saw the Masters study when the public viewed it .
According to the Village Manager it was merely an oversight by the Village for not posting it sooner . While the 3 amigos , Paul ,Gwen and Albert stalled in their answer to when the study was available to them , Mike and Susan seemed to indicate they only saw the study recently.
The big dust-up came resident Dana Glazer pushed the issue and Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli as well as Gwen Hauck took offence at the implication . The Village attorney chimed in with a “you can say what you want to the council as long as you agree with them ” ordinance to defuse the tension.
The omission whether it was intentional or not once again brings up the old issue of the Village’s inability to manage large scale projects and effectively communicate with residents . A key piece of information seems to be left out of the mix ,in the race to aggrandize egos and leaves many residents wondering are we once again providing a solution in search of a problem .
Ridgewood NJ, Despite the overwhelming negative feedback about the “Option A” ($12.3 million, cantilevered over Hudson Street) parking garage Village Council members received on Wednesday night, by a 4-1 vote, Council members introduced Ordinance 3519, which gives authorization for Village officials to begin negotiations with the County of Bergen to bond $12.3 million for a “Village of Ridgewood Parking Deck Project.”
I ask you; why would we be asking the County to bond $12.3 million if it was agreed that a MASSIVE garage isn’t suitable for Hudson Street? Am I the only one who heard a big “NO WAY” vote cast by the public in attendance at Wednesday’s meeting? What will it take to get those who sit on the dais to listen?
JANUARY 8, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Residents listen to public comments on a proposed parking garage during Wednesday’s council meeting.
Wednesday’s marathon Village Council meeting ended with the governing body voting 3-2 on a $12.3 million bond ordinance to build a parking garage on Hudson Street.
Because the ordinance requires a supermajority vote (four out of five council members), it was defeated.
Following that vote, a second ordinance was introduced that would enter Ridgewood into an agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) for a garage. The ordinance, introduced with a 4-1 vote on Wednesday, would require three votes for final approval.
Council vote
Prior to the meeting, which went until almost 3 a.m. Thursday, Mayor Paul Aronsohn sent out a statement explaining that while he is still in favor of the largest garage option (option A), he was willing to compromise.
He lent his support on Wednesday to the smallest option (option C) in the hopes of approving the bond ordinance.
“The idea of building a garage is an idea that has been discussed and debated for decades,” he said at Wednesday’s meeting. “While I still think that building a larger garage is the way to go, in the spirit of compromise … maybe at the end of the night, we can come to an agreement.”
Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck, who had both been strong proponents of option A, also agreed to support option C if it meant moving forward in the process.
“We clearly need to think about this opportunity very carefully,” Hauck said. “I would like to work together in the spirit of cooperation to see this parking deck built.”
Though he noted that he is still in favor of plan A, Pucciarelli said that he understands that there is “objection on the part of plan A,” causing him to reconsider.
“It is clearly time to get going on this garage,” he said, adding that “studies in this town have become a mantra for not making tough decisions,”
While he had initially been in favor of bonding the ordinance for plan C, Councilman Michael Sedon expressed reservations with the idea due to new information about the proposed plan.
He opined that the public did not really have a true view of what the garage would look like before voting in the non-binding referendum in November that started the entire process. Sedon also said that he thinks the process was not made very clear to the public before they voted, which caused him some consternation.
Sedon said that instead of voting to bond option C, he is in favor of looking at less expensive alternatives for adding parking.
“We could do this, and it wouldn’t cost nearly $12 million,” he said. “If it’s decided that it doesn’t work, it’s easily reversed. I can’t support this bond at this time, and I’m voting no.”
Ridgewood NJ, There were too many discussions focused on needing a garage or not. I voted no, but it passed, let’s build a nice one. We need to be talking about what it looks like and how we pay for it. The only design offered to date is ugly, doesn’t fit the lot, and the council is in a rush to build it. We don’t really know how it gets paid for. The traffic impact is going to be huge. The garage is going to be filled with train commuters every day- the village has been clear about that. The one traffic study (done over 4 hours on one day) says we need to know more about overall traffic impact. The village has a poor record dealing with traffic design. This is a traffic disaster waiting to happen.
Judging by comments to the council and online discussions, too many voters did not educate themselves ahead of the vote. A lot of buyer’s remorse and people who “assumed”. There were some amazing speakers who clearly and smartly got to the issue and were ready to dive into to the details the council wishes to avoid. There were also uninformed garage supporters who thought the architect’s renderings were fakes made by opponents of the garage. Quite the indictment when supporters of the garage have no idea what it looks like and even they think it can’t possibly “look like THAT”.
It is now crystal clear that 3 council members, led by the village manager and mayor, were not forthcoming about their intentions ahead of the vote. They promised a conversation about design and then offered one photo ahead of the vote and no options on design. The only design option was a meaningless 10′ difference. The village seems to revel in ignoring codes and statutes created to preserve what everyone loves about the village. The village should set the standard and go beyond what is required. This manager and 3 of the council now have a demonstrable record of doing the opposite. Let’s hope the promise of a new design to be created is true.
As many of you have likely read, Mayor Aronsohn yesterday proposed that the traffic garage be altered to the smallest of the three options.
On the surface, this seems like a generous compromise and that he is listening to the needs of Mount Carmel and the rest of us in town but I am concerned that he is still not hearing us.
Let me explain:
1) The footprint for the smallest proposed garage is the same as the biggest. More than anything, this is the most unseen problem. The proposed garage will in essence extend nearly to the center mark on the center line of Hudson street. As resident Rob Kotch put it today, “It’s like trying to fit an elephant into a VW bug.” So, the width is of equal concern as the height. This will affect traffic in that area in a major way, particularly with regard to the parishioners of Mount Carmel.
2) The only traffic study already commissioned by the town was conducted between 7-9am and 3-6pm on the same day in October. The study itself states: “We recommend that an analysis be performed to incorporate the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue into our traffic model as these intersections are already operating at capacity and may affect access to the surrounding land uses. We recommend that a study be performed to include Passaic Street as Hudson Street and Passaic Street operate as a pair within the roadway network…It is also our opinion that the study should include the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue as these intersections are operating near capacity and have a noticeable effect upon traffic.”
In other words, more study is needed to do this properly, which of course brings us to–
3) On September 30th, the Village Council voted in favor of doing a comprehensive traffic study that specifically includes the parking garage. It is essential we make sure the council follows through with this particular study and do so before anything further is done with the proposed garage.
MY ESSAY ON WHY WE NEED YOU AT THE PARKING GARAGE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT, 1/6.
By Dave Slomin.
Dear Supporters of Citizens for a Better Ridgewood,
This Wednesday night, 1/6, our Village Council is meeting (7:30 at Village Hall) to vote on a $12 million dollar bond to fund the biggest garage possible on the Hudson Street lot, near Sook and Mt. Carmel. We need Residents to attend… to be seen and be heard, to share your thoughts and concerns. The current plan is approximately 270’ long by 50+’ high… almost the size of a football field. Even if they opt for the smallest current option, it only shrinks by 10 feet in height. Once built, Hudson Street will be narrowed by 10’, street parking will be lost, neighboring buildings will be dwarfed, Mt. Carmel will be impacted and it will set a size and scale precedent which will be used by developers to argue for bigger, taller and denser multi-family buildings throughout our historic downtown.
That said, personally, I don’t think a parking deck, fittingly sized, is necessarily a bad idea at all… just like I don’t think that multifamily developments, fittingly-sized, are a bad idea at all. I just think the proposals we’ve seen on both are way too big, too dense, and too out of character to preserve the small-town feel of our beloved Village. For parking, in addition to a revised garage plan, the council should better review and advise on other options that spread new parking throughout our CBD, while also making drivers better aware of current parking options through signage.
I’d also like to hear more about possibly creating a Business Improvement District (BID) downtown, to get the landlords who will directly profit from this garage to chip in some more to help pay for it. That’s needed, because financing the garage is too tentative at present. The language of the actual referendum didn’t point out that much of the funding for the garage will come from increasing current meter rates in other key areas of downtown by up to 300-400% and increasing paid parking hours from 6pm to 9pm. The garage does not pay for itself. That’s pretty important stuff to know… or at least test out before you start writing checks that bank on its success. The last time Ridgewood increased parking hours to raise revenue, the Chamber of Commerce themselves complained and asked to have the hours paired back to 6pm. So before we spend $12MM, we should have a firmer idea how it’ll be paid back. Last time, some of these “givens” didn’t work so well.
Regarding size, in a November email, one Councilmember supported the notion that “quaint” is in the eye of the beholder. I’m not sure I know of any ‘beholders’ that would think the current garage plan is quaint. It’s not. As is, it’s massive. At a recent Council Meeting, the former Chairman of Ridgewood’s Historical Preservation Committee said he feared if we build this thing, we’ll look at it afterwards and think, “My, that’s a really big building.”
Backstory is… in November, our Council put forth a parking referendum, asking: “Do you support a proposal to finance and build a downtown parking garage on the Hudson Street lot… by bonding up to $15 million in public funds, which will be paid for principally, if not entirely, with parking revenues.” 65% voters voted “Yes.” However, even in voting “Yes,” many folks asked indicated they really voted more for “parking in general” than a singular giant garage. No one had any real idea how big the garage would be, as it was not determined. Yet, several Councilmembers are using this vote as if it were a ‘blank check’ in support of building the biggest edifice possible, or something close to it. That’s not right.
At the time of the referendum, Residents were essentially promised that we could vote “Yes,” and then negotiate the garage’s size later. Despite this promise, the Council so curtailed the subsequent public garage discussions that concerned residents could not give full voice to their opinions. At the main post-referendum garage meeting, initial public comment was limited to 30 minutes total (at five minutes per speaker) and then to a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker later, with no repeat speakers allowed (even though the meeting was not running late and some folks, myself included, could not finish their presentations within the 3 minute limit). I was actually asked to sit down and not speak again by a Village staffer. As such, there was no real negotiation on anything. The post-referendum garage selection process felt frustratingly preordained… like so much of what we are seeing happen in Ridgewood lately.
At the end of that meeting the Council polled 3-2 to bond for the largest garage option. This all-too-quick and ‘non-negotiated’ selection, which also wrongly occurred before the comprehensive traffic and parking study promised on 9/30/15 has been performed, raises further concerns with the “process” by which things are happening in Ridgewood.
So, in short, while we should use the opportunity of this referendum to make some smart and truly fitting decisions regarding parking, we should not rush into construction of the current over-sized garage options. Bigger for Ridgewood is not better.
I hope the holidays were kind to you and that the power issues at town hall are resolved. In case they aren’t, I’ve also included your other email address.
I wanted to discuss your recent Mayor’s Corner column which appeared in my inbox on January 2nd, where you spoke at length about civility.
Civility is something I am so with you about. It is too easy for people to forget this and to fall into behavior that is shortsighted and damaging to the fabric of our wonderful democracy. For you to keep bringing this up is exemplary and serves as a reminder of us all continuing to raise the bar in this regard.
It’s certainly reminded me, which is why I’m writing to you.
While I applaud your efforts to get things done (certainly as a filmmaker, I know the herculean effort it sometimes requires to do so) I also feel obligated to our community to speak out when I observe actions that fall below this bar of civility you and I hold ourselves to.
When I read in your January 2nd email/column that “We need to honor the votes cast by the 3,236 Ridgewood residents – a full 65% — who voted “yes” to building a 400-car parking deck at Hudson Street” it prompts me to speak out.
I speak out because of what you wrote in the pasted below email from November 1st with the subject heading “Parking Campaign – Please Read and Please Share” (bolding/CAPs from your original email included) :
“Tuesday’s referendum question is ONLY asking if residents support financing and building a garage on the Hudson Street lot. Nothing more. Nothing less. You will NOT be voting on the size, look or any other aspect of a proposed parking deck.”
As you clearly stated in that email, the vote was not a ‘yes’ for a 400 car parking garage. It was a non-binding referendum and to add parking at Hudson, bond the money and work with the public on scale and design.
Furthermore, your intention to vote a bond through the county if you don’t achieve a super majority from our council is not an acceptable path for one who wishes to respect the needs of one’s constituents and to maintain civility.
Lastly, as dictated by September 30th Village Council vote and based on the specificity of the comprehensive traffic study that you voted in favor of that evening, any movement on the traffic garage should be tabled until that study is complete. To override that vote and forcibly move forward with this bond puts the whole process into question.
Paul, many of us, myself included, are in favor of finding ways to assuage the parking situation in town. In the name of civility and for the sake of our village, I urge you to honor the vote you cast on September 30th with regards to completing the comprehensive parking study before moving forward with this traffic garage.
See you Wednesday night at 7:30pm.
Sincerely,
Dana
Dana H. Glazer
61 Clinton Avenue
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Paul Aronsohn <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Neighbor,
Election Day is just around the corner … and the campaign to build Ridgewood’s first parking deck has been gaining support. As I walk through town and talk to literally thousands of residents, I can tell you that people increasingly realize that a “yes” vote for the parking referendum is a “yes” vote for Ridgewood.
And in addition to the many individual residents who have expressed strong support, we now have three important letters of endorsement – all supporting this initiative, all encouraging a “yes” vote on Tuesday.
§ The Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee § The Ridgewood Historic Preservation Commission § The Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce President Without question, this is all very exciting.
Unfortunately, however, an anonymous mailer was sent to many Ridgewood homes this weekend – an anonymous mailer that was sent from a Newark Post Office and that is full of misinformation and distortions. And although no one was willing to take responsibility for the mailer, the language in it is strikingly similar to that used recently by others trying to undermine this important project for the Village.
So, let me set the record straight on some of the key issues being discussed:
ü Parking revenues – NOT taxes – would pay for this parking deck. We have commissioned an independent financial analysis that demonstrates that we could easily pay for a parking deck using only parking revenues. Here is that analysis.
ü There would be NO charge for parking on Sundays. We don’t charge for parking on Sundays. Period. That’s true now. That will be true if/when we build a parking deck.
ü There have been NO decisions taken with respect to meter times or rates. The independent financial analysis gave us a menu of options for paying for a parking deck without raising taxes. It would be up to the Council – with public input – to decide on any rate or time changes.
ü The size and appearance of the proposed parking deck have NOT yet been decided. Our design team – with a great deal of public input – has been developing renderings of what a parking deck could look like, but we have NOT decided on size or appearance. Those two issues would be decided after the vote on the referendum.
ü Tuesday’s referendum question is ONLY asking if residents support financing and building a garage on the Hudson Street lot. Nothing more. Nothing less. You will NOT be voting on the size, look or any other aspect of a proposed parking deck. Here is a copy of the official ballot question.
ü The anonymous mailer greatly DISTORTS the size of the proposed parking deck. As noted on the mailer in very small letters, “artist rendering, not to exact scale.”
ü A parking deck would likely lead to a significant DECREASE in traffic. According to our independent traffic consultant, a parking deck on the Hudson Street lot would have a very positive affect on the overall downtown traffic situation. The primary reason for this is that a parking deck would eliminate the need to drive around and around and around looking for a parking space. ü A parking deck would benefit ALL Ridgewood residents … commuters as well as shoppers/diners. The Council would have to decide how best to use the parking deck, but we would likely set aside some parking for commuters and some for those shopping, dining and working downtown.
ü Tuesday’s vote provides ALL Ridgewood residents with a unique opportunity. As outlined in my letter-to-the-editor, we have an opportunity to do something smart, important and wonderful for our community.
As always, thank you….
Best,
Paul
Paul Aronsohn, Mayor Village of Ridgewood @paularonsohn
Ridgewood NJ, It seems that many who voted YES, voted ‘yes” for more parking. More parking yes , but not a monstrosity of a parking high-rise building being proposed for the Hudson Street parking lot. Many feel they were misled into thinking that a particular design had not been decided upon, even though this giant megastructure was the only option that was ever, in reality, on the table.
Everyone is quite aware of the peak demand parking shortage in our Village. The above is an image of what the proposed garage would look like. As you can see if dwarfs all the surrounding buikdings. If this monstrosity of a garage is not what you signed up for, when you voted YES for parking, please attend this Wednesdays Village Council meeting and let the Mayor and members of the Village Council know that this mega garage may work for Hackensack or Ft Lee but definitely does not fit in to the character of our Village. Furthermore, plans for any garage should be held off until the 4 impact studies are concluded. What is the point of having impact studies on traffic, etc… if our Village Council pushes through this huge garage.
Special Public Meeting – Multi-Family Housing – January 8, 2016
Ridgewood NJ , There will be a Village Council Special Public Meeting held on Friday, January 8, 2016 @ 5PM in the Court Room at Village Hall. Various Consultants will be presenting proposals for the 4 Multi-Family Housing Studies covering; fiscal impact, traffic, education & municipal infrastructure.
The firms that are competing to conduct the special impact studies that residents overwhelmingly requested on September 30th. The question arises is ,”why would you schedule such a meeting at 5:00pm on a Friday unless you did not want residents to attend?”
Contrary to the view point promoted by the Deputy Mayor , most residents do have a jobs. Jobs are particular necessary to pay the enormous amount of federal ,state and local taxes . No one who can afford to live in Ridgewood who works in the private sector gets home that early .
The other issue that would make sense would be to delay any decision regarding the parking garage until the comprehensive studies are done. It makes absolutely no sense to hire an outside company to conduct the studies without including the proposed garage.
an article worth reading and so relevant to what Ridgewood is going through right now..
PUBLISHED BY LESLIE WRIGHT ON DECEMBER 22, 2015
At this time of year, when we gather with loved ones, often returning to, or remembering, the places we hold dear, the reflections of Orton Family Foundation Trustee Ed McMahon on the importance of place seem especially apropos. Ed is senior resident fellow at Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C.
We live in a world of rapid change: immigration, new technologies, global trade, instantaneous communication, changing consumer tastes, rapid movement of people, ideas, and goods, etc. However, if I have learned anything over 25 years in the community planning arena, it is this: change is inevitable, but the destruction of community character and identity is not. Progress does not demand degraded surroundings. Communities can grow without destroying the things people love.
Place is more than just a location or a spot on a map. A sense of place is a unique collection of qualities and characteristics—visual, cultural, social and environmental—that provides meaning to a location. Sense of place is what makes one location (e.g. your hometown) different from another location (e.g. my hometown), but sense of place is also that which makes our physical surroundings valuable and worth caring about.
Land use planners spend too much time focusing on numbers—the number of units per acre, the number of cars per hour, the number of floors per building—and not enough time on the values, customs, characteristics, and quirks that make a place worth caring about. Unfortunately, many American communities are suffering the social, economic, and environmental consequences of being places that simply aren’t worth caring about. The more one place (one location) comes to be just like every other place, the less reason there is to visit or invest. Just take tourism, for example: the more a community comes to look like every other community, the less reason there is to visit. On the other hand, the more a community does to enhance its distinctive identity, whether that is natural, cultural, or architectural, the more reasons there are to visit. Why? Because tourism is about visiting places that are different, unusual, or unique; if one place was just like everyplace else, there would be no reason to go anyplace.
Similarly, when it comes to 21st century economic development, a key concept is “community differentiation.” If you can’t differentiate your community from any other community, you have no competitive advantage. Capital is footloose in a global economy. Natural resources, highway access, locations along a river or rail line have all become less important. Richard Florida, a leading economic development authority and author of The Creative Class, has said, “How people think of a place is less tangible, but more important than just about anything else.”
Why all of a sudden all these crazy irresponsible planning boondoggles..
This is a serious management issue in the Town of Ridgewood.All these oversized non conforming parking decks and MIS sited ball fields / With Light Incursions into an existing neighborhood have a common theme..
Our Town is out of control with some pushing own Agendas and telling homeowners to just move over and suck it up. Despite serious impact to property Rights and values as well as dangerous mis planning. Who will pay the lawsuits for injuries fatalities for misplaced expansion accidents.
boon·dog·gle ˈbo͞onˌdäɡəl,-ˌdôɡəl/
NORTH AMERICAN
informal noun
1. work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value. “writing off the cold fusion phenomenon as a boondoggle best buried in literature”
verb
1. waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.
Regardless of where you stand on development in Ridgewood, one thing we can all agree on is that our Village Council must be held to the highest of standards when it comes to their voting practices and in their commitment to fulfilling their votes.
With this reasoning, on January 6th, our council must table any vote on the parking garage until the comprehensive traffic study is completed.
Let me explain:
On September 30th, the Village Council voted (4-1) in favor of doing 4 comprehensive studies regarding the high density housing issue.
Clerk Mailander’s vote call: “Amended version that we just read: multiple studies, traffic and infrastructure study, financial study, and a school impact study. It’s a comprehensive traffic study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen, CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire village. OK.”
Regarding what Councilwoman Knudsen specifically “outlined”:
“There has never been a comprehensive traffic study done of the CBD proper or the adjacent communities as a whole. It becomes incredibly relevant when we consider that there are four large parcels being considered for high density development with the north walnut redevelopment zone assisted living facility …… and coupled with the fact that we are engaging in ….a parking garage that would add over 300 vehicles to an already narrow, difficult, congested intersection of Broad Street and Hudson. When you take all of these collectively it really becomes imperative that we do our due diligence and ….get this right….so I think to that question, “What traffic studies have been done?” I think “not enough.”
Seeking clarification on December 9th, I asked Councilwoman Knudsen if it was her “intent” on September 30th that the parking garage be included in this traffic study before the parking garage was to be built.
Her response:
“My intention was that it was under the assumption that it had not been built…I was clear with that intention..Each of these very large projects combined had the potential impact and needed to be studied before we moved forward.”
Based on Councilwoman Knudsen’s original outline of the traffic part of the vote from September 30th and substantiated by the above statement on December 9th, the Village Council has no further recourse but to table any voting or other steps toward choosing a parking garage size, applying for a bond, etc, until the traffic study is first completed.
Having a few extra months of study with regard to the parking garage will only improve the traffic/parking situation and pave the way for perhaps even smarter solutions. For example, resident Rick Boesch observed that the parking app could be GPS enabled to show the available parking spaces at any given moment,thereby helping the situation immensely.
It is only of benefit to Ridgewood that our Village Council follows through with their vote on September 30thin regards to the proposed parking garage, so as to ensure that development in our CBD is handled in a smarter, less expensive and less piecemeal fashion.
DECEMBER 11, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Ridgewood Council on Wednesday unanimously introduced a $12.3 million bond ordinance for the construction of a proposed parking deck at the Hudson Street lot.
A public hearing on the bond ordinance is scheduled for Jan. 6.
Despite the governing body’s full support of the ordinance introduction, two council members expressed their reservations about certain aspects of the parking garage proposal, most notably the lack of a definitive plan.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, who was concerned that the public may not know all of the details of the potential parking garage, said that she supported the ordinance introduction “with the understanding that I’m doing a reach out and getting a lot of information and public input as to their understanding of the structure, and making sure the financials are absolutely intact.”
Councilman Michael Sedon also noted his desire for additional information to be distributed among Ridgewood residents and members of the Central Business District (CBD).
“Once a concrete plan is in place with rates and enforcement times, I’d like to go out to send a letter to the business community letting them know exactly what the plan is, so if there are any questions or blowback, we can deal with that beforehand, and not after the fact.”
He further explained his reasons, recalling a Village Council decision several years ago to increase the sewage discharge fees assessed to CBD businesses. According to Sedon, “nobody seemed to know or care about [the fee increase when it was discussed].
“Once the bills hit the mailboxes,” he added, “there were 50 or 60 angry businesses owners here.”
Sedon said he hopes to avoid a repeat occurrence of that.
DECEMBER 7, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015, 11:11 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Planning Board members continued their review of the village master plan at last Tuesday night’s meeting, focusing much of the discussion on the housing element of the plan.
As part of his presentation, Village Planner Blais Brancheau explained the review process, noting that the state mandates that municipalities update their master plans at least once every decade.
“State law requires that planning boards, at least every 10 years, require a re-examination of the master plan of the village,” he said. “The purpose is to make sure that those documents are still current and not dated.”
However, he said that the plan should be updated more often than what is required.
Brancheau also went through Ridgewood’s master plan, explaining a few changes he recommended to the board.
“The purpose of the re-exam is not to identify every possible solution to the direction that we would like to pursue, but to identify what we can in the time that we have,” he said. “This doesn’t preclude identifying additional changes or issues when the re-exam is finished.”
