Please join us tomorrow night for the next Planning Board Meeting Available
Tuesday, April 21 at Village Hall (not the HS)
Deliberations to begin at approximately 8:45 to 9 pm.
(The meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but the discussion on High Density Housing is not the first item on the agenda)
Agenda: The Planning Board will continue deliberating and Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, will provide some detail regarding issues put forth by Planning Board members last month. We are hoping Blais addresses concerns raised by several Planning Board members — concerns also shared by CBR.
To refresh your memory, below is a reprint of our reap from the 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting:
CBR’s recap of 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting
CBR Note:
The first condition of this amendment, aside from density and height issues, is changing the usage in the zones from commercial to residential. Keep in mind that when the planning board members state that they support the usage change, that does not necessarily indicate that they approve the densities that are proposed. Changing the zoning in an area of our CBD from commercial to residential is a big step in itself, as presumably once residential is built, there is no turning back to commercial usage on that site.
Once usage is addressed, the next issue is how much residential do you allow? Currently, most residential properties in the CBD have commercial usage on the first floor. Under this amendment, commercial usage on the first floor is no longer required. Allowing housing in our downtown at density higher than the 12 units per acre that is currently permitted makes sense, and anything over 12 units an acre constitutes “higher density.” Considering that the average density that currently exists in our downtown now is actually 22-24 units per acre, CBR would be quite comfortable with setting 22 or 24 units per acre as the new limit for density. We feel that doubling those numbers is too much, and that 35-40 units an acre and beyond would significantly alter the character of our Village. It is very important that our planning board finds the right balance in this amendment.
CBR ReCap:
We took notes on each of the Planning Board member’s comments and would like to share them here. Our notes are not direct quotes.
Absent from this meeting was Nancy Bigos. She has yet to weigh in.
Charles Nalbantian, the Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees that the usage (housing rather than commercial) is good, but said the “devil is in the details.” He expressed reservations about the height and RSIS (state mandated parking requirements), and indicated that he is not sure yet about the density.
Richard Joel, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees with the usage (housing in our CBD) and believes it will promote the general welfare. He feels that we need to develop these under-utilized sites and there is a need for a variety of housing. He said that he doesn’t know what the right balance between height and density should be.
Kevin Riley, supports the use of housing in our downtown but is concerned with height and density. He said he would like to see the density reduced from what is currently put forth in the amendment.
Wendy Dockray, thinks concept of multifamily housing is a good one but has her “yellow flags” or reservations. She is not sure this is actually what seniors are looking for in terms of space and affordability. She is concerned that the height and scale will negatively impact the historical character of Ridgewood. She said going from 12 units per acre to 40-50 is a “huge jump” and she is not sure if building 40 – 50 units an acre is necessary or appropriate to achieve housing. She is also concerned with the fiscal impact and noted that our schools are “at capacity.”
David Thurston, supports the amendment AS IS. He doesn’t want to “play chicken” with developers by giving them less than what they want. He said this is his business and if the Planning Board comes back with less than the amendment, it may not be “economically sound” for the developers. He is in favor of the 40 – 50 units in our CBD and is worried about what our town will look like in 40 years if we don’t allow the developers to build.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, not in favor of the amendment as it is written. She is concerned with the density, height, impact of adding more pedestrians that will impede traffic, open space and the changing character of Ridgewood. She said the she would like to see developers move forward with something, but would like to see a balance.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn, feels this is an opportunity for Ridgewood. He feels like we have enough information to make a decision and we should move forward soon. He said that people who don’t want their big houses could move to these apartments, but we need to strike the right balance. His stated that his issues are 1) density, 2) amenities (he would like to find a way to incentivize the developers to build high end apartments), 3) housing for special needs residents, 4) parking (he wondered if developers not providing sufficient parking could be forced to pay money into a fund to use for public parking), and 5) can separate amendments be crafted to address each zone individually?
Michele Peters, concerned about the density. Not in favor of the current amendment. She questioned whether the parking that was being considered as part of the proposals in the redevelopment zone on N. Walnut would alleviate some of the parking deficit in Ridgewood, but was told the deficit is beyond what could be added in the redevelopment zone.
Isabella Altano, (1st alternate on PB) wants to see more consideration given to the impacts. She feels we need a lower density. She asked about the potential costs to our infrastructure, if projected school enrollment could be provided that included approval of 400+ new apartments and what could be done to address our open space deficiency.
Khidir Abdalla, (2nd alternate on PB) said that we shouldn’t be afraid of change and supports the amendment. He is not concerned with the density and scale and feels that this type of housing fits in well to an URBAN downtown. He feels we need increased density in order to get pedestrian traffic that is needed to revitalize our downtown.
Thank you for your continued support.
Citizensfora BetterRidgewood
citizensforabetterridgewood@aol.com
