photo by Boyd Loving
Dear Friends,
Many of you have been asking how the Planning Board meeting went last night, especially given the VP debate going on at the same time. So, pasted at the bottom of this email is the speech I gave.
Before I get to it, I think it’s important to note that Planning Board Chairman Richard Joel attempted to stonewall my presentation of this speech. At the only public comment during the meeting, it was explained that only items not on the agenda would be permitted to be discussed. When I stood at the podium and asked whether I would be able to speak during the point in the agenda, when a statement would be made regarding the filed resident complaint (dated Sept. 16th), Chairman Joel said he hadn’t yet decided if I would be allowed.
It was only after several other residents, Mayor Knudsen and members of the Planning Board spoke out to allow my speech did Chairman Joel finally permit it.
This brings into question Chairman Joel’s stewardship as to whose interests he really represents.
While I do not have the exact text here, the statement that was read aloud by Chairman Joel regarding the resident complaint basically says that more consideration needs to be done before the Planning Board can adequately address it. My concern is that this is a delay tactic and that under Chairman Joel’s guidance, the Complaint will not be put on the agenda to be voted on. I hope I am wrong about this. Ridgewood residents deserve a hearing to investigate what ‘mistakes’ happened with regard to the High Density housing issue.
So, here’s the speech I gave along with a video of its presentation:
Mayor Knudsen and Members of the Planning Board, as you know, it is your duty to represent the interests of the residents of Ridgewood.
As such, you have an obligation to put the brakes on the current High Density site plan review and begin an investigation based on the complaint that was signed by myself and other residents, dated September 16th. Within your bylaws, you have the ability to do so and to investigate the conflicts of interest and mistakes alleged in our motion. If you find they are true, you can then seek to overturn a vote that may have been wrongly attained and created so much discord in Ridgewood.
These are some of the questions we demand investigated:
1) Why didn’t our former deputy mayor and planning board member, recuse himself from all the Planning Board work sessions leading up to the formal hearings? The same conflict existed then. How could he advocate so fervently for the ordinances during work sessions and then suddenly find a conflict of interest when the hearings started.
2) Why was an unvetted/unsubstantiated letter from the housing advocacy group, Fair Share Housing Center written into the record as fact/evidence by the former Planning Board Attorney for the High Density Housing vote in June, 2015? Under the Planning Board attorney’s own guidelines, it was clearly hearsay. And why wasn’t the public or Planning Board members given the opportunity to question the Fair Share Housing rep, Kevin Walsh?
3) Contiguous to the timing of the filing of our Motion of Complaint, one of your members who is mentioned as having a conflict of interest in the complaint, strangely resigned his planning board seat. Is this just a mere coincidence? Why did he wait so long and step down long after the vote?
Members of the Planning Board, your attorney may advise you to bundle this complaint with the pending lawsuit by RCRD. However, to do so would be a disservice to the residents of the village as this complaint is completely separate from that lawsuit and should be handled as such. This is not, at this time, a legal matter. It is a matter of proper and fair governing process for Ridgewood. And the grounds for our motion are so strong.
Your attorney might argue that residents should have made the motion within some type of limited window, or that current Land Use law may be in conflict with some of our Planning Board’s Bylaws. But… (1) the village never gave residents access to the Bylaws, nor made residents aware of the remedies available thereunder (despite all the clear cut opposition and complaint of conflict), and (2) the Bylaws definitely do not clearly command the Board to adhere to a 45 day limit.
Rather, the Bylaws state:
Any motions to rehear an application or portion thereof made after the 45 days following the publication of decision shall be considered strictly by leave and discretion of the Board in consideration of the protected interests of the applicant as balanced against the public interest.
We the residents believe the public interest here is greater. Your attorney would have to argue that the developers have a greater interest here than the village or its residents. That’s the criteria and that would be dangerous.
Furthermore, at this time your residents are not yet asking for a “rehearing” or anything that might be argued to conflict with land use law. We are asking, as is our defined right under your own Bylaws 2.13 and 7.22, for an investigation and public hearings to investigate some very material Conflicts and Mistakes that tainted the process and harmed the “public interest.” The PB can decide if an Application “rehearing” is necessary later, after the hearings regarding Planning Board “process”!
Allowing these conflicts and mistakes to stand, uninvestigated, creates a dangerous new precedent for Ridgewood, where village-changing decisions may be made with improper influence and/or error. It is in the Public Interest to review this and, if issues are found, set the right precedent to make sure it doesn’t happen again!
Dana H. Glazer
