Tag: Ridgewood master plan

April 7,2016
Village Council Candidate Jeff Voigt

Ridgewood NJ, This past Tuesday’s vote by the planning board sent a clear message to the Village of Ridgewood residents; that healthcare trumps the health and well-being of a community.  Pete McKenna of the Concerned Residents of Ridgewood said it best back in May 2014: The Village will be inextricably burdened in providing a benefit to the region. Is this fair?

The planning board majority (6 in total out of 9; Aronsohn, Nalbantian, Reilly, Joel, Abdalla, Thurston) who voted in favor of the settlement stated that the Village runs the risk of losing a further lawsuit and as well, if the Village loses the lawsuit would keep in effect the 2010 Master plan H zone, a more egregious plan.   However, in the settlement that was negotiated between the planning board and Valley, the terms appeared to fall squarely in favor of Valley, with Valley reducing its size (bulk) by only 3% (and gaining most of what it wanted – to the detriment of the health and well-being of the Village).  The total floor area is now going from 562,000 sq ft. (of hospital above grade structures) to over 1,024,500 square ft. of above grade structures which includes: 653,500 sq ft. for the hospital; 95,000 sq ft. for enclosed rooftop areas; 245,000 sq ft. for parking decks; and 31,400 sq ft. for atriums and courtyards.  I will get back to this.

The term inherently beneficial was used frequently throughout the Whispering Woods hearings (4 in total) and was used as a “stick” by Valley in gaining the expansion approval by the Planning Board.  It is unclear to many whether the concept of inherently beneficial applies to zoning or planning (including me).   However, it was used generously through-out these hearings. An inherently beneficial use of land serves the public good and promotes the general welfare.  As many may know, courts view hospitals under a more favorable light than other types of development (because it is an inherently beneficial use) and due to this, Village concerns about the size of the development may be discounted.  However, courts also view schools as an inherently beneficial used of land.   This was lost in the sauce but mentioned by Lorraine Reynolds back in May 2014.   So a question becomes: Does healthcare trump
education?  The negotiating team lead by Charles Nalbantian (Chairman of the Village Planning Board), who developed the terms of this agreement, thought so.

The Village’s Master Plan has suffered significantly in this process and; as well with other issues that have faced the Village including high density housing.  The primary objective as stated in Ridgewood’s Master Plan is the preservation of Village residential in residential neighborhoods.  Further, as defined in the Master Plan, building should continue to respect the neighborhood character and the rights of adjacent property owners.  These rights (while not explicitly stated in the plan) likely include quality of life, safety, security and a sense of belonging to a community.  Interestingly, these rights affect one’s health and healthcare. These rights have been violated by developers and by Valley.

John Hersperger, Village resident, at the 4/5 Whispering Woods hearing stated the following:  Developers through the use of Ordinance 3066 have ripped the Ridgewood Master Plan to shreds for the purpose of their own self- interests and not the Villages.  Developers as a group, petitioned the planning board at the same time and turned what should have been zoning issues into planning issues.   I would agree with John.  This Ordinance needs to be modified significantly or repealed.  The Valley decision by the planning board could not have come at a worse time for Valley and the Village because of this.

The 3 dissenting views on the planning board by Susan Knudsen, Wendy Dockray, and Debbie Patire all concluded the same thing – the Valley decision does irreparable harm to our Master Plan; calls into question what really is beneficial and; whether a hospital interests should trump the well-being of a Village.

Wendy also stated that the Planning board on behalf of the Village should stand up and fight for what is right, despite the risks.  If we go on to a lawsuit, there likely would be other opportunities to negotiate terms which would benefit both parties.

I was frankly surprised, with having several lawyers on the planning board, that no case law was cited.  A recent NJ Supreme Court case in Princeton called into question the concept of an inherently beneficial use of land by a hospital and whether functions in a hospital such as administration, billing, and marketing should be considered inherently beneficial.  If these are not inherently beneficial, they could be moved to other locations.  If this “concept” were applied to Valley it might lessen the bulk of the Valley expansion in a meaningful way.

Here is what I would do if elected to the council: 1) Propose modification to or repeal  of Ordinance 3066; 2) Work with Valley and the CRR (if possible, as there is a 5/9 court date on the second count of the lawsuit – Valley v Village Council and the council may not have any ability to negotiate based on the results of this case) in crafting a fair and equitable resolution to the Valley expansion.

A follow on blog will address the issue of how Valley might improve its image with the Village.