DECEMBER 18, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Village Council agreed last week to conduct four impact studies related to proposed multifamily housing projects in Ridgewood.
“It is our intention, per previous conversations, to go forward with four impact studies to look at issues like financial impact, school impact, (municipal) infrastructure as well as traffic,” Mayor Paul Aronsohn said.
These studies, which many residents have been calling for, will be performed by various consultants, according to Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld.
“We’re looking at those four things,” she said, “and we’re telling the consultants that it’s based upon realistic build-out analysis for the four sites under current vs. proposed zoning.”
“We developed some of our own input and we went out to eight potential providers of this kind of information,” Sonenfeld said.
“The current status is that we have one provider who’s provided a very preliminary proposal that includes all four areas and includes some reliance on previously obtained data, and that’s BFJ/Urbanomics,” she said.
Sonenfeld said that other companies submitted proposals for separate areas of study.
“We reached out to Ross Haber in education; we reached out to Heyer Gruel Associates for fiscal impact and education; we reached out to Maser Consulting for traffic and we are in the process of reaching out to the RBA Group for traffic as well,” she said.
She explained that if all goes according to plan, the consultants will come before the council during a special public work session and make presentations before the next council meeting on Jan. 6th.
BID NO. 028-2015 – WATER BILLING AND DATA COLLECTION/PROCESSING SERVICES
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
Sealed bid proposals will be received by the Village of Ridgewood, in the Courtroom, Level 4 of Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey 07451 on Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. prevailing time, and then publicly opened and read aloud for following project:
BID NO. 028-2015 – WATER BILLING AND DATA COLLECTION/PROCESSING SERVICES
The work shall include all of the equipment and material necessary to perform this task and in accordance with the requirements of the Village of Ridgewood, New Jersey 07451 as needed and described in these specifications.
Specifications and bid forms may be obtained by mail or in person from the office of the Director of Operations, Ridgewood Water, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey 07451, telephone (201) 670-5521, for a non-refundable fee of $10.00, per set of bid documents. Documents may be examined or picked up in person between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Operations Division, Ridgewood Water, Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey 07451, Monday through Friday. Prospective bidders requesting bid documents be mailed to them shall be responsible for providing their own postage/delivery service remuneration. No Specifications and/or Proposal forms shall be given out after 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 2015.
The contractual obligation of the Village of Ridgewood under this Contract for these items is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for this Contract can be made.
Prices quoted must be net and exclusive of all Federal, State and Local Sales and Excise Taxes. Bids may be submitted prior to the bid opening in person or by mail, addressed to the Office of the Village Clerk. The Village assumes no responsibility for loss or non-delivery of any bid sent to it prior to the Bid opening.
Each bid must be enclosed in a sealed envelope with the name of the bidder thereon and endorsed, BID responding to BID NO. 028-2015 – WATER BILLING AND DATA COLLECTION/PROCESSING SERVICES, Do Not Open Until December 9, 2015 at 10:30 AM and must be accompanied by all required forms.
Any award or awards may be made at a later or subsequent time or meeting of the Village Council. All required schedules, that is required forms are to be submitted on the forms attached to the bid documents. No other forms will be accepted.
The successful bidder shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Prevailing Wage Act, as determined by the New Jersey Department of Labor. All contractors, their subcontractors, and material suppliers shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Public Works Contractor Registration Act, pursuant to Public Law 1999 Chapter 238 and the Contractor Business Registration Program, pursuant to Public Law 2004 Chapter 57.
The successful bidder shall furnish and deliver to the Village of Ridgewood a performance and payment bond (Schedule F) in the amount of 100 percent of the accepted bid amount as security for the faithful performance of the Contract. Additionally, the successful bidder shall furnish policies or Certificates of Insurance required by the Contract. In default thereof, said checks and/or bonds and the amount represented thereby shall be forfeited to the Village of Ridgewood as liquidated damages, not as a penalty.
Proposals submitted by Bidders and/or Bidder’s Insurance Company(ies) not chartered in the State of New Jersey, must be accompanied by proper certificate(s) from the Secretary of State, indicating that such Bidders, Bidder’s Insurance Company(ies), and/or Surety Company(ies) is (are) authorized to do business in the State of New Jersey. The Village of Ridgewood reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any informality or to accept a bid which, in its judgment best serves the interest of the Village. No bids may be withdrawn for a period of sixty-days (60) after the date and time set for the opening of bids.
“BIDDERS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF P.L.1975, C. 127. (NJAC 17:27) regarding Affirmative Action, and Executive Order No. 11246 regarding equal employment opportunity, as amended”. A complete statement as to these requirements is included in the specifications.
By Order of the Village Manager Publication date: November 20, 2015
Ridgewood NJ, Ridgewood Water will be performing a water system flushing beginning November 30th in Glen Rock and Ridgewood .Hydrant Flushing will proceed late at night at velocities sufficient enough to remove naturally occurring minerals .Each hydrant will be flushed from 5 to 60 minutes . Residents may experience water discoloration . Work will begin at 9pm and finish by 430am the next day . Residents will be notified by reverse Robo call
Hydrant Flushing – Update
Hydrant flushing in Ridgewood was suspended this week and will continue starting on Monday, November 30th, weather permitting. Below is the revised Public Service Announcement : Click Here
NOVEMBER 13, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Better planning, more trust needed
To the Editor:
Sept. 30 was a great night for Ridgewood. Hundreds of residents bore witness to our council approving, by 4-1 vote, four important studies required to make a truly informed decision on a high-density housing amendment that could change the character of our village forever. Based on a motion by Councilman Sedon, amended by Councilwoman Knudsen, studies for financial impacts, school impacts, infrastructure and a comprehensive traffic review, were all approved.
For the first time in years, residents felt that their voices were being heard. Rather than the frustratingly expected, rushed approval of the out-of-scale high-density ordinances, we instead heard a vote that began restoring our trust.
Unfortunately, at this Monday’s meeting, our council took a scary turn towards breaking that newfound trust. Residents in attendance witnessed several members — Aronsohn, Hauck and Pucciarelli — offer commentary questioning the council’s commitment to the studies, with an angle seemingly against prompt commissioning. It further came to light that no work has commenced towards planning any of the studies, despite the matter’s urgency.
Further disturbing were statements by several council members indicating that they couldn’t recall what studies they voted for on Sept. 30, despite the vote’s place in public record. Interestingly, all the residents in attendance knew the vote. A review of the Sept. 30 video shows that all council members were fully aware of the motion and were given opportunity for further clarification. By the time the vote occurred, there were no such clarification requests and the “multiple studies” motion was put forth by the village clerk: “Infrastructure Study,” “Financial Study,” “The School Impact Study,” and “a Comprehensive Traffic Study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village.”
Knudsen, Sedon, Aronsohn and Hauck voted “Yes.” Pucciarelli voted “No.”
These studies are so important because our Planning Board, despite years of deliberation, strategically missed the mark, never “planning” in a comprehensive manner. Their process was too reactionary to the zoning-change applications. Studies used were too site-specific for proper master planning, leaving many questions unanswered in a process akin to spot zoning.
Regarding one study, Councilwoman Knudsen explained: “… there has never been a comprehensive traffic study done of the Central Business District proper, the adjacent communities and/or the village as a whole. It becomes incredibly relevant when we consider that there are four large parcels being considered for high-density development, coupled with the North Walnut Redevelopment Zone with an assisted living facility of … 76 units per acre, upwards of 98 (units). And coupled with the fact that we are pursuing a parking garage that will add over 300 vehicles to an already narrow, difficult, congested corner of Broad Street and Hudson. So when you take all these collectively, it really becomes imperative that we conduct our due diligence and get this right. So, I think that, to the question: What traffic studies have been done? Not enough.”
“Not enough” is not good enough. Ridgewood needs better. Better planning. Better process and a better foundation for trust.
Please promptly commission these incredibly important studies.
Ridgewood NJ , Several residents in the area of South Monroe Street and Washington Place reported to The Ridgewood Blog’s tip hotline that a vehicle displaying markings of RIDGEWOOD WATER was being used by Ms. Tracy Jeffrey, the Village’s new Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Jeffrey was observed issuing written leaf collection policy warnings late this week to residents in leaf pick up area “D.”
Vehicles assigned to RIDGEWOOD WATER employees are paid for with revenues generated from RIDGEWOOD WATER subscribers. A pending lawsuit by the municipalities of Glen Rock, Midland Park, and Wyckoff suggests that the Village of Ridgewood is improperly using these revenues to support operations exclusive to the Village of Ridgewood. Ms. Jeffrey’s use of a RIDGEWOOD WATER vehicle may be a case in point. At least two of the tipsters who left messages on The Ridgewood Blog tip hotline questioned the connection, if any, Ms. Jeffrey’s code enforcement work has with RIDGEWOOD WATER.
Ridgewood NJ, I know people have been concerned about their “re-calculated” Ridgewood Water bills, but the mismanagement is worse than I thought. I’ve paid my bills, and while they do talk about them being “estimated” – this is just ridiculous! If it is not illegal it is surely unethical! Has anyone pursued this issue?
They assured us they are owed the full amount billed – it not being THEIR fault that they didn’t have the manpower to do anything but estimates for 6 or 7 years! Customers not changing their phone systems for better monitoring to suit Water’s purposes is not an excuse. Where is the genuine attempt at a public awareness campaign? This is outrageous. I’d also like to know if this new calculation is based on current rates. Have those rates been the same for the last 7 or 8 years? At which rate is the catch up bill measured? With each re-calculated bill should come a full reconciliation of each account from when it was first considered underpaid. They insisted they are indeed entitled to the whole amount and offered us a 24 installment payment plan. I’ve since heard from someone else that had a similar problem that he too called to raise the issue and was offered a 15% discount over 5 years… I’d love to know who rates a sweet deal and who doesn’t!
If anyone has an opinion or has dealt with this, please enlighten me. I am always very supportive of all things Ridgewood, even when I’ve had to give the benefit of the doubt – but this is Not Right! Even if every re-calculation turned out to be correct – this is no way to run a business!! Who is “minding the store” ?!
Effective Thursday, October 8, 2015, all water restrictions will be lifted. Even though rainfall in our area remains below normal, lower temperatures and the onset of autumn are expected to limit the peaks in demand for water that severely stressed the distribution system this summer. The combination of Stage 4 restrictions and stricter enforcement resulted in a successful outcome – we thank our residents who did comply with Stage 4 restrictions and encourage all to make water conservation a permanent part of their lifestyles. Ridgewood Water will be investigating ways to encourage efficient water use and will be seeking the input of residents from all of the communities we serve.
In the last couple of days we did have a chlorine incident that I would like to explain to you. Just a couple of facts regarding the chlorine agent that we use:
Liquid sodium hypochlorite is standard in the industry for almost 100 years
Its use is mandatory in order to control viruses and bacteria
It is measured in parts per million
Our wells are set to shut down at 3.5 parts per million
Chlorine begins to impact taste and smell at 2 parts per million
DEP guidelines set 4 parts per million as the maximum residual
EPA guidelines require notification to consumers within 30 days
Ridgewood’s water was running at a high of 5 parts per million at some point during Monday-Tuesday of this week. It was a direct result of two issues at the Twinney Water Treatment Facility and impacted those homes served by that facility. The first issue was that a pump failed and the second was that the automatic notification and shut down the well was also not operational. Since it is impractical to identify the exact limits of the affected area, the entire Village community was notified as a precaution.
Ridgewood Water followed all necessary DEP and EPA protocol including notifications and the DEP indicated that it was our decision to flush the system and that this was not a violation. The system was flushed and Twinney was again operational by 5:00 yesterday.
There is nothing that suggests that there was a hazardous public health issue…….however, what I believe could have been done better is a customer service issue and that is more effective communication with our residents. Although technically and legally communications were handled well within guidelines, we should be better than that. And I apologize for that. We did conduct a post mortem this morning with all staff involved and have identified steps in the communication process that can be strengthened including making sure that the correct Ridgewood employee is conducting the communications and that we are quicker to notify the public.
If you did not receive a reverse call about this incident please click here to sign up for future calls.
One more important notification
System Flushing:
Ridgewood Water will be performing system maintenance beginning on October 19, 2015. This work will include the operation of fire hydrants at high velocity which may stir up minerals that have previously precipitated out of the water. This may temporarily discolor the water. The operation of the hydrants will be conducted late at night to minimize effects on consumers. There are no health concerns associated with the minerals that get stirred up, but residents are urged to avoid laundering clothing during the work. Ridgewood Water will notify residents in specific areas of impending work using the Swiftreach calling system. You may register to receive these calls by clicking on the SwiftH2O link on our website homepage at water.ridgewoodnj.net. Maps showing the active work zones will be posted on the website and will be provided to local officials. You may call our Operating Center with questions at 201-670-5524. We thank you for your patience during this temporary inconvenience as we work to improve your customer experience.
Best,
Roberta Sonenfeld
Village Manager
201-670-5500, ext. 203
Ridgewood Water has received a number of inquiries about chlorine in the water supply. Equipment that feeds chlorine as the water leaves the
Twinny Treatment Facility pumped a higher amount than usual resulting in concentrations as high as 5 parts per million where 4 parts per million
is the maximum allowed by regulation.
The Twinny Facility was shut down when the problem was found early this morning. Crews have been flushing the system in areas surrounding this site to reduce these concentrations to the normal level.
Although this impacts only a portion of Ridgewood residents, we are notifying all Ridgewood residents. It is anticipated that the system
will be back to normal by 5 pm today. Please flush your pipes by running your faucets and flushing your toilets. Further
updates will be posted to the Ridgewood Water website at water.ridgewoodnj.net.
1. Call to Order – Mayor
2. Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act
MAYOR: “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided
by a posting on the bulletin board in Village Hall,
by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including the date and time of this meeting.”
3. Roll Call
4. ORDINANCES – PUBLIC HEARING
a. #3489 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish AH-2 Zone District
b. #3490 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish B-3-R Zone District
c. #3491 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish C-R Zone
d. #3492 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish C Zone District
e. #3493 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Amend Various Sections – Multiple Zone Districts and General Affordable Housing Regulations
f. #3500 – Lease of 1057 Hillcrest Road for Recreational/Educational Purposes
5. RESOLUTIONS
15-305 Award Contract – Lease of 1057 Hillcrest Road
15-306 Accept Donation from Ridgewood Baseball/Softball Association (RBSA)
3 DAYS LEFT…..Email council to VOTE NO!Paul Aronsohn – paronsohn@ridgewoodnj.netAlbert Pucciarelli – apucciarelli@…
Ridgewood NJ, Data obtained in response to a written request for public records of the Ridgewood Municipal Court revealed that between September 1, 2015 and September 23, 2015, owners of the below listed properties received summonses for reported violations of the declared Stage IV Water Emergency. Those street addresses listed more than once indicate owners who were recipients of multiple summonses.
The owners of these respective properties should be considered innocent of violating provisions of the declared Stage IV Water Emergency unless they are officially declared guilty by the Ridgewood Municipal Court.
Street Name House number Offense Date Fine Avondale 220 9/10 $65.00 Avondale 241 9/10 $65.00 Banta 537 9/15 $65.00 Barrington 55 9/8 $65.00 Bedford 303 9/11 $65.00 Beechwood 202 9/16 $65.00 Beechwood 375 9/17 $65.00 Bellair 165 9/7 $65.00 Bellair 165 9/9 $65.00 Bellair 165 9/17 $65.00 Bellair 215 9/12 $65.00 Belmont 734 9/14 $65.00 Belmont 756 9/11 $65.00 Berkshire 382 9/6 $65.00 Berkshire 382 9/9 $65.00 Bogert 318 9/21 $65.00 Brookside 18 9/23 $65.00 Brookside 155 9/10 $65.00 Carlton 360 9/16 $65.00 Circle 108 9/9 $65.00 Colonial 445 9/18 $65.00 Colonial 470 9/16 $65.00 Concord 610 9/23 $65.00 Cottage 122 9/23 $65.00 Darby 501 9/10 $65.00 Dorchester 435 9/15 $65.00 E Glen 453 9/16 $65.00 E Ridgewood 797 9/23 $65.00 E Ridgewood 807 9/18 $65.00 E Ridgewood 906 9/17 $65.00 Eastbrook 612 9/21 $65.00 Eastbrook 623 9/21 $65.00 Eastgate 468 9/17 $65.00 Eastgate 487 9/10 $65.00 Eastgate 488 9/10 $65.00 Eastside 332 9/15 $65.00 Fairmount 105 9/10 $65.00 Fairmount 155 9/10 $65.00 Fairmount 201 9/10 $65.00 Fernwood 750 9/21 $65.00 Glenwood 355 9/14 $65.00 Godwin 252 9/23 $65.00 Godwin 305 9/17 $65.00 Greenway 201 9/9 $65.00 Greenway 201 9/13 $65.00 Greenway 201 9/21 $65.00 Greenway 201 9/23 $65.00 Greenway 221 9/9 $65.00 Greenway 285 9/10 $65.00 Grove 500 9/18 $65.00 Grove 508 9/16 $65.00 Grove 519 9/10 $65.00 Grove 615 9/15 $65.00 Hanks 484 9/18 $65.00 Heights 47 9/8 $65.00 Heights 47 9/21 $65.00 Heights 53 9/14 $65.00 Heights 145 9/10 $65.00 Heights 219 9/8 $65.00 Heights 456 9/19 $65.00 Heights 465 9/10 $65.00 Heights 517 9/10 $65.00 Highland 107 9/8 $65.00 Highland 200 9/12 $65.00 Highland 217 9/17 $65.00 Highland 272 9/16 $65.00 Highland 353 9/8 $65.00 Highview 384 9/16 $65.00 Hillcrest 473 9/12 $65.00 Hillcrest 706 9/8 $65.00 Hillcrest 751 9/12 $65.00 Hillcrest 811 9/21 $65.00 Hillcrest 941 9/8 $65.00 Howard 704 9/17 $65.00 Katherine 205 9/8 $65.00 Kenilworth 340 9/4 $65.00 Lincoln 171 9/8 $65.00 Lincoln 203 9/13 $65.00 Linwood 312 9/18 $65.00 Linwood 570 9/16 $65.00 Madison 87 9/8 $65.00 Manor 276 9/13 $65.00 Meadowbrook 443 9/10 $65.00 Melrose 120 9/8 $65.00 Melrose 213 9/8 $65.00 Morningside 608 9/9 $65.00 Mountain 345 9/14 $65.00 N Maple 140 9/10 $65.00 N Monre 368 9/13 $65.00 N Monroe 68 9/16 $65.00 N Monroe 132 9/15 $65.00 N Monroe 761 9/21 $65.00 N Monroe 801 9/22 $65.00 N Pleasant 60 9/23 $65.00 N Pleasant 236 9/23 $65.00 N Van Dien 17 9/18 $65.00 N Van Dien 130 9/17 $65.00 N Van Dien 155 9/17 $65.00 N Van Dien 155 9/23 $65.00 N Van Dien 167 9/9 $65.00 N Van Dien 223 9/23 $65.00 N Van Dien 262 9/18 $65.00 Nagle 553 9/17 $65.00 Norgate 836 9/17 $65.00 North 10 9/16 $65.00 Northern Parkway 151 9/8 $65.00 Orchard 310 9/14 $65.00 Orchard 310 9/16 $65.00 Paul 5 9/19 $65.00 Phelps 234 9/19 $65.00 Phelps 242 9/10 $65.00 Prospect 106 9/17 $65.00 Prospect 145 9/23 $65.00 Prospect 255 9/23 $65.00 Richards 275 9/8 $65.00 Roslyn 902 9/21 $65.00 S Irving 117 9/10 $65.00 S Maple 66 9/16 $65.00 S Pleasant 460 9/18 $65.00 S Pleasant 466 9/8 $65.00 S Van Dien 249 9/17 $65.00 S Van Dien 262 9/13 $65.00 S Van Dien 291 9/6 $65.00 S Van Dien 304 9/10 $65.00 Shelbourne 408 9/11 $65.00 Sheridan 150 9/17 $65.00 Spencer 195 9/8 $65.00 Spring 375 9/23 $65.00 Spring 386 9/18 $65.00 Spring 464 9/18 $65.00 Spring 537 9/10 $65.00 Steilen 203 9/8 $65.00 Sterling 516 9/16 $65.00 Stevens 490 9/13 $65.00 Stratford 820 9/11 $65.00 Sunset 211 9/8 $65.00 The By Way 245 9/13 $65.00 The By Way 260 9/13 $65.00 Union 164 9/8 $65.00 Union 220 9/8 $65.00 Upper 446 9/21 $65.00 Van Dyke 564 9/17 $65.00 W Glen 232 9/17 $65.00 Waiku 225 9/22 $65.00 Walthery 112 9/17 $65.00 Walthery 219 9/17 $65.00 Walthery 351 9/15 $65.00 Wastena 352 9/7 $65.00 Wastena 352 9/8 no entry Wellington 620 9/11 $65.00 Wellington 713 9/21 $65.00 Westgate 301 9/9 $65.00 Willow 319 9/15 $65.00
Ridgewood NJ, If the current water storage tanks, wells, pumps, are not sufficient to meet current summer time peak demands (as Peak summertime demands are not the design standard, Average daily demands are the standard), what would happen with future growth as in the proposed apartments? There might not even be sufficient water supply for average household daily demands, let alone for firefighing. We can forget about outdoor irrigation of any kind completely, and become a cement city.
Additional larger capacity storage tank, wells and pumps, at another location in Ridgewood, should be addressed now. Other towns serviced such as Wyckoff has shown population growth, building expansion since the 1997 water study.
https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/water/08VVFAQs.pdf
Review of 1997 study referenced in 2008 “Valley View Storage Tank Replacement study, indicated “minor additional demand might occur in decade or over several decades, not focusing on future demand should it occur, saying future change would be minimal. The sizing of the Valley View Tank should be a viable solution for many decades into the future.”
“Population growth has not markedly changed in the last 30 – 40 years. The minor amount of growth that has occurred in the last two decades can be characterized as in-filling (e.g. one house is torn down and two or three are built in its place). There is little room for development of any significance throughout the entire system that will have any impact on typical daily demands.
“The project is for regional public good. True, the project more directly services a particular area, but that area houses numerous properties that service the general public good – Ridgewood High School, GW Middle School, Village Hall, the downtown area, Valley Hospital, etc.”
Reference was made to the E.Glen and N. Monroe as possible sight . Study shows there are 4 other tanks with larger capacity 2,000,000 gallons, and 1 tank with 2,5000,000.gallon at locations Wyckoff, Glen Rock, E. Saddle River Rd, Ridgewood. Referenced other locations with lesser capacities.
https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/water/08VVFAQs.pdf
“The Ridgewood Water System is unlike many other systems as it relies on a system of over 45 wells, associated treatment systems, piping, storage and more. These appurtenances have their limits and become extremely stressed when there is noncompliance with watering restrictions during a drought condition”
The candor is indeed refreshing, but it does point out that we are relying on an ancient, decrepit water pumping infrastructure that’s not adequate to our needs. This situation has been ongoing for at least 35 years. Without drastic (Level IV) water restrictions, we run the risk of being unable to fight fires. This is not a particularly extreme drought, but we’re already at the limit of our ability to enforce conservation. And what’s the solution to the problem? Deploy the uniformed services — the ones with the guns — and impose drastic fines
This is not merely oversight; it borders on negligence. It’s exactly the performance we’ve come to expect from public utilities. It’s time to fix this.
Council minutes Work Session ..JANUARY 28, 2009
Valley View Water tank originally was to be 100 foot diameter 1.7 million gallon.
Residents of the Heights got water tank size down to 75 foot 1.13 million gallon
“Mayor Pfund added that he thought that the Ridgewood Water Company actually did a very good job in reaching out to the community. He also congratulated the residents for bringing the size of the tank down from a 1.7 million gallon, 100-foot diameter tank to a 1.13 million gallon, 75-foot diameter tank.”
https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/minutes/WORK1.2809.htm
The council meeting minutes 2/13/2008 – comments from group of 100 Heights residents opposing the 100 ft diameter tank. The chief engineer at that time even stated if it were up to him, he would build the tank even bigger than the originally proposed 100 ft tank.. The resident living adjacent to tank property, has since sold her house 12/2012. google 69 Valley View, adjacent water tank property is 71 – 73 valley view.
https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/minutes/PUBLIC2%201308.htm
As you may or may not know, on September 30th the village council will be continuing the 2 night hearing and voting on the 5 ordinances regarding the high density housing. These ordinances would increase the density allowed from 12 units per acre (current) to 35 units per acre (UPA) in our downtown. Here’s a comparison as to what some other towns in our area allow: Fort Lee 50 UPA, Teaneck 28 UPA, Englewood 12 UPA, Hackensack 22 UPA. If passed, Fort Lee would be the only town in our area, similar in population, with a greater density per acre. I do believe the majority of the town is accepting of development, but on a smaller scale. Maybe 25 units per acre? Do we really want to be built up more than Teaneck? I certainly don’t want to be anywhere near Fort Lee’s density.
The planning board spent approximately 3 years in discussions and 1 1/2 years in a public hearing before voting. The village council had a small portion of their Sept 16 meeting devoted to this and now the council will be coming to the sept 30th meeting with their written statements prepared on how they are voting and why. The Ridgewood News had an editorial last week about “what’s the hurry?”. I have to agree with them. While I don’t want this to drag out, I do want the council to do their due diligence and get all of the facts before they vote. During the Valley hearings at the council level, the council brought in the traffic expert, planner, geotechnical engineer, etc and each council member asked questions of these experts and based their vote on what was discussed at council.
It appears that the majority of the council does not want to bring in any experts. They are ready to vote without asking any questions of any experts as to how this will effect Ridgewood. At the planning board level, a concern about the increase this would bring to our taxes was brought up several times by residents. The discussion was always shot down, because “it is not in the purview of the planning board to consider finances.” In fact, the village planner stated, “residential housing almost always increases taxes, we should not be doing this if we think taxes will go down, but there are other benefits to residential housing.” The council has a much broader scope of items they can discuss, finances being one of them. You may remember that Tom Riche voted yes to the Valley amendment at the PB level, but no to it at the council level. That is because the council is able to look at a broader range of issues. Finances should definitely be discussed.
I would like to see the council bring in several experts in addition to a financial expert. Water must be discussed. I know this year is an exception with the lack of rain, but we have mandatory water restrictions every year. Can you imagine an additional few hundred apartments to supply? I can’t.
Schools must be discussed. The planning board did not have a member of the BOE at their public hearings. The council needs to ask Dr Fishbein to appear at the council hearing to answer questions.
The traffic expert, the engineer, the planner, etc should all be questioned. I do hear the planner will be there, but that’s it.
I don’t know how anyone could possible vote on something so monumental without questioning all of these experts to see what the impacts will be for Ridgewood.
I urge you to e-mail our council and ask them to have these experts at the hearing, get the facts first hand, and then vote.
These people are our elected officials, and we have a right to make sure they have done their due diligence before they vote.
Whether you are for or against the increase to 35 units per acre, I think we can all agree that each council member needs to be able to ask questions of the experts to help them in their decision making process.
Below are the e-mails of all the council members. Please send them an e-mail today and forward this to friends. Thanks
Some of the posts are making a different point. My suggestion is that a some point the village has become a place where neighbors blindly follow a restriction, call out neighbors for trying to maintain their properties, and never seem to push for understanding of how to address the issue or correcting it. The facts are interesting; there is no shortage of water, the issue is the lack of pumping and storage due to poor planning and management. Claims that we hit Stage 4 due to disregard for previous stages shows a complete lack of understanding of how the water systems work, there is no linkage. We expect our neighborhoods to have maintained houses with landscaping, etc and then call out those who invest to do so. When I was young I remember the local police pulling into a school event and participating, now the village has them shutting it down. Imagine how much goodwill would have been realized had the police car been ‘washed’ by the kids. Isnt that the relationships we should foster as a Village.
This weekend I traveled to another town in eastern Bergen, where I noticed the local fire department was sponsoring a ‘wash’ seemed odd that less them 12 miles away they had enough rain to avoid water issues.
The village needs to reset a bit and ask the right questons to the right authorities, when we are the point where the police are shutting down fund raising events we all should be concerned.
Why does it have to be a complaint if its illegal. Why not have an anonymous “tip” line?
For instance, if a call to the police asking if they still are writing a summons for sprinkling, the response is yes, what’s the address, what’s your name, address and phone number and will you sign a complaint, the only way they’ll issue a summons is when they send someone out, they actually have to see the sprinkler on when they get there.
Not true, he saw the sprinkler on watering, put the spot light on it, walked up to house, flashlight showed sprinkler on, talked to owner at front door, owner claimed they’re “new” didn’t know, police gave warning, didn’t give summons. Another neighbor saw and heard, told police they water all time. The owner knew about restrictions from other neighbors last year and repeatedly knew about it this year, ignored rules, sprinkler on at night whenever he felt like thru stage 1,2 and 4.
so, even when they actually see a sprinkler on, it don’t cut it for writing a summons? What gives?
“from the VOR website – Village Manager Regarding Stage 4 Enforcement”
“The only way a summons can be written is if the person sees the watering – unfortunately wetness around the area and having a green lawn do not cut it for writing a summons….so we have to be there at the right time.”
