Tag: Urbanization

Posted on by — 1 Comment

RIDGEWOOD PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE/AGENDA

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Village Hall Court Room– 7:30 P.M.

(all timeframes and the order of agenda items below are approximate and subject to change)

  1. 7:30 p.m. – Call to Order, Statement of Compliance, Flag Salute, Roll Call – In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4-8d of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location, and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village municipal offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

 

Roll call: Aronsohn, Bigos, Knudsen, Nalbantian, Joel, Reilly, Dockray, Peters, Thurston, Altano, Abdalla

 

  1. 7:35p.m. – 7:40 p.m. – Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board

 

  1. 7:40 p.m. – 7:45 p.m. – Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics; Correspondence Received by the Board
  2. 7:45 p.m. – 8:15 p.m. – Memorializing Resolutions – Amendments to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan: AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts
  3. 8:15 p.m. – 10:30 p.m. – Reexamination of Master Plan and Development Regulations – Discussion of Historic Preservation and Environmental Protection Provisions
  4. 10:30 p.m. – 10:40 p.m. – Approval of Minutes: June 2, 2014; May 20, 2014
  5. 10:40 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. – Executive Session

 

  1. Adjournment

In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work sessions, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings, which are always open to members of the general public.

         Members: Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Nancy Bigos, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly, Wendy Dockray, Michele Peters, David Thurston, Isabella Altano, Khidir Abdalla

        Professional Staff: Blais L. Brancheau, Planner; Gail L. Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher J. Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Planning Board decision on housing draws mixed reaction in Ridgewood

Clock_Ridgewood_theridgewopodblog

JUNE 12, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Last week, the Ridgewood Planning Board ended a five-year process of work session meetings, testimony from experts, board deliberation and public comment hearings with the approval of a master plan amendment that will allow for higher density and mixed use housing projects in the Central Business District (CBD).

The amendment allows housing in the AH-2 zone, an affordable housing district encompassing the Brogan Cadillac site on South Broad Street, the B-3-R zone, which includes the Ken Smith property on Franklin Avenue and the section of North Maple Avenue between East Ridgewood and Franklin avenues, and the C-R zone, which is a small plot of land on Chestnut Street intended for commercial and mixed use development.

These zones will allow 30 units per acre of for-sale affordable housing and 35 units per acre of for-rent affordable housing and cap the height of the buildings at 50 feet. The original amendment allowed for as much as 50 units per acre, but was scaled back in a revised amendment presented to the Planning Board in late April.

Throughout the process, developers representing three potential housing projects presented testimony regarding their respective proposed developments. The projects presented were The Dayton, a 106-unit complex in the old Brogan Cadillac lot; the 52-unit Enclave proposed for the intersection of East Ridgewood and North Maple Avenues; and Chestnut Village, a 52-unit luxury development slated for Chestnut Street near the village’s central garage.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/decision-draws-mixed-reactions-1.1354518

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Ridgewood Planning Board approves master plan amendment

Abraham-Godwin_theridgewoodblog

JUNE 5, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2015, 12:31 AM

BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Minutes after the clock signaled a transition from Tuesday night to Wednesday morning, the Ridgewood Planning Board capped a years-long master plan amendment debate with the approval of four new zones in downtown Ridgewood.

An evening that began with comment from the public, most of whom stated their opposition to the master plan amendment, came to an anticlimactic end nearly four hours later – after many residents had left their seats – with a majority of the board members giving their approval.

The board voted on each amendment separately, with each zone receiving yes votes from board members David Thurston, Nancy Bigos, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly and Mayor Paul Aronsohn. Board member Wendy Dockray voted against all four zones while Michele Peters opposed all but the C-R zone and Councilwoman Susan Knudsen only cast an affirmative vote for the C zone.

The amendments will now go before the Village Council, which will consider an ordinance to change the master plan.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/board-approves-master-plan-amendment-1.1349573

Posted on by — 8 Comments

Opinion: 35 Units an Acre is Too Many

Welcome_to_the_village_theridgewoodblog

We thought we would share an opinion piece that was written by a resident for the “Tips From Town” website.

The recent decision by the Planning Board to approve the amendment of our master plan to allow for 35 units an acre, three times what is currently allowed, has me experiencing a flood of negative emotions, everything from sadness, to fear, to anger.

A recent article in North Jersey.com, notes all three of the builders left the vote with big smiles on their faces, and why wouldn’t they? It feels very much as if the 6 out of 9 members who voted “Yes” had exactly the builders’ satisfaction and approval in mind when they cast their careless vote. Many are arguing they may have had some more selfish motives in mind, but I won’t speculate. The four builders who originally petitioned for the change asked for 55 units/acre, probably hoping for half that, and the Town Planning Board, whose responsibility should be to the residents of Ridgewood, nodded their heads like puppets, and essentially said, “Whatever you need to turn a profit at the expense of our village.” Thank you to the three members who voted no.

I know the town needs to change with the times. I support multi-family housing development, just not at this density. There is no doubt if the Village Council supports the Planning Board’s recommendation, we Ridgewood residents are in for a helluva time. I can barely drive through town now with all the congestion. Imagine what this will do to traffic. It took months to “improve” the underpass at Garber square, what will this kind of massive construction do to the safety and usability of downtown? And, that is just in the short term.

https://ridgewood.tipsfromtown.com/2015/06/05/opinion-35-units-an-acre-is-too-many/

 

If you agree, please share with your neighbors and consider signing the petition to let our council know just how many residents are opposed to the proposal before them

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Any development should enhance Ridgewood’s character

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

Any development should enhance Ridgewood’s character

JUNE 5, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Any development should enhance village’s character

To the Editor:

Those of us who chose to move to Ridgewood made a careful decision and chose a village with character over urbanized cities such as Morristown or Hackensack.

My family has experienced what Ridgewood has to offer young families, and it’s plentiful. However, I have noticed there is an obvious need for housing for empty nesters.

Overdevelopment in town is being driven by corporations’ strong desire to cash in, not enhance our downtown.

Our schools are overcrowded already; overdevelopment will increase taxes because it will increase the number of children who attend our schools, therefore adding more costs to taxpayers.

In order to protect the quality of our schools, the suburban life and the peace and tranquility of our neighborhoods; development should be reasonable and enhance our village character, not drastically alter it. One example of how development can enhance our downtown is providing green space and parking.

Overdevelopment and an unreasonable increase in density in our zoning laws will lower property values for all and hurt our village life. Urbanization of Ridgewood will decrease property values, as well. We must question the true intentions of those supporting special interests rather than protecting our community.

Wilkin Santana

Ridgewood

 

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-to-the-editor-any-development-should-enhance-ridgewood-s-character-1.1349607

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Reader “The council is considering adding a non-binding referendum” What a tease. The key word is “Considering ”

former_bank-ofamerica-building_theridgewoodblog

How is the Mayor friend Saracino and his fish restaurant going to make it without the parking garage in his backyard? I have one question. Are the taxpayers also to pay for the extra large bronze plaque that will hang on the garage wall memorializing the 3 Amigos as the ones that brought Ridgewood out of the dark ages or will it be donated by Saracino and Vaggiois?

Yes the same Developer who purchased the tickets for the council to the Chris Christie event in violation of the “gift ordnance ”

“The council is considering adding a non-binding referendum” What a tease. The key word is “Considering ” They are just throwing out there to make residents believe that the 3 amigos have the residents interest in mind. I wonder if this referendum will contain all the pertinent information such as the told cost plus interest from bonding? Does everybody feel good now they that publicly put out this headline. “The council is considering adding a non-binding referendum to the November ballot to gauge support for a parking garage downtown.” The question is after all that has happened ‘Do you real trust them”

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Reader says we owe over development in Ridgewood to Pfunds Folly

pfund_dave

former Mayor David Pfund 

We have former Mayor and now appointed local judge Pfund to tank. Without Ordinance 3066, passed purposely in July 2007 when many residents were down the shore, applications to amend the Master Plan would never have even been considered. Then the developers used an old anchoring by applying for 50 units, only to say they’d “comprised” down to 35. The anchor number used should have been the 12 in the Master Plan, and they should have comprised at 18-24, reflecting current Village densities. Development is surely need in the CBD – it’s an eyesore with too much dead space and decaying remnants of the past – but Ordinance 3066 and the 50 number should have never happened in the first place. That’s Pfund’s folly…. These wheels have been in motion since 2007

Posted on by — 18 Comments

An Open Letter to Mayor Paul Aronsohn

mayor _in_flood -theridgewoodblog

file photo by Boyd Loving 

Dear Mayor Aronsohn,

I feel the need for further clarification about a matter that I brought upWednesday evening.

When an elected official asks a question of the Village Manager regarding Village business, I think that a civil reply is appropriate.  Councilman Sedon’s question about a possible reduction in the salary of the Village Manager, in order to compensate for the reduction in her job responsibilities, was on the mind of others.  It seemed a logical question.  Ms. Sonenfeld’s reprimand of Mr. Sedon, along with her comment that her salary is already as bottom as it can go, seemed completely inappropriate.  I think with the current push for increased civility in public venues, Ms. Sonenfeld should be reminded that she works for The Village, and when one of her “bosses” (ie, an elected Councilmember) asks a question, a straightforward reply is in order.

Besides the tone of her reply, I also have a problem with the content of her comments.  Let’s be reasonable here.  A new position has been created to the tune of “six figures.”  The responsibilities of this new hire used to be handled by The Village Manager.  I think the suggestion that the increased expense might be offset by taking at least some money from The Village Manager’s salary was worth considering.  Moreover, her public declaration that her salary is already rock bottom is very offensive.  Ms. Sonenfeld has been on the job for just over a year.  The salary that she is paid is what she agreed to; no one forced her to take the job or the salary.  For her to now publicly complain that it is so low, so soon after she came on board, and especially when some of her responsibilities have been delegated to the new Human Resources person, seems quite inappropriate.  You, Paul, were very outspoken about the salary, and salary increase, of the former manager.  Well, now you have a manager who is publicly stating that her salary is low even while she is hiring more help.

I would sincerely appreciate your response on this – both the civility matter, as well as the payroll matter.

Thank you,

Anne LaGrange Loving

Posted on by — 30 Comments

Reader says We know what to do come election time

vote_for_me_theridgewoodblog

We know what to do come election time. This agenda has been push by the 3 amigos for a long time. They have close ties with some of the developers who will profit by this along with member of the Chamber of Commerce . Next item on their agenda is the parking garage to help certain members of the Chamber. To show how enforcement of ordinances are only for certain people I direct you attention to the wall/planter in front of Greek to Me and the large political sign at Ken Smith Motors. Same person is responsible for both of them , a strong supporter of our Mayor.
Although I suspect that some if not most of the 1000 resident that sign the petition voted for the Dream Team that 1000 votes are enough to vote them out of office before the come up with something else to take car of their friends.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Reader says Development a Detriment to the towns best Interest

RidgewoodCBD_theridgewoodblog

Straight out of the developers playbook…
Know that the existing standard density is 18-24 units per acre
Ask for 50 UPA
Settle for 35 UPA
Double the existing standardt!
But less than 50 UPA …Suckers…

The Planning Board only needs to point to the existing densities that have worked successfully in Ridgewood and say that’s it.
Or they can roll over and give the Developers 35 UPA, double the existing standard, which is what the developers really wanted…to the detriment of our town’s best interests.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Ridgewood Planning Board clears way for high-density housing

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

JUNE 3, 2015, 9:14 AM    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015, 7:07 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — Developers were all smiles as they left Tuesday night’s meeting of the Planning Board, which approved four separate amendments to the village’s master plan, paving the way for high-density, multifamily housing projects downtown.

Several residents walked out of Tuesday night’s meeting when the closing comments by members of the board made it clear even before the vote that the panel would be moving to advance the proposed zoning changes.

The four master plan changes were approved by majority vote; Wendy Dockray, a real estate agent, was the only member to oppose all four amendments. Both Susan Knudsen, a Ridgewood councilwoman who sits on the board, and Michele Peters, an attorney, opposed three of the amendments.

All three women said that a vote Tuesday night would be premature, calling for more discussion of the amendments.

The vote capped five years of meetings, public hearings, and expert testimony on the master plan amendments, first requested by four developers with plans for four different housing complexes.

One developer has since backed out, leaving three housing projects planned with a combined 208 apartment units.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-planning-board-clears-way-for-high-density-housing-1.1347831

Posted on by — 32 Comments

Ridgewood Planning Board Approves High Density 35 Unit per Acre Plan for Central Business District

Abraham-Godwin_theridgewoodblog

June 3,2015
the staff of the Roidgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, 35 Units per acre was approved by the Ridgewood Planning Board in a 6  to 3 vote, in what can only be described as a victory for special interests over the residents of the Village . Last night the Planning Board approved a  change to the Village master plan from a density of 12 units per acre (current) to a density of 35 units per acre (almost triple) , giving the Village Central Business District a higher density than Hackensack 22 units per acre, Teaneck 28 units per acre, or Fair Lawn 17 units per acre.

According to Citizens for a better Ridgewood ,( CBR ) YES VOTES FROM….David Thurston (works in commercial real estate), Nancy Bigos (works for our parks and recreation), Mayor Paul Aronsohn (excited to open the door to high density), Charles Nalbantian (has sat on the board way too long, the public seems to annoy him), Richard Joel (has young children in our schools), Kevin Reilly (seemed hesitant to vote Yes, but did anyway) NO VOTES FROM…Council Woman Knudsen, Wendy Dockrey and Michele Peters. ALL THREE NO VOTES WANTED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS MORE IN CHARACTER WITH OUR VILLAGE WITH DENSITIES CLOSER TO 24. THEY WANTED OTHER OPTIONS THAT BLAIS FAILED TO GIVE THEM. THEY PUSHED FOR OPTIONS LAST NIGHT AND THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD REFUSED TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSIONS.

While opponents of the high density Master Plan change look for other options , many  wonder if this now opens the door to a court victory for Valley’s major expansion?

CBR is still circulating there petition to stop the over development of the Village https://www.change.org/p/ridgewood-nj-planning-board-village-council-vote-no-on-the-high-density-housing-amendment-at-35-units-per-acre-last-minute-petition?just_created=true .

The petition was ignored last night with Planning Board Attorney Gail Price calling it , “hear say” and Chris Harris of the Record claiming , “a bunch of names are not even from Ridgewood” .

There is an opportunity to speak Mayor Paul Aronsohn how will be holding office hours for Ridgewood residents this Saturday. Mayor Aronsohn will meet with residents on Saturday, June 6 from 9AM to Noon in the Council Chambers (Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Court Room) on the fourth floor of Ridgewood Village Hall. For an appointment to meet with the Mayor, please call the Village Clerk’s Office at 201-670-5500 ext. 206. You may come to the Mayor’s office hours without an appointment, but those with appointments will be given priority.

Posted on by — 12 Comments

Reader says the developers are either stupid or were told by those involved in the process (council, planning board?) that it would be approved

misterrogers02

I will not sign the petition only because I have no idea what kind of backlash I might face by doing so. But I wholeheartedly object to their 35 unit/acre proposal. The developers knew the rules when they bought the properties. The rules allow 12 but let’s be generous and go with the 18-24 existing standard – they asked for double that and by their own admission were surprised by the resistance they’ve faced. So they are either stupid or were told by those involved in the process (council, planning board?) that it would be approved. They say the economics don’t work under the current rules – so who in their right mind would take that kind of risk? These developers do not have the best interest of the village in mind, they want more traffic (foot or otherwise) downtown. Who does this help? In some ways the businesses generally but much more so and longer term it helps the landlords. For years they have been jacking up the rents on businesses (driving many away) in a time where retail spending as a whole has moved online making brick and mortar stores less valuable. The landlords see this and are happy to support this over-expansion because there is no other way to fill that revenue hole than to extract it from current residents of Ridgewood.

There were 3 primary considerations for moving to Ridgewood (many years before our first child was even born btw so the “empty nester” argument is invalid here – we are 2nd generation Ridgewood).
1) Great schools
2) Safety – outstanding police and fire response
3) Charming, Beautiful place to raise a family and hopefully retire

Allowing this over-expansion enhances exactly none of those considerations. Ridgewood’s restaurants thrive, retailers do not and likely will not when even the high-traffic areas of 17 have been forced to close. Stop arguing that we need to draw bigger retailers into this town – I can drive to 17 if I can’t find what i’m looking for online. Enough with the nonsense arguments, and enough with Blaise trying to figure out how to stuff the maximum density into our limited space (all this based on his “expert” opinion even though he has zero ability to think about a broader common sense plan for development).

in short – just say No to the developers. It is not our responsibility to tell them what’s allowed – they knew that when they bought the property. Cutting your request from 4X what is allowed to only 3X is not a compromise, it’s still a snow job.

Posted on by — 5 Comments

PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING TONIGHT

Village _council_meeting_theridgewoodblog

file photo Boyd Loving

PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE/AGENDA

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Village Hall Court Room– 7:30 P.M.

(all timeframes and the order of agenda items below are approximate and subject to change)

1.            7:30 p.m. – Call to Order, Statement of Compliance, Flag Salute, Roll Call – In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4-8d of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location, and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village municipal offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all  in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

Roll call: Aronsohn, Bigos, Knudsen, Nalbantian, Joel, Reilly, Dockray, Peters, Thurston, Altano, Abdalla

2.            7:35p.m. – 7:40 p.m. – Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board

3.            7:40 p.m. – 7:45 p.m. – Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics; Correspondence Received by the Board

4.            7:45 p.m. – 10:15 p.m. – Public Hearing: Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts

5.            10:15 p.m. – 10:30 p.m. – Approval of Minutes: June 2, 2014; May 20, 2014

6.            10:30 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. – Executive Session (if needed)

7.            Adjournment

In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work sessions, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings, which are always open to members of the general public.

Members: Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Nancy Bigos, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly, Wendy Dockray, Michele Peters, David Thurston, Isabella Altano, Khidir Abdalla

Professional Staff: Blais L. Brancheau, Planner; Gail L. Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher J. Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary
Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ridgewood building department head details history of code changes

Abraham-Godwin_theridgewoodblog

JUNE 1, 2015    LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JUNE 1, 2015, 9:57 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

In conjunction with Building Safety Month events that happened all over the United States, the Ridgewood Building Department staff presented a public forum in May, which focused on home safety along with changes being implemented within the village.

Over the course of about two hours, Building Department Director Thomas Yotka presented the audience with a history of building codes, demonstrating how they have evolved over the course of the past 2,000 years, before bringing the conversation back to the new initiatives happening in Ridgewood.

Oftentimes, changes in building codes happened in reaction to major disasters such as the Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston in 1942 and the Station Nightclub in Rhode Island in 2003.

Up until the mid-1970s, each municipality had its own unique set of building codes. Then in 1975, the legislature wrote a new law that went into effect on Jan. 1, 1977, bringing uniformity to codes throughout New Jersey.

These codes are what give the Building Department the blueprint to ensure that any structure standing within the village is safe for occupancy.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/director-details-changes-in-village-state-1.1346422