Ridgewood NJ , CBR invites you to please open the link below and consider signing this petition. The Planning Board will most likely be voting on this amendment tomorrow night and we want to show them many people are not for this considerable change to our master plan from a density of 12 units per acre (current) to a density of 35 units per acre (almost triple).
Just to give you an idea of what other towns allow: Hackensack 22 units per acre, Teaneck 28 units per acre, Fair Lawn 17 units per acre, etc. Why would we want to have such a high density of 35 units per acre in our Master Plan? If they vote yes, there’s no turning back. Ridgewood will no longer be the charming Village we all love. Yes, change is good, growth is good, but this is too much. It needs to be a more reasonable number. Please sign and forward. Only 1 signature per e-mail address is allowed. Please send to your spouses e-mail address, so they can sign too.
We have reason to believe that the Planning Board may vote on the revised Amendment to the Master Plan at tomorrow’s meeting! Yes, this could all be over tomorrow night!
Please read and sign the petition below to urge responsible planning and to encourage the Planning Board to “VOTE NO” to 35 units an acre .
Please SHARE THIS PETITION ASAP TONIGHT!
Share on Facebook, via email, on Twitter — everything!!
Encourage others to forward and share, as well!
Please join us at the Planning Board Meeting THIS Tuesday, June 2nd at Village Hall at 7:30 pm
Agenda: FINAL Public Hearing on the Revised Amendment to the Master Plan that was put forth on April 21st (Revised Amendment is attached)
We need your attendance at the next Planning Board meeting on Tuesday. We are close to the end, but we must still attend the meetings and continue to urge our Planning Board to act cautiously when altering our Master Plan. In our opinion, the Revised Amendment is still not appropriate for Ridgewood and will have long term negative consequences.
The new Amendment takes a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing density, offering the same benefits across all zones, regardless of the context or surrounding location — a risky approach that we do not support.
The new Amendment allows for up to 35 units an acre, with affordable for rent units included. While this is indeed an improvement from the 40-50 units put forth in the initial Amendment, in our opinion, this is still too big of a jump from the 12 units per acre that is permitted now and the 22 units per acre average that currently exists in our down town.
Several properties (West Bergen Mental Healthcare and neighboring lots) that were originally identified as suitable for high-density housing in the first amendment have been eliminated from the revised amendment, which puts Ridgewood at risk for legal action for spot zoning.
In the revised amendment, the much larger Ken Smith property has been lumped into the same zone as the smaller Enclave (Sealfon’s) site. These are two very unique properties and their zoning benefits should differ.
Our Village Planner insists that a minimum density (of approximately 35 units per acre) is necessary to economically incentivize developers to develop their properties and build housing, however, a lower density could be awarded that would still allow developers to build and profit. Below is a link to a Letter to the Editor that references developers in HoHoKus that are seeking much lower density than 35 units per acre.
They should do that in Ridgewood instead of the assisted living facility the Kensington which is like a hospital and would involve over-the-top amount of traffic. Several shifts during the day. and night, Kensington will house over 90 residents and each resident including food preparation and basic need care will need about five staff members per resident.
Also additional medical staff on premises. Remember were talkin people who cannot take care of themselves PLUS Alzheimer residents, dementia residents.There is a new assisted living being built in Wyckoff at The Christian Health Care facility. Plus there are lots of other places.
MAY 29, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY RICHARD DE SANTA
STAFF WRITER |
GLEN ROCK GAZETTE
The Glen Rock Planning Board is addressing a potential borough ordinance that would permit the rezoning of appropriate borough properties for multiple dwelling senior citizen housing.
Planners met on May 4 to discuss and possibly recommend a draft ordinance to the Borough Council, which if approved would legally establish an “S-2” zone that could be applied to borough tracts deemed appropriate, in response to individual applications. The only option now open to developers of such projects is to apply for a use variance, according to board secretary Nancy Spiller.
But she told the Glen Rock Gazette last week that no ordinance recommendation emerged from the May 4 session, as members opted to address concerns over ordinance content and language to the board’s professional advisors.
The group includes borough planning consultant Christine Cofone, Planning Board attorney Stuart Liebman, borough engineer Al Roughgarden, construction official Brian Frugis, zoning officer Mark Berninger and Spiller as land use administrator.
“We are working to have a revised ordinance draft by the time the Planning Board is scheduled to meet again on June 1, so they can again consider it,” Spiller said.
MAY 30, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SATURDAY, MAY 30, 2015, 1:20 AM
BY KATHLEEN LYNN
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Home construction continues to heat up in New Jersey, especially in the multifamily sector, as builders obtained the largest number of monthly permits in April since the housing-boom days of 2005.
More than 3,700 building permits were issued last month. So far this year, 9,118 permits have been issued, up 12.3 percent from the first four months of 2014, according to the U.S. census.
This year’s increase in activity has been powered by the multifamily sector, as New Jersey’s long-term patterns of suburban, single-family development shift to a denser, more urban style. So far this year, multifamily permits have accounted for almost two-thirds of building permits issued in the state, as builders respond to a higher demand for rentals.
Patrick O’Keefe, an economist with the accounting firm CohnReznick, which has offices in New York and Roseland, expects single-family starts to remain flat, in part because young adults — the so-called millennial generation — often can’t qualify for mortgages because of tight lending standards and high levels of student-loan debt. In addition, he said, millennials “have experienced a housing market where prices went down, and have a more realistic assessment of housing as an asset.”
MAY 22, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 22, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Don’t make Ridgewood a city
To the Editor:
The Record ran an article on Tuesday detailing applications by two developers in Ho-Ho-Kus to construct new multifamily buildings with unit counts and densities much lower than the proposals here in Ridgewood.
A developer for the 2.12-acre site that currently houses Granny’s Attic on Maple Avenue is pitching 27 one- and two-bedroom apartments along with retail and office space, in a three-story building. This helps maintain the commercial character of Ho-Ho-Kus’ downtown area, while also providing a reasonable and responsible number of new apartments, including some affordable units. Looking at the apartments alone, the multifamily component density is 12.74 units per acre.
Another developer is looking to build 45 townhomes there on 3.66 acres, a density of 12.3 units per acre. I recognize that there are some differences between these proposals and Ridgewood’s, but what does stand out is that commercial, for-profit developers are proposing construction at densities much lower than those they are demanding here.
For the past few years, Ridgewood residents have been hearing from Ridgewood developers, our own village planner, and some members of the Planning Board, that much higher densities are required to incentivize the building of some new housing units downtown. The Ho-Ho-Kus proposals, in a borough very similar to Ridgewood, show that these excessive densities are not required. They are just the product of a desire for improving their property values and profits. But greed is not always good.
To date, Ridgewood’s planner has never given any studied and proper reasoning as to why we need to have densities of, first 50 apartment per acre, and now an amended 30-35 per acre (which is still too high). All we know is that 50 was declared the max and 35 is a number acceptable to some developers. But this is unacceptable planning for Ridgewood.
At the last board meeting, I asked our planner what financial due diligence was done to determine that Ridgewood’s developers needed this high density to make enough of a profit to spur development. I inquired what property purchase prices, what income and expenses and what cap rate of return were used in his pro-forma that says 30-35 is now the number. He admitted he had not done any such study, but came to the higher numbers because the Brogan site developer complained that an earlier determination of 25 per acre wasn’t enough for them. So, the current densities are based on a developer complaint.
That’s not good planning.
Many residents, along with Citizens for a Better Ridgewood, a group promoting smart and fair development in Ridgewood, are advocating for building new housing, but at densities more fitting for our village. If we cannot have the benefit of proper analysis to determine correct densities, we should go with what we know works here. Either keep the master plan the same at 12 per acre, or, if we want to incentivize development, raise it to 18-25/acre, the current average that exists throughout Ridgewood.
MAY 22, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 22, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The revised version of Ordinance No. 3066 was presented to the Planning Board on Tuesday to give members a chance to comment before it is sent back to the Village Council.
The amendments were prepared by a subcommittee of village officials and presented to the council on May 6. The governing body decided it would be best for the Planning Board to weigh in before introducing the ordinance.
The purpose of the ordinance is to strengthen certain provisions that already exist and to revise the process by which an applicant seeks a master plan amendment. The revisions clearly define the Planning Board’s flexibility in deciding how and when to proceed with an application.
Officials began considering revisions due to a community debate that took place last year over the ordinance’s perceived role in the master plan amendment applications received by the board, with some saying it allowed Valley Hospital and outside developers to take over the Planning Board process, said Mayor Paul Aronsohn.
MAY 18, 2015, 7:12 PM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015, 11:09 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
HO-HO-KUS — A multifamily housing complex is being pitched for the borough’s downtown.
The proposed three-story development would have 27 one- and two-bedroom units. It would also have nearly 13,000 square feet of space for retail use and 9,300 square feet for offices.
Plans submitted to the Ho-Ho-Kus Planning Board show the proposed project would include some units of affordable housing.
Helmed by the borough’s Mechanic family, the owners of several properties throughout borough, the development would be built on 2.12 acres located in the heart of downtown, affecting 619 North Maple Avenue and 217 and 239 First Street.
To make room for the construction on the south side of North Maple Avenue, some demolition is planned, including the razing of Granny’s Attic, an antiques shop.
“The project will include significant architectural upgrades with careful attention to streetscape, together with enhanced drainage, landscaping, lighting and other site improvements which will present an aesthetically pleasing and appropriate redevelopment of the property,” the application states.
Ah, so we can just spend more tax dollars to improve our water pressure once we get the new apartments downtown
And how the hell are we going to add another 500 to 1000 toilets, kitchen sinks, showers, bathroom sinks, etc when we put the projects in downtown? Are we expected to give up our gardens to ensure the developers make a profit?
But the developers have assured us their will be no adverse impact on the Village and I believe them (cough, cough)
Rain has nothing to do with restrictions. Ridgewood uses groundwater . . . . it would take many, years of drought to impact the supply of water available to us.
The reason we have restrictions if because our infrastructure is inadequate to pump all the water we might need in a worst case scenario (ex . everyone is watering their lawns and a huge fire breaks out). Ridgewood doesn’t want inadequate water pressure in and emergency.
We have plenty of water. Every year it has to be re-explained. A few years ago, we almost had a permanent solution to this problem with plans to install bigger water storage tanks that would have been able to maintain full pressure even during heavy usage. The local residents had it voted down because they thought it would hurt their views.
Ridgewood making changes to controversial ordinance
MAY 15, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Arguably one of the village’s most well-known ordinances has been amended to address concerns dealing with some of its language.
The amendment was presented to the Village Council last week.
Ordinance No. 3066, which sets forth the fees and processes involved in applying for an amendment to the master plan or development regulations, was originally passed in July 2007. The ordinance has become the subject of controversy as many believe it enabled the multiple master plan amendment applications that have dominated the agenda at Planning Board meetings.
Part of the basis of revising Ordinance 3066 was to ensure that the Village of Ridgewood is in full ownership of its master plan document and retains the exclusive right to amend it, said Councilwoman Susan Knudsen.
“We own this document, it is our policy document,” she said. “The prevailing concept throughout this revised ordinance is this is our master plan.”
A committee consisting of Knudsen, Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Planning Board Chairman Charles Nalbantian, Vice Chairman Richard Joel, Village Planner Blais Brancheau, and Planning Board attorney Gail Price has been working for the past couple months to differentiate between a typical development application and a master plan amendment.
By state law, a site plan, subdivision or variance application forces the Planning Board, or the Board of Adjustment in some cases, to act on them within a certain period of time and go immediately to a hearing process.
Empty nesters have been selling their houses to families with young children for generations in Ridgewood and we’ve done just fine. Now the developers and their friends on our Council want to build hundreds of apartments in town for empty nesters. This is a pipe dream – we all know that these apartments will attract families with school children from nearby cities with school systems that lag behind Ridgewood’s.
A couple things are going to happen that nobody wants to talk about. 1. Kids who live in the apartments will go to Ridge, Willard and GW where class sizes are already beginning to tick up. 2. If empty nesters trying to sell their houses are competing with developers renting apartments to families with kids, the value of your house will go down.
We are being sold a bill of goods by special interest groups, specifically developers and labor unions, that are supported by 3 members of our Council. Their “studies” have produced laughable results – traffic will decrease and school population will stay flat. False and false.
MAY 7, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015, 2:52 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Ridgewood residents and Planning Board members questioned Village Planner Blais Brancheau on the latest changes to the amendment to the land use element of the master plan as multifamily housing hearings resumed Tuesday night.
Two weeks ago, Brancheau presented a reworked recommendation to the board for its consideration, which featured reductions in density, height and floor area ratio along with some zoning tweaks.
All three zones now feature a maximum height of 50 feet and a density of 30-35 units per acre. Floor area ratios were reduced by 20 percent in the AH-2 zone and 10 percent for the B-3-R and C-R zones since the latter two allow mixed-use, but not purely commercial, development.
The C-R zone was also reduced in size as the West Bergen Mental Healthcare building and its adjacent properties were returned to the C zone. The southern end of the originally proposed C-R zone, which includes the Ken Smith property, was moved into the B-3-R zone.
MAY 6, 2015, 7:06 PM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015, 7:06 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — The executive director of an affordable housing agency has endorsed a proposed master plan amendment that, if approved, would clear the way for high-density, multifamily housing developments downtown.
A letter dated April 29 from lawyer Kevin Walsh from the Fair Share Housing Center, urges Ridgewood’s Planning Board to adopt the amendment, which has been under consideration for years.
The letter was read at the Planning Board’s meeting Tuesday night.
Adopting the master plan change “will assist the municipality in meeting its very substantial unmet affordable housing obligations,” which Walsh put at more than 1,000 units.
Four developers with plans for four different housing complexes initially requested the master plan amendment five years ago. Since then, one of the developers has backed out.
The three remaining developers have plans to construct a combined 208 apartments downtown.
The developments proposed are The Dayton, a 106-unit luxury garden apartment complex at the site of the former Brogan Cadillac dealership; the 50-unit Chestnut Village, which would be on Chestnut Street, and the 52-unit Enclave, proposed for East Ridgewood and North Maple avenues.
Citing the Supreme Court’s March 10 decision, Walsh’s letter contends there is a “renewed focus on ensuring that municipalities meet their obligations in an expeditious fashion.”
05/05/15 7:30PM Planning Board Public Meeting – Village Hall Court Room
Please join us on Tuesday, May 5th at Village Hall at 7:30 pm
Agenda: Public Hearing on the Revised Amendment to the Master Plan that was put forth on April 21st
We need your attendance at the next Planning Board meeting on Tuesday. We are close to the end, but we must still attend the meetings and continue to urge our Planning Board to act cautiously when altering our Master Plan.
At the last Planning Board meeting on April 21st, the Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, presented a NEW Amendment that takes a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing density — a risky approach that we do not support. In our opinion, Mr. Brancheau continues to plan for profit, not for the people of Ridgewood. The revised amendment is VERY different from the amendment that was proposed in November of 2013 and in our opinion, is looking more and more like spot zoning. (The revised amendment is attached.)
Thoughts:
Blais Brancheau, the Village planner, stated that the zones he identified as suitable for high-density housing in the first amendment were being considered because housing at these locations would be beneficial to the public at large. Why then, in the 11th hour, did the planner eliminate several properties (West Bergen Mental Healthcare and neighboring properties) that have been in consideration for more than two years? We never, not even once, heard any Planning Board member suggest this change. Yet this was one of the biggest changes in the revised amendment. We don’t get it.
In another significant change, the much larger Ken Smith property has been lumped into the same zone as the smaller Enclave (Sealfon’s) site. This move makes a bold statement. By combining these two sites into one zone, the Village planner has thrown all of the initial criteria he specified when identifying zones for high-density housing out the window. These are two very unique properties and their zoning benefits should differ. By lumping them together and labeling them as one in the same, Mr. Brancheau has basically set up every property in between these two sites to argue for the same zoning benefits. In our opinion, this is a reckless approach.
The new Amendment allows for up to 35 units an acre, with affordable for rent units included. While this is indeed an improvement from the 40-50 units put forth in the initial Amendment, in our opinion, this is still too big of a jump from the 12 units per acre that is permitted now and the 22 units per acre average that currently exists in our down town. Instead of establishing a maximum density up to 35 units per acre, why not raise the minimum and allow our village to examine each new development on a case by case basis? We recommend raising the baseline density to 24 units an acre, doubling the permitted allowance. Our Planning Board could then work to establish criteria that would allow for density bonuses, beyond the baseline. For example, if developers can provide for more parking, affordable housing units, open space, greater set backs, green building practices, etc… they would be allowed a bonus of more units per acre than the baseline. This cautious approach would be preferable to a one size fits all zoning change that could have irreversible repercussions.
Mr. Brancheau is capable of crafting this amendment differently, yet he continues to offer the same benefits across the board to all zones, regardless of the context or the surrounding location. We don’t understand why. From our vantage point, many Planning Board members seemed flustered by the changes to the Amendment and some even expressed question or concern. The only Planning Board member who seemed to embrace these changes was Mayor Aronsohn. He seems very eager to move forward and get this done.
CBR wants this process resolved as well, but we want it done RIGHT. We don’t want the Planning Board to rush to a decision. We just received a copy of the new Amendmenton Friday, and the Public Hearing is TUESDAY! We live here and we care about the future of our town. Long after politicians are out of office and eager developers have reaped their profits, we will still be left here, living with the consequences. Please join us on TUESDAY, May 5th at Village Hall at 7:30 pm. Let’s continue to urge our Planning Board to get it right!
Here are two links to Letters to the Editor that provide more detail about our position:
