MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Many downtown housing questions still unanswered
To the Editor:
Having attended virtually all the Planning Board meetings on the proposed high-density housing master plan amendment for the past several years, and being as directly involved in the process as a concerned resident can be, I am left with one overarching question: Why? This notion of “Why?” relates to so many questions in this process that have yet to be answered, but need to be for the Planning Board, mayor and council to make the real right decision for the residents of Ridgewood. Here are some variants of “Why?” as related to this bizarre master plan amendment process:
Why did the original amendment contain the massive density number of 50 apartments per acre requested by the developers, when our current zoning only calls for 12 and the village average is 18-22?
Why hasn’t the board or the planner ever explained why 50 units per acre was used (except to note that it was requested by the developers and puzzlingly, as suggested by one board member, is necessary to incentivize the developers to build and profit)?
Why, as with so many important changes to Ridgewood, was the public not fully informed and educated in a proactive, openly invited manner and asked for opinion at the outset of the process years ago?
Why has the Planning Board failed to conduct and provide its residents with a comprehensive and necessary master plan review – that looks at all village-wide planning needs and impacts – prior to implementing such a monumental change to our village (and is actually required to be performed in 2016 anyway)?
Why do some members of the Planning Board appear to believe that the board’s and the village planner’s reactionary reviews of data provided by the developers constitute a thorough and responsible review?
Why are the opinions of so-called “experts,” hired by developers to sell the board on the benefits of this overwhelming change, given more respect than those of concerned residents, who will forever have to live with these changes?
Why is the Village Council separately looking at an additional large-scale assisted living complex development on the corner of Franklin and Walnut, without openly and clearly combining the master planning review with the high-density housing?
Why was the most recent amendment revision not provided to the public at last week’s Planning Board meeting, along with the revised zoning map?
Why does the Village Planner believe that the newly proposed density of 30-35 units per acre is now the correct number across the board, in all areas of the Central Business District?
Why can’t we go with what we know works in Ridgewood, 18-24 units per acre, which is still double the current zoning allowance?
Why isn’t the board more concerned with potential impacts on schools, parking, open space and village services?
Why can’t we keep Ridgewood as a village?
As a resident of Ridgewood who truly loves this town, I look forward to real answers to these “Why’s?”
MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Stop planning for profit
To the Editor:
Ridgewood is facing significant zoning changes that will forever change the character of our village. An amendment to the master plan that would significantly increase permitted housing density in downtown Ridgewood seems imminent. Public hearings have continued for more than two years, and more than 100 residents have gone on record to advocate for a cautious approach and to express concern about the size, scale and density of the proposed housing developments.
However, it was obvious at the last meeting on April 21 that the Planning Board is proceeding without any regard to public opinion and is tailoring our master plan to suit the needs of the developers. We expected Village Planner Blais Brancheau to come to the meeting with answers to questions and options for moving forward. Instead, Mr. Brancheau sat with his back to the residents, provided no handouts or visuals to help the public follow along and presented a revised amendment that appears to be a gift to the developers.
The revised amendment once again offers a “one size fits all” approach to housing that defies principles of sound planning and haphazardly groups parcels of land together in order to push through high-density housing. Mr. Brancheau has yet to provide any analysis or evidence as to why we need to increase the density from the 18 to 24 units per acre average that currently exists in our downtown. As far as we can see, the new amendment increases the number of units allowed per acre to 30 to 35 (still almost tripling what is currently permitted), realigns the zones (combining the Ken Smith property with the Sealfons building) and removes three properties on Chestnut Street from consideration as a means to cap development.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn said that the revised amendment “strikes that balance between everything we have been talking about.” There is something very wrong with this picture. The amendment is looking more and more like spot zoning and our Planning Board is forging ahead.
Why must density be the same for every zone? What exactly are the unique qualities of a property that would warrant residential versus commercial use? Why combine two very different properties? Why remove properties from consideration? Where is the guarantee that other property owners in town won’t argue for these same zoning benefits? Who is driving this process?
It is unconscionable that residents who deserve responsible planning have spent over $100,000 in legal representation and still have no voice in the process. Ridgewood deserves the best solution, and we are hoping wise minds prevail. We urge the Planning Board to please stop planning for profit and start planning for the people.
Please join us at the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5 at Village Hall as we seek answers to the many questions regarding the changes to the amendment.
MAY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
An application to redevelop a Franklin Avenue property into a full-service bank with a drive-through facility has been brought before the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Testimony from the developer’s professionals began on Tuesday.
Ivy Realty, LLC is proposing a modified version of what already exists on the property, located at 121 Franklin Ave. between Oak Street and North Maple Avenue, which is the former home of Atlantic Stewardship Bank. Most of the building will be demolished, except for the free-standing sign at the front of the building.
The lot is located in the B-2 zone in between two other banks – Valley National Bank and TD Bank.
The current existing structure at the site is a 450-square-foot building with three drive-through lanes for banking-related business and a fourth lane serving as a bypass to exit the property. The applicant proposes a 2,600-square-foot, one story building without a basement, featuring one banking lane and one bypass lane. There is no tenant currently lined up to inhabit the new development, and it is not being built with any architectural features specific to a certain bank.
APRIL 29, 2015 LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015, 10:15 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Representatives from the World Mission Society Church of God returned to the Planning Board on April 21 with a revised site plan for work that has already been completed, as well as proposed seepage pits.
Attorney Marc Leibman and Engineer Robert Costa previously appeared before the board on March 3 and discussion revolved around a revision of spaces in the parking lot as well as lighting and the seepage pits to aid drainage on the Godwin Avenue property.
At the end of that meeting, the board asked Costa and Leibman to touch base with the village’s professional staff to work out a safer parking setup and less impactful lighting scheme.
Parking spaces deemed unsafe by the village staff were removed and Costa said the entire parking lot will be restriped to better conform to the necessary aisle width to allow safe travel for vehicles.
Spaces compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including one that was adjacent to a refuse area, were moved to the eastern side of the building at the request of village professionals.
Costa said that side of the building also provides handicap access to the church. The plans show a striped or painted crosswalk that forms a path into the building for those with special needs.
APRIL 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015, 9:24 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Proposed changes to the master plan amendment were presented to the Planning Board by Village Planner Blais Brancheau in an attempt to address some concerns discussed by board members at a previous meeting.
Ridgewood Planner Blais Brancheau discusses proposed changes to a master plan amendment that would allow multifamily housing in the Central Business District.
The new amendment features zoning changes as well as a reduction in density, lowering the total number of possible units to less than 300 if the zones contained in the master plan amendment were built out to maximum capacity.
Changes in the maximum height, floor area ratios and additional language to require recreation and social amenities as part of any housing project were also presented.
The board voted unanimously to formally prepare the changes for a public hearing at its next meeting on May 5, where both the public and board members will be able to comment and ask additional questions.
Key zoning changes include three properties in the area of West Bergen Mental Healthcare building being excluded from the C-R zone, moving the Ken Smith property and the area at the corner of Franklin Avenue and Chestnut Street into the B-3-R zone.
APRIL 26, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 2015, 4:24
BY KATHLEEN LYNN
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
In Montvale, land is being cleared for a new town house development near the New York State line. In Wood-Ridge, new town houses are rising on an old industrial site. And 150 new town houses are under construction in Allendale.
As the economy and housing market continue to recover in New Jersey and nationwide, these and other projects suggest a renewed interest in the attached, two-story homes. The construction of town houses and other for-sale homes still lags behind the much healthier pace of rental construction in the state, as tough lending standards and memories of the housing crash weigh on many households.
But builders see town houses as a more affordable alternative to single-family homes. Town houses also are more suited than detached homes to the type of development that is dominating North Jersey. Instead of the sprawling, single-family subdivisions of an earlier era, builders now are focusing on so-called infill construction, in walkable, transit-friendly areas closer to New York City.
APRIL 26, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 2015, 10:17 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — A final vote on a proposed amendment to the master plan that would clear the way for the development of high-density, multifamily housing downtown is approaching.
After five years of consideration, Ridgewood’s Planning Board could move to decide the long-simmering matter at a public hearing that has been set for May 5.
At the board’s meeting last week, village planner Blais Brancheau outlined several recent changes he had made to the master plan amendment’s draft language — modifications prompted by ideas from board members and the public.
In the revised amendment, Brancheau lowered the permitted height of high-density, multifamily housing complexes to 50 feet from 55. He also decreased the number of units allowed by acre, dropping it to 30 to 35, from 40 to 50.
Brancheau tweaked the sizes of some of the four zones, reducing the total acreage that would be affected by the proposed master plan changes by a fifth, thus reducing the maximum build-out for those four zones to 253, from 326.
The two Planning Board members (Thurston and Abdallah) in favor of the project,as is, are both involved in commercIAL real estate and development. Interesting…very interesting.
We are not sure industry experience automatically implies a conflict , but …
There’s a real conflict if he is voting on things or even commenting on things that could affect his clients or potential clients. He can add his comments from the podium along with the rest of us. Did the council know he was actively involved in real estate projects in Ridgewood when they appointed him? What the hell were they thinking????
Even if he currently does not do business with these firms he may hope to work with them in the future.
He should enter the discussions because of his experience but he should not vote.
Thurston is not afraid of developers . . . he IS a developer.
Mr. Thurston has been active as a Real Estate Professional for over 30 years. After graduating from Law School in 1982, Mr. Thurston spent two years in Dallas, Texas practicing real estate law. He then moved back east and spent the next four years practicing real estate law in Philadelphia and Manhattan at the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Shea and Gould. In 1987 he left legal practice and joined The Binswanger Company headquartered in Philadelphia where he managed the National Industrial Brokerage Group for four years and then the International Group for the next five years. He then joined NAI in New Jersey and managed the Corporate Services Group for two years. He was recruited to start up and manage the National Office Sales force at Equis Corporation. He moved to Marcus & Millichap in 1999 to manage the New Jersey office. He is a Director in the Company’s National Office and Industrial Properties Group and in it’s Net Lease Properties Group and specializes in the sale of Retail, Office, and Industrial Properties in New York, New Jersey, Northern New Jersey and Bergen County and in Single Tenant Properties Nationwide.
David Thurston’s background certainly gives him an interesting perspective in all of this. Since he is involved in the sale of commercial real estate in Ridgewood, should he recuse himself from these discussions? Is there potential conflict of interest” Or does he bring years of valuable experience to the table? Interesting.
“Marcus & Millichap has brokered the sale The Lincoln Building, an office property at 45 N. Broad St. in Ridgewood. The 24,000-square-foot multi-tenant property sold for $3.9 million. David Thurston of Marcus & Millichap’s New Jersey office represented the seller, a partnership, and secured the buyer, a local limited liability company.”
“Mr. Thurston has been active as a Real Estate Professional for over 30 years. After graduating from Law School in 1982, Mr. Thurston spent two years in Dallas, Texas practicing real estate law. He then moved back east and spent the next four years practicing real estate law in Philadelphia and Manhattan at the law firms of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Shea and Gould. In 1987 he left legal practice and joined The Binswanger Company headquartered in Philadelphia where he managed the National Industrial Brokerage Group for four years and then the International Group for the next five years. He then joined NAI in New Jersey and managed the Corporate Services Group for two years. He was recruited to start up and manage the National Office Sales force at Equis Corporation. He moved to Marcus & Millichap in 1999 to manage the New Jersey office. He is a Director in the Company’s National Office and Industrial Properties Group and in it’s Net Lease Properties Group and specializes in the sale of Retail, Office, and Industrial Properties in New York, New Jersey, Northern New Jersey and Bergen County and in Single Tenant Properties Nationwide.”
If Thurston or any of the others are afraid of the developers, then they have no place on the Board. The future of the Village is not a game of chicken, its either build appropriately or not at all. I would hate to see his vision of Ridgewood if we spend the next 40 years giving in to developers.
I have heard this chicken stuff from our council members as well — everyone is scared to death of the developers. If our officials can’t stand up to bullies, they have no place in the Village. Elected officials should have backbone or they should step down and let others take their place who will put the interests of Villagers first and profiteers second.
Shame on those who would abdicate their duties because it is too difficult to do the job properly.
Please join us tomorrow night for the next Planning Board Meeting Available
Tuesday, April 21 at Village Hall (not the HS)
Deliberations to begin at approximately 8:45 to 9 pm.
(The meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but the discussion on High Density Housing is not the first item on the agenda)
Agenda: The Planning Board will continue deliberating and Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, will provide some detail regarding issues put forth by Planning Board members last month. We are hoping Blais addresses concerns raised by several Planning Board members — concerns also shared by CBR.
To refresh your memory, below is a reprint of our reap from the 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting:
CBR’s recap of 3/17/15 Planning Board Meeting
CBR Note:
The first condition of this amendment, aside from density and height issues, is changing the usage in the zones from commercial to residential. Keep in mind that when the planning board members state that they support the usage change, that does not necessarily indicate that they approve the densities that are proposed. Changing the zoning in an area of our CBD from commercial to residential is a big step in itself, as presumably once residential is built, there is no turning back to commercial usage on that site.
Once usage is addressed, the next issue is how much residential do you allow? Currently, most residential properties in the CBD have commercial usage on the first floor. Under this amendment, commercial usage on the first floor is no longer required. Allowing housing in our downtown at density higher than the 12 units per acre that is currently permitted makes sense, and anything over 12 units an acre constitutes “higher density.” Considering that the average density that currently exists in our downtown now is actually 22-24 units per acre, CBR would be quite comfortable with setting 22 or 24 units per acre as the new limit for density. We feel that doubling those numbers is too much, and that 35-40 units an acre and beyond would significantly alter the character of our Village. It is very important that our planning board finds the right balance in this amendment.
CBR ReCap:
We took notes on each of the Planning Board member’s comments and would like to share them here. Our notes are not direct quotes.
Absent from this meeting was Nancy Bigos. She has yet to weigh in.
Charles Nalbantian, the Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees that the usage (housing rather than commercial) is good, but said the “devil is in the details.” He expressed reservations about the height and RSIS (state mandated parking requirements), and indicated that he is not sure yet about the density.
Richard Joel, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Board, agrees with the usage (housing in our CBD) and believes it will promote the general welfare. He feels that we need to develop these under-utilized sites and there is a need for a variety of housing. He said that he doesn’t know what the right balance between height and density should be.
Kevin Riley, supports the use of housing in our downtown but is concerned with height and density. He said he would like to see the density reduced from what is currently put forth in the amendment.
Wendy Dockray, thinks concept of multifamily housing is a good one but has her “yellow flags” or reservations. She is not sure this is actually what seniors are looking for in terms of space and affordability. She is concerned that the height and scale will negatively impact the historical character of Ridgewood. She said going from 12 units per acre to 40-50 is a “huge jump” and she is not sure if building 40 – 50 units an acre is necessary or appropriate to achieve housing. She is also concerned with the fiscal impact and noted that our schools are “at capacity.”
David Thurston, supports the amendment AS IS. He doesn’t want to “play chicken” with developers by giving them less than what they want. He said this is his business and if the Planning Board comes back with less than the amendment, it may not be “economically sound” for the developers. He is in favor of the 40 – 50 units in our CBD and is worried about what our town will look like in 40 years if we don’t allow the developers to build.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, not in favor of the amendment as it is written. She is concerned with the density, height, impact of adding more pedestrians that will impede traffic, open space and the changing character of Ridgewood. She said the she would like to see developers move forward with something, but would like to see a balance.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn, feels this is an opportunity for Ridgewood. He feels like we have enough information to make a decision and we should move forward soon. He said that people who don’t want their big houses could move to these apartments, but we need to strike the right balance. His stated that his issues are 1) density, 2) amenities (he would like to find a way to incentivize the developers to build high end apartments), 3) housing for special needs residents, 4) parking (he wondered if developers not providing sufficient parking could be forced to pay money into a fund to use for public parking), and 5) can separate amendments be crafted to address each zone individually?
Michele Peters, concerned about the density. Not in favor of the current amendment. She questioned whether the parking that was being considered as part of the proposals in the redevelopment zone on N. Walnut would alleviate some of the parking deficit in Ridgewood, but was told the deficit is beyond what could be added in the redevelopment zone.
Isabella Altano, (1st alternate on PB) wants to see more consideration given to the impacts. She feels we need a lower density. She asked about the potential costs to our infrastructure, if projected school enrollment could be provided that included approval of 400+ new apartments and what could be done to address our open space deficiency.
Khidir Abdalla, (2nd alternate on PB) said that we shouldn’t be afraid of change and supports the amendment. He is not concerned with the density and scale and feels that this type of housing fits in well to an URBAN downtown. He feels we need increased density in order to get pedestrian traffic that is needed to revitalize our downtown.
Readers says ; Valley Hospital A community hospital that sues the community it is serving https://theridgewoodblog.net/readers-says-valley-hospital-a-community-hospital-that-sues-the-community-it-is-serving/Ridgewood NJ, One can only wonder ,how could such a well financed hospital so poorly execute on its expansion plans and fall pry to one PR disaster after another? Did someone whisper in the ear of the trustees to make them think that at the end of the day Valleys political friends would come through . After all since Valley began pursuing its expansion , HUMC has purchased Pascack Valley , expanded dramatically its foot print and made deals with many of Valleys competitors ?
It all started with the so called Pfund’s Folly, i.e. Ordinance 3066 !!! In the very least repeal the Chapter § 190-143 ( here https://ecode360.com/6694062 ) that allow for applications to amend the Master Plan. Application to Village Council or Planning Board.Any interested party may request that an amendment or amendments be made to the Village Master Plan or development regulations. The request(s) shall be made to the Village Council and/or the Village Planning Board.
As we now know Mayor Pfund was a personal donor to Valley Hospital until 2006, his law firm (Reiseman, Rosenberg & Pfund, LLP) listed Valley hospital as one of its clients on their website until the listing mysteriously disappeared, Pfund’s father has willed part of his estate to Valley after he dies! Yet Pfund has not rescued himself from the considering the H-Zone issue? Others on the Planning Board have for less association.” https://theridgewoodblog.net/because-this-comes-up-over-and-over/
Whats seems odd to most readers is that after a thorough review and denial the previous council Mayor Aronsohn pledged over and over that he would once again .
Even the Ridgewood News commented , “Last Tuesday’s non-partisan election that ousted one of two Village Council incumbents has left residents questioning what the new mix of leaders will bring to the table regarding The Valley Hospital’s proposed expansion plan — an issue considered dormant since last year. Mayor Keith Killion, who voted against the $750 million plan to double the size of the hospital, lost his bid on Tuesday for one of three four-year seats up for grabs on the council. The new council could revisit the vote, because a change in the master plan that could permit the expansion still exists.https://www.northjersey.com/topstories/ridgewood/151331565_Election_opens_questions_on_hospital_plan.html
Which led to Valley resubmitting the expansion plan with no changes from the previous submission.
So what is the case have our political leaders willingly mislead Valley in the hopes of reaping benefits from Valley’s support or has Valley controlled the narrative or as some would say undermined the political process to continue to push its highly unpopular agenda ?
Repeal Pfund’s Folly, i.e. Ordinance 3066 !!! In the very least repeal the Chapter § 190-143 ( here https://ecode360.com/6694062 ) that allow for applications to amend the Master Plan. Application to Village Council or Planning Board.Any interested party may request that an amendment or amendments be made to the Village Master Plan or development regulations. The request(s) shall be made to the Village Council and/or the Village Planning Board.
If you have traveled around the state lately, chances are you have come across construction of some kind.
According to the State Department of Labor and Workforce Development, there has been a spike of 10,000 construction jobs in 2014 and an increase of 7,900 during January and February of this year.
One housing and economics expert said there are five main factors driving the construction increase.
“The first is higher education which is the result of the bond issue and universities and colleges are leveraging those funds in public/private partnerships,” said James Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.
The second is demographically driven.
“The real growth in the population is millennials and aging baby boomers who are resizing in the housing market. So, we have almost record high numbers of multifamily construction. The multifamily rental housing sector is now about 60 percent where historically, it’s been about 30 percent,” Hughes said.
New Jersey is also the third largest warehouse distribution center in the country, a sector that has been growing very rapidly as a result of e-commerce.
“Instead of building conventional warehouses, what are now being erected are very large fulfillment centers, like the one for Amazon in Robbinsville. With people shopping on the Internet, a lot of space is needed to store items before they are shipped,” Hughes said.
Data centers are a significant factor to the increase in construction as well, namely because of New Jersey’s geography.
“In many cases, the big New York brokerage houses need vast data centers to store their information and they want them on a different power grid than the main headquarters, but they can’t be too far away from the major trading centers because those milliseconds are very important in high-speed trading. New Jersey is in a good location for that,” Hughes said.
April 13, 2015 Last updated: Monday, April 13, 2015, 9:24 AM
By Darius Amos
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Already mired with the downtown multifamily housing public hearings, the Ridgewood Planning Board has taken on the state-mandated task of reexamining its master plan.
For the next several months, board members will be expected to review the municipality’s current master plan and a list of corrective action items created during the village’s previous reexamination, which took place in 2006.
Their objective, according to Ridgewood Planner Blais Brancheau, is to identify areas that require change and any outdated language within those planning documents.
The board is not necessarily required to rewrite the master plan, but members must complete their review and adopt an official reexamination report, to be drafted by the municipal planner, by February 2016.
In part, the report should evaluate major problems and objectives related to land development at the time of the adoption of the previous report, determine the extent to which problems have changed, and propose any recommended changes to the master plan.
“It’s a report that will say this is what we looked at … this is what we think going forward,” said Brancheau, who detailed the reexamination process during last Tuesday’s Planning Board work session.
APRIL 9, 2015, 1:30 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2015, 11:55 PM
BY SALVADOR RIZZO
STATE HOUSE BUREAU |
THE RECORD
A state appeals court on Thursday blocked Governor Christie’s efforts to take $160 million out of trust funds that towns use to build low-cost housing units for poor, disabled and elderly residents.
It was the latest setback for Christie in a legal battle brewing for years over New Jersey’s troubled housing program for poor residents. Last month, the state Supreme Court ruled that Christie’s inaction on affordable-housing matters had gone on too long and required an urgent fix.
As an end run around the Christie administration, the high court put judges in charge of setting rules and giving guidance to towns on how many low-cost housing units they should be building. With Thursday’s ruling by the appeals court, the judiciary is now set to take control of millions of dollars in housing funds to implement those plans.
Christie, a Republican, in 2012 tried to take the housing funds to help balance the state budget. The appeals court rejected his position and faulted his administration for ignoring previous court orders, declining to write statewide housing regulations and leaving New Jersey towns in the dark as to how many homes should be built for their lowest-income residents.
