For now, no more redevelopment zone proposals will be heard
March 14,2015
Boyd Loving
Ridgewood NJ, In response to a taxpayer’s direct question, Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld responded on Wednesday evening that Village Council members have no plans at this time to hear any further proposals from developers in connection with the North Walnut Street Redevelopment Plan.
Only two (2) proposals have been publicly presented. One from the Kensington Senior Development, LLC for an assisted living facility/parking garage/retail complex, and the other from Langan Development Corporation, for a large parking garage/luxury apartment/retail complex.
According the Sonenfeld, both proposals are now undergoing an extensive review of “the finances.”
Proposals call for senior apartments, luxury duplexes in downtown Ridgewood.
March 9, 2015 Last updated: Monday, March 9, 2015, 1:21 AM
By CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
The Record
RIDGEWOOD — More than two acres of land downtown could soon be transformed into luxury duplex apartments or assisted-living housing for seniors.
Ridgewood issued a request in September seeking proposals from developers for the 10 properties — including the former gas station site at 132 Franklin Ave. — that make up the village’s redevelopment zone.
The plan from Kensington Senior Development, based in White Plains, N.Y., calls for two structures: a 60-foot-tall residential building — with 98 assisted-living units and 5,000 square feet of retail space — and a parking garage the village would own and operate.
The garage, which will be accessible from Walnut Street, would add more than 130 much-need parking spots to Ridgewood’s downtown, said Harley Cook, one of Kensington’s founding partners.
Cook said Ridgewood could expect an additional 18,000 visitors each year to the village, should his plan gain the appropriate approvals.
Assisted living facility, luxury condos pitched for Ridgewood lot
March 6, 2015 Last updated: Friday, March 6, 2015, 4:12 PM
By Mark Krulish
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Two developers were invited to the Ridgewood Village Council meeting on Wednesday night to present proposals for the redevelopment of the North Walnut Street zone.
A committee of village officials had been meeting with potential developers over the past several weeks to give feedback on ideas for the redevelopment zone. From those meetings, the committee selected candidates for a public presentation, described as the “first step” in a process to determine the best use for the site. It has been noted that one of the conditions for any redevelopment on the site was that it would have to provide a net gain of 100 parking spaces in the Central Business District (CBD).
Harley Cook of Kensington Senior Development presented a proposal for an assisted-living facility in Ridgewood so that local seniors can continue to stay in the village even when their health requires full-time care.
The proposal includes a parking garage to be built and donated to the village – with the existing Town Garage to be removed at the developer’s expense – in exchange for the right to build an assisted-living residence, with the first floor of the building dedicated to retail and other commercial uses.
In Wyckoff, building materials become issue in proposed health care center expansion
MARCH 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, MARCH 1, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY MARINA VILLENEUVE
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
WYCKOFF — Residents opposed to the expansion of the Christian Health Care Center say January’s fire at the Avalon at Edgewater apartment complex shows what can happen if the center developer is allowed to use combustible construction material, as it wants to.
State law currently allows such material, and that has become a point of potential conflict over the expansion application as opponents call on the township’s zoning officials to stand their ground after recently refusing to allow such materials.
In 2013, the center’s representatives signed an agreement with Wyckoff that it would use only non-combustible construction materials. But then they asked to be allowed to use cheaper, combustible materials like wood framing. The non-profit, which previously agreed to scale down the project from 258 units, to 199, says its fire detection and suppression systems exceed code standards.
In December, the Zoning Board of Adjustment voted, 6-1, to deny the request to amend the agreement.
FEBRUARY 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
If Glen Rock can do it, why not Ridgewood?
Martin Walker
Ridgewood
to the editor:
The Record reported on Feb. 21 that Glen Park Village LLC plans three buildings to house a combined 67 apartment units restricted to residents aged 62 or older.
Why is there a relative lack of attention to this option in planning discussions about higher density in Ridgewood?
I have written several letters to the editor on this topic and spoken in at least three public meetings over the last 12 months. The Ridgewood News’ otherwise excellent New Year’s summary of housing issues in town made no mention of it at all. Commonly designated as over 55 housing, the issue was also absent from the council elections last year, save a single comment by one of the winning candidates that age 55 no longer guarantees families without children.
The only reference I’ve seen reported here was Mayor Aronhson’s question to the developer of the Dayton project, Scott Loventhal, as to why he had not considered this option. Mr. Loventhal’s unfortunate response was that an over 55 residency requirement would diminish the property’s “vibrancy.” As an over 55er, I am personally offended by It’s unlikely that any other major social group, much less the largest growing one in America, would be subject to such an implicitly negative stereotype without eliciting public opobrium.
What gives Ridgewood? Where is the public outcry and the political leadership for the most obvious and beneficial solution to downtown blight and low business activity? Where is the support for the only higher density plan that will both decrease school utilization and provide a wider distribution of our tax load?
Requiring that new higher density housing downtown be limited to an over 55 age demographic is a good start, but additional steps such as downtown assisted living facilities, and zoning changes to promote “in law” apartments in private residences are also called for.
A recent letter to the editor said we should plan for 2025, the very least we should expect from effective leaders. The demographic shift toward baby boomers, as well as the urban job creation trends at the expense of suburbs are unmistakable. For Ridgewood to miss out on the largest growing sector of the American service economy would be tragic.
Developers, opponents sum up points on Ridgewood proposal to allow density housing downtown
FEBRUARY 19, 2015, 9:57 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015, 9:57 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Attorneys representing developers with plans for high-density multifamily housing complexes downtown have made their final pitches on a pending amendment to the village’s master plan.
Ridgewood’s Planning Board heard final summations Thursday night from two attorneys for the three developers that have requested the master plan change, and another that was retained by a grassroots citizens group opposed to the village ordinance that permitted the developers to ask for such an amendment.
If approved by village officials, the proposed master plan amendment would clear the way for all three projects, slated for various parcels throughout the downtown.
The three developers have plans to construct a combined 208 apartments downtown.
Attorney Thomas Wells, who represents two of the developers, said that experts have testified there is a need for more housing options in Ridgewood, especially for empty-nesters.
Wells said experts also postulated that traffic in the village would barely be impacted by the new housing developments and that the projects would not worsen Ridgewood’s well-established dearth of parking space.
The proposed housing projects will be a boon to business in the village, Wells said.
Citizens for a Better Ridgewood : residents deserve best solution
To the Editor:
At a Planning Board meeting two years ago, a group of residents learned that the Planning Board would consider amending the master plan to allow up to 50 units of housing per acre in 10 acres of downtown Ridgewood. Many of us who had been attending meetings were disappointed that a compromise or scaled-down approach to adding new housing in our downtown was not put forth before moving forward with testimony.
We simply believe that residents deserve the best solution to this issue, one that enhances and supports our Central Business District and encourages a diversity of housing options while protecting the unique character of our village and the quality of life we currently enjoy.
The Planning Board is tasked with the important responsibility of finding a solution that balances benefits to the community with the potential negative effects. We understand that this is not an easy task and that the Planning Board will be making a decision that has enormous implications for the future of Ridgewood.
Citizens for a Better Ridgewood (CBR) wants to thank the Planning Board for allowing residents to have a voice in this process, and for allowing the process to proceed without rushing to a quick conclusion. We urge the Planning Board to consider all sides, to proceed cautiously and to do what’s best for Ridgewood. Please remember your residents really do care.
Why do the developers want to build high-density housing in Ridgewood? The answer is that they can make a lot of money, because property values are high.
But why are property values high? It is because people want to live there. Ridgewood has an appealing small-town ambience. And why does it have that ambience?
It is because there is no high-density housing … yet.
The poet Oscar Wilde famously said, “Each man kills the thing he loves.” Except these developers love only the money they hope to make.
As long as theirs is the only such housing, they can still use “Ridgewood exclusivity” as a selling point. But how will the Planning and zoning boards justify saying no to the next high-rise? And the next? Before you know it, Ridgewood would be Fort Lee without the bridge.
By then, why should the initial developers care? Capital has no commitment to anything but itself; it vacuums the value and moves on. Developers get short-term profits and we live with long-term consequences.
Affordable apartments within easy walking distance of downtown and train and bus stations would be a good idea, although I doubt anything built in Ridgewood would be affordable. The Planning Board should leave the master plan as it is, since it already provides for apartments. And the developers should go back to the drawing board, perhaps to produce blueprints that would require only rezoning or minor variances.
Cancelled: February 17, 2015, Public MeetingCalled: Work Session & Special Public Meeting: Thursday, February 19, 2015
In accordance with the provisions of the “Open Public Meetings Act,” please be advised that the Planning Board has scheduled a special public meeting and work session for THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015, in RIDGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT CENTER, 627 E. RIDGEWOOD AVENUE, RIDGEWOOD, NJ beginning AT 7:30 p.m.
The Board may take official action during this Special Public Meeting at which time the Board will continue the public hearing concerning a proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan which would recommend changes in zone district classifications and boundaries within the Central Business District and surrounding area, creating the AH-2, B-3-R, and C-R Zone Districts and amending the existing C Zone District.
All meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work session meetings, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings which are always open to members of the general
Readers say , Montclair already exists, no need to recreate it here. I chose and continue to choose Ridgewood over Montclair.
“Ridgewood’s problem is under-development “, Yes, I am puzzled by comments like these. If you don’t like the town, move out. Why do we need to make the downtown more “attractive” to someone else by bringing in apartments. Its such a circular and cray argument.
Of course developers love us — they have a town council they run circles around. “Oh, but if don’t let them put up 500 apartment units rather than the 50 the properties are zoned for, they will build a supermarket.”
Mr. Ostler can move to any number of locations within 5 miles or so and park himself in an apartment building and live out the rest of his life in bliss. Why does he and the developers need to ruin the town for the rest of us?
Chamber Parking Meeting – Feb. 9
PARKING MEETING RE-SCHEDULED MONDAY FEBRUARY 9, 2015 ROOTS – 6PM Chestnut Street We are glad that everyone is safe. Hope to see you at ROOTS 2/9/15 @ 6pm The Mayor and Village Manager will be attending to answer questions.
February 6, 2015 Last updated: Friday, February 6, 2015, 12:31 AM
The Ridgewood News
Print
A need for modern, convenient housing
Anita Jones
To the Editor:
I’ve loved Ridgewood ever since moving here in 1978. But now, as empty nesters, my husband and I are faced with a decision – stay or go. With our adult children out on their own, we have no need, and no desire, to keep and maintain our single-family home.
We would like to stay in Ridgewood, but we’ve found that the right options for people like us simply don’t exist. There are basically two housing choices in Ridgewood today – single-family houses and outdated apartments, neither of which works for us.
The proposed new multifamily apartments in downtown are just what people like us are looking for – modern apartments that offer convenience, amenities and a great downtown location where we can walk to shop, dine and socialize.
In fact, all of Ridgewood will benefit by creating new downtown housing, because it will not just help long time residents stay in town, but it will also attract young professionals, revitalize vacant lots and add foot traffic for local businesses.
February 6, 2015 Last updated: Friday, February 6, 2015, 12:31 AM
The Ridgewood News
Print
Under-development is the problem
To The Editor:
I’m one of many “empty nesters” with no organized campaign but love Ridgewood, want to continue living here when downsizing occurs, and am enthusiastic about the option of modern apartments near the Central Business District. But leave aside my personal interest. As I told a victorious Village Council candidate, last year’s campaigners talked of “over-development” but Ridgewood’s problem is clearly under-development – vacant storefronts and auto dealerships and large empty tracts along the railroad.
The proposed apartments would boost our image as a thriving town, help the tax base, and add foot traffic for stores. The building plans are visually attractive. We’re fortunate that developers believe in Ridgewood and want to invest. Of course village officials must consider adequate on-site parking, traffic and pedestrian patterns, and school enrollment (unless apartments are designated for seniors). But any issues can surely be negotiated as necessary so these valuable projects can proceed. This, plus a major new parking facility a la Montclair, will help our merchants prosper and benefit everyone.
FEBRUARY 6, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Over the course of two evenings, Ridgewood residents had the chance to speak their minds about the proposed amendment to the master plan currently being sought by three developers who wish to build apartment complexes in the village’s downtown.
Citizens brought a variety of concerns before the Planning Board, with some favoring the high-density development and others calling for a scaled-back proposal decreasing the amount of units per acre currently being entertained.
Three separate developments are being proposed: the Dayton, a 106-unit luxury development in the old Brogan Cadillac lot; Chestnut Village, a 52-unit luxury development slated for Chestnut Street near the village’s central garage; and the 52-unit Enclave proposed for the intersection of East Ridgewood and North Maple avenues (the site of the old Sealfons building).
While very few of the more than 50 residents who spoke at the two meetings were completely against development, the idea of tripling or quadrupling the housing density in the Central Business District did not sit well with the majority of those who came to the podium to oppose the changes.
“It’s time for a compromise,” said resident Frank Schott. “Going from 12 units per acre to 50 is not a compromise, it is a surrender. Let’s make a generous offer of settling for doubling the permitted density to 24 units per acre.”
Ridgewood residents argue against allowing proposed dense development downtown
FEBRUARY 3, 2015, 10:24 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015, 10:24 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Print
RIDGEWOOD — A proposed master plan amendment permitting high-density multifamily housing projects downtown needs a reduction in allowed density before it can be adopted, village residents contended in testimony before the Planning Board on Tuesday night.
The second and final night of public commentary on the proposed master plan change took place at the board’s weekly meeting.
More than a dozen Ridgewood residents asked the board to exert caution as it proceeds with its ongoing consideration of the proposal.
For five years, the Planning Board has been mulling the merits of amending the master plan. The amendment’s passage — first, by the board and later, the Village Council — would clear the way for three planned housing developments.
At the Planning Board’s meeting last week, more than 30 residents spoke, some in favor of the proposal and others opposed.
Residents wary of the changes said the density submitted in the amended language was too intense, suggesting it be reduced from 40 to 50 units per acre to etween 20 and 25.
FEBRUARY 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — The Planning Board learned that when it comes to three high-density multi-family apartment complexes being pitched for downtown, the number of units matters.
Most of the more than 30 current and former village residents who testified at Thursday night’s meeting said they supported a proposed master plan amendment that would permit larger housing developments than Ridgewood is used to.
Others rejected the notion of such buildings going up in the village, claiming its character would be irrevocably altered.
They agreed, though, that the density shift being suggested in the proposed amendment’s language should be reduced by about half.
The master plan amendment — sought by three developers with property in Ridgewood who are eager to break ground on projects with more than 200 apartments — would increase the number of units allowed per acre from 12 to between 40 and 50.
“The applicant is threatening to destroy the small-town feel of Ridgewood,” said one resident, Frank Schott, adding that the new housing complexes would add “major stress” to the village’s entire infrastructure.
