After the September 16th Village Council meeting, everyone I spoke with said, “Well, it’s a done deal with the High Density Housing.” But then September 30th proved us different.
The point is, as Rocky Balboa once said, “It ain’t ’til it’s over.” To add to that: It’s only over if we don’t show up.
Tonight is probably the most important Village Council meeting in the history of Ridgewood. It is the night when it’s decided whether we live in a Village or a City.
No one can foresee the future, but one thing is for sure: coming tonight will send a strong message – not only to this outgoing Village Council majority, but also as a mandate to those who are running for election. Perhaps even more important is that we can say that we showed up when our Village needed us the most and did what we could to stop this madness.
Lastly, if it’s absolutely impossible for you to come, The link to the broadcast can be found here: https://livestream.com/accounts/18208820/events/4985052
(NOTE: this is an unofficial broadcast and can ONLY be viewed at the above link.)
Please share this link and forward this note to as many residents as you can.
Thank you for helping protect our most wonderful village. Hope to see you tonight.
Ridgewood NJ, Readers say , “The only way to stop this is to fill up the room and let our Village Council know how we feel about this vote. It is important that everybody in town come out tonight. It is probably the most important vote in Ridgewood history because it is a question as to whether we want to continue living in a village or make it into a city. If the Village Council votes in favor of this high density master plan amendment, nothing will ever be the same again in our town.”
As Dave Slomin from CBR pointed out, “Ridgewood’s future held by the current powerholders in our Village Council and Planning Board, and that of a large majority of Residents. These powerholders see downtown Ridgewood as bigger scale, taller, denser, and much more bustling. They are planning a town center with a more urban look and feel, not a small town character. I don’t really know what is influencing them, as virtually every Resident CBR has spoken with – 1,000s of them over the past 4 years – wants Ridgewood to maintain its small town feel. Residents want to give their children and grandchildren the same wonderful town we enjoy.
Slomin went on , ‘Oddly, all three of the Council Members who support this over-scaled development are not running again. Why? We can only guess. But what we do know, is that in approving such unprecedented development as a Council Majority, but a Ridgewood Minority, they leave the mess to the next Council and to every Resident of this town… and to our children. Again, bad and unfair planning.”
Most readers find the idea that there will be No material impact? Really? These studies were hastily arranged at best and are not at all credible. If 70 units is so immaterial, why can’t you and your developer friends and family live without them?
The reality is that most residents for or against the planned development have no confidence in the Village Council majority aka the 3 amigos and do not think they are the people who should be making this decision . The current council majority has no overall vision of the future , and no plan just funding from special interests ,turning the Village into an urban environment .
I was not initially opposed to the proposed parking structure on Hudson Street in the center of Ridgewood but after seeing the renderings, I am entirely against it because of its enormous size and unfitting design. The residents that are vocally opposed to this structure know that it will destroy the character of Ridgewood. I am personally opposed to it because it will destroy the character of my neighborhood.
I live a couple blocks away with my wife and three children, and walk by this lot at least twice a day. My kids walk by it going to and from school. And my neighbors who have been here even longer than we have pass by it regularly. I have lived on South Broad Street for the past 16 years and have actually been looking forward to development that will improve the area. This will only make it worse.
Good architectural design makes an effort to work with the style of a neighborhood. This does not. If this structure has to be four or five above-grade stories then the right aesthetic approach would be to match the height of the apartments across the street, two-stories high, along South Broad Street and Hudson Street, and then use a set-back of 20 feet so that you could continue up from there without it being an eyesore. That way you get your height and space required but you do not create an ominous structure.
One rule of thumb is to never build something taller than the most attractive buildings. The three-story buildings with spires on the corner of South Broad Street and East Ridgewood Avenue are good examples of our town’s beautiful downtown architecture. To build a massive parking garage just next to them would dominate the center and detract from them. The idea of making a parking garage the most noticeable building in a town’s center is a cultural recipe for disaster.
Ironically the details of the roof on the corner of South Broad Street and Hudson Street, which is the only part of the structure with any kind of actual design sensibility, will not be seen by anyone on the street level because it is too high. And the only time this part of the street and the residences will get daylight is the late afternoon because it is south west of those apartment windows.
I heard that this structure is not supposed to significantly increase the traffic on my street. How is that even plausible? It’s a parking structure! It can only bring more cars…that’s the point. When the New York Sports Club moved in several years ago I was excited that the abandoned car showroom was being turned into something new and bringing life to a fairly run down street.
The problem is that not only did it bring a significant amount more of traffic but it brought a different kind of traffic. The traffic that existed prior to the Sports Club consisted of people who used South Broad Street as a straight shot to Glen Rock. They drove fast and polluted the street as people in cars do but they were also focused on getting in or out of town. The new traffic was a very different scene. People drive faster and a bit more recklessly because they are speeding to or from the gym, while texting on their phones, and they are making turns across busy pedestrian paths without checking.
I anticipate this extra traffic the parking garage will bring will be of this caliber: people hurrying to the structure because it will take extra time to park there than pulling into a spot on the street so they can go shopping and meet someone at a restaurant. On the way there they will be texting that they are arriving or leaving. While the developers are only responsible for the accidents that happen on their property, I worry about the accidents that will happen in the few block radius around their facility, as should the politicians in Ridgewood and the residences of my neighborhood as well as the residents of Ridgewood and people visiting our town.
I think we are at a point where we have to decide (as did the planners of many cities around the United States) whether we want Ridgewood to be a town that favors cars or people.
If I were mandated to build a parking garage in the center, the most natural place to put it would be actually down at the corner of East Ridgewood Avenue and Maple. That area is developed more for higher volume traffic and already has a large surface-level parking lot that could be built up in a way that keep all the stores intact, and already has a large ground-level underpass on Maple Street. But I would actually be in favor of less traffic in general.
The only people clamoring for the parking garage are shop owners who think their profits will magically double once the garage is built. At the town meeting I attended, I heard a senior lady propose an idea that I think would work very well. That is, why not close down some of the streets for cars and make them pedestrian ways. It worked well in Montclair, and it has had an amazing effect on midtown Manhattan. If we leave South Broad Street/North Broad Street open, but closed East Ridgewood Avenue from the Broad Streets to the Post Office and turned that into a pedestrian way and expanded the outdoor seating for restaurants, you would increase the tourist appeal of the center and it would only mean closing down part of one street. If you have been to the tree lighting in Ridgewood and have experienced these car-free nights of East Ridgewood Avenue, then you would see how popular it could be.
Some of my concerns may be a little too close to home but in my nearly fifty years of living in the United States and Europe I have taken note of projects that improve and detract from the character of towns and cities. I have lived in beautiful places including Santa Barbara and Prague. I would include Ridgewood as a beautiful place to live. These are places people want to go to in order to get away from strip malls, busy roads, and generic housing because by being in a unique place, people feel special.
Ridgewood has charm and character but that is in jeopardy with bad planning. The problem with parking garages is that even the best of them have the feeling of an incomplete building, or worse, an abandoned building because of their open structure, which makes them appear gutted. What makes the streets of Ridgewood so pleasant to walk down is that almost all of the buildings have storefront access. The proposed parking lot would just be a lifeless block of concrete. I would not be opposed to a parking garage with special details that would appeal to the public such as a public access green roof and storefront shops/galleries. They would not have to be big spaces, just something to continue the pedestrian window-shopping feel for the streets.
I have also been to and lived in many places that are not nice and one thing they have in common is a corruption of character. Corruption is a good word because it usually starts with individuals who do not have the best interests of the people. That may be a developer who does not have any interest in a region other than profit, or are simply evil people – like a bad government. An example of this is a small city I lived in, in the north of the Czech Republic. It had been bombed out in WWII and unlike cities such as Warsaw in Poland, which restored their historic downtown, the communists built a big concrete structure in their town center, which dominated the historic buildings that were saved. The townspeople had opposed it from the start even though the communist government assured them that they knew best. It was nicknamed “the bathtub” because it looked like the side of an old bathtub. After communism they tore it down.
So, when the style of a town center is lost to a new, ugly building like the proposed parking structure it becomes a symbol of wrongdoing and mistakes and can only be fixed by tearing it down.
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
RIDGEWOOD – The village’s planning board met Wednesday night in the hopes of coming to decisions in regards to pressing matters currently before the board such as Valley Hospital and the village’s affordable housing obligations.
RIDGEWOOD — The results of studies on how zoning to allow high-density, multifamily housing downtown would affect the village will be presented to the public Wednesday night at Ridgewood High School.
The four studies, commissioned by the Village Council in mid-January, will explore the possible impacts of five introduced zoning ordinances on local schools, traffic, community services, infrastructure and finances.
Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld said Saturday three firms were contracted to do the work: Ross Haber & Associates to look at the schools, the RBA Group to review traffic, and BFJ Planning, in partnership with Urbanomics, to study local infrastructure and financial impacts.
Experts from those companies will present their findings to the public Wednesday night at the Ridgewood High School Campus Center. The public will be able to comment on the reports afterwards, and a final public hearing and possible votes of adoption are slated for March 23.
The ordinances, approved by the Planning Board by majority votes last June and introduced by the council a month later, would increase the allowable number of housing units per acre from 12 to 30 or 35 in three zones in the central business district. Proponents of the master plan amendments say the resulting housing complexes would provide homes for young professionals and empty-nesters; opponents claim they would strain local infrastructure and forever change the character of the village’s quaint downtown.
RIDGEWOOD DOWNTOWN ZONING ANALYSIS STUDIES
The Final Downtown Zoning Impacts Analysis that address the four multifamily housing study areas is now available. For the complete document Click Here
By Dan Ivers | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on March 06, 2016 at 5:59 PM, updated March 07, 2016 at 7:24 AM
HOBOKEN – Police Chief Ken Ferrante is speaking out after 15 people were arrested and dozens of others ticketed after this year’s annual Lepre-Con bar crawl.
In a statement, the chief said he was “disturbed” by what he called repeated issues with revelers at the St. Patrick’s Day-themed event, sponsored by a private promoter and local watering holes.
Arrests this year increased by four over 2015, and Ferrante specifically cited the arrest of a former college football player for allegedly breaking a city officer’s ribs and dislocating another’s shoulder.
“I will not tolerate having any of our officers injured, for the purposes of a few to make a financial profit at the expense of our residents, and for the purposes of promoting deviant behavior attached to various holidays, which results in citizens and officers being hospitalized!” he said.
We should neither despair nor capitulate. We can prevent the council from handing the Village over to failed developers and downtown businesses. The May 10th election really isn’t that far away, and these things can still be derailed and prevented. Thankfully there are people working on doing just that. We need to all join in. Aronsohn knows his plans can be undone – – that is why he acts like he does when you try and nail him down on specifics. What scares him beyond belief is that if he doesn’t deliver, his developer friends will drop him like a hot potato. He’s not loved in either the local or state level democratic organizations or other groups. He knows the developers are his last hope to ever winning a real election. And yes, our current debates about Village life are all about one man’s political future (or lack thereof) – – that is what makes the sell-out so despicable.
Let’s keep the pressure up. And let’s see what happens in the May election. If those of us opposed to the overdevelopment are truly in the majority, as I suspect we are, then the council votes will reveal just that. In the meantime, lets not have this fellow undo over a hundred years of village life just so he can try and advance his own failed political career.
As you are aware, in recent years, your Residents have voiced ongoing concerns with the “process” by which many important matters facing the Village are undertaken. Included in our concerns are handling of the High-Density Housing Ordinances, Schedler redevelopment, Habernickel house leasing/parking, and, of course, the Parking Garage designs and rushed BCIA Bonding for construction.
The Agenda set for this Wednesday, January 27’s Council meeting,https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/…/480-20160127-village-council-p…, is further evidence that our Village government is still not handling “process” in the well-planned, open and Resident-focused manner we have requested time and again. We need you to do the right thing, from the get-go, without the now routine changes that follow the constant, but fully valid and sadly necessary, complaints from your Residents.
For example, justifiable Resident complaint led to changes in the problematic scheduling of: (1) the original high-density ordinance public comment and vote, set for a single meeting on a night shared with 3-4 back-to-school nights, and (2) the recent “special public meeting” for high-density housing impact studies at the prohibitive time of Friday evening at 5pm.
We should not be Ridgewood’s guardians. That’s the Council’s job. But once again, your Agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting forces our hand. Why? Here’s why:
1. DANGEROUSLY RUSHED GARAGE BONDING WITH BERGEN COUNTY: Firstly, this Special Meeting is set to review the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) application and bonding, despite the fact that we don’t even have a finalized garage plan. In effect, we don’t know what we’re buying, but are still applying for the loan! It doesn’t take a financial genius to see the problem with that. At the 1/6/16 garage meeting, you committed to working on a new garage redesign that (1) fits on the lot, (2) does not cut Hudson Street in half, and (3) tries to address the concerns of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. So far, Residents have yet to be fully presented with any formal revised designs that we can use to either support or question the ordinance. We need to see these plans. What we do know is that the revised draft still does not fit within the Hudson Street lot and takes over several feet of Hudson Street itself. Based on the wording of the Referendum and the commitments of the 1/6/16 Council meeting, that is unacceptable and requires correction. Remember, several Councilmembers specifically told residents to “Vote Yes to Parking… and then Negotiate the size, scale and design of the garage later.” As such, based on your commitment to us, we ask that – as promised – you allow us to be a “real” part of the process. So let’s see the new plans before you write any checks.
2. FAILURE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED IN YOUR OWN TRAFFIC STUDY (by Maser): Beyond design, size and scale issues, Ridgewood must address and resolve the recommendations of its own Maser Traffic Study, which not only mandated further study of ‘at-capacity’ intersections at Broad/Ridgewood and Broad/Franklin, but also raised questions about the need for such a large garage at that location. In prior years, even the Mayor himself, in a very smart December 2008 essay on parking, stated that “I am not convinced that we need a large, potentially expensive garage… in fact, the more I learn about the situation, the more I believe that a garage now would be a big mistake” (https://www.paularonsohn.com/writ…/time-for-action-on-parking). The Mayor then wisely added some cost-effective recommendations, he called “Quick, Smart Fixes,” including enhanced signage for current parking lots (something that still hasn’t been done, but is a GREAT idea) and repainting existing lines to gain spaces. Many residents have voiced agreement with Mr. Aronsohn, circa-2008… let’s try other let costly (and maybe more effective) options first.
While you can legally take POLITICAL action towards bonding, you cannot take RIGHTFUL action towards bonding, in any manner, unless you let your Residents know exactly what you are bonding for, and give us a real opportunity to weigh-in and approve. Ultimately, Residents will pay this bill, either as parkers or through real estate taxes.
3. SCHEDLER DISCUSSIONS NEED TO HAVE THEIR OWN NIGHT, OR AT LEAST EARLIER PLACEMENT AT T A LATER MEETING: Lastly, but of similar importance, it appears you have scheduled a meaningful discussion on the Schedler Redevelopment matter at the tail end of this meeting, after what may be a lengthy parking review. Schedler is too important to too many Residents, and to the Village itself, to be given such short shrift. By the time the Schedler discussion occurs on 1/27, so late on the agenda, many or most of the concerned Residents who need to be there, will be gone. And even Councilmembers have complained of trying to make important decisions at late hours. Whether intended or not, this will continue to raise the specter of this Council’s legacy of problematic scheduling and “process.” This specter hurts your ability to be trusted by Residents and to be effective as leaders at a time you need to be the most effective. Please give this some real thought. According to many empty-nesters and seniors I’ve spoken with, Ridgewood has not seen so much government distrust and community group outrage in decades. Only you can fix this… and here’s a quick way to start:
Please do the following:
1. Put off the BCIA discussion and vote until we have answers to the Maser Traffic Study questions and until we know what parking plan we are bonding for.
2. Reschedule the Schedler discussion to a future meeting out of respect to your concerned Residents and to the import of the matter itself.
As always, while frustrated, we hope that you will do the right thing in the handling of both these related requests.
Thank you for rescheduling Schedler as the agenda is so jam packed that we were all looking at another marathon meeting. I may not be an expert on anything but I do recognize when town issues have reached a critical mass level of concern. With hundreds of people speaking out on multiple issues and the vast majority offering well thought out solutions, it is time to go back to the drawing board. Had it not been for concerned residents speaking out on the garage we wouldn’t have known about the encroachment of all three options onto Hudson Street. This revelation has altered the integrity of the present plans so dramatically that the entire project is open for reevaluation on design and financing.
Regarding Schedler, I urge you to refrain from the removal of structures or cleaning up of the woods until a fully vetted plan is in place with feasibility studies and financials that can be presented to the public for consideration. I became aware recently that a private citizen paid for the tarp on the Zabriskie/ Schedler House and that no town monies are available for needed repairs on said tarp. I was under the impression that the town had paid for the original tarp and I feel that I and others were misled.
I can only say that having been involved with saving the Stable and getting a community center for the town, it is very shortsighted to disregard the value and the potential use of this historic house and property. I can’t begin to tell you how important it is to save the woods, for humans as well as the bald eagles that are in the area. We can have it all plus a smaller ball field. Numbers show that more children are enrolled in RBSA programs than young adults . The smaller field will get much use. We might look at leasing/ renting field space in local towns.
Years ago, my kids played at Ramapo College fields, the Armory in Teaneck and the indoor arena in the Meadowlands. Not to leave out housing density changes in the CBD, Valley Hospital and the reported 600 leaf summonses that were given out and the large numbers who showed up at court in protest. Change is sometimes about doing less but more effectively. If ever there was a time to take a step back and examine the unintended consequences of massive change, it is now.
Affordable housing divide: Judges to reconcile differing estimates of need in NJ
JANUARY 18, 2016, 11:25 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016, 7:41 AM
BY MARINA VILLENEUVE
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Last spring, a study commissioned by a housing-rights group found that New Jersey municipalities must collectively provide more than 200,000 units of low- and moderate-income housing by 2025. Now, a new report paid for by 230 towns has put the need at just under 37,000.
Which calculation is correct — or, as the case may be, more correct — will be up to state Superior Court judges in 15 regions. The state Supreme Court last spring tasked them with reviewing the plans of hundreds of New Jersey municipalities to provide housing for people of modest means.
Units of measurement
There’s a wide disparity in estimates of how many more affordable-housing units are needed in New Jersey over the next 10 years. Here’s what a housing advocacy group and a consultant working for 230 municipalities suggest:
Fair Share Housing Center: 200,000+
Econsult Solutions: fewer than 37,000
Which calculation is correct — or, as the case may be, more correct — will be up to state Superior Court judges in 15 regions. The state Supreme Court last spring tasked them with reviewing the plans of hundreds of New Jersey municipalities to provide housing for people of modest means.
The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively disbanded the state Council on Affordable Housing, which for 15 years failed to implement affordable-housing guidelines that furthered decades-old state Supreme Court mandates.
The difference between the two reports stems from disagreements over how to interpret the Supreme Court’s action, the future of the state economy and whether to count any housing need that went unfulfilled during those 15 years. Those issues are likely to be hashed out over the next several months in court.
Meanwhile, civil rights groups in New Jersey are lambasting the municipalities’ report, saying it severely undercounts tens of thousands of working families, seniors and people with disabilities.
“If mayors across New Jersey refuse to do the right thing, we are going to have to force them to through the courts,” Frank Argote-Freyre, the president of the Latino Action Network, said in a statement last week. “New Jersey can be better than this and is better than this — but it is going to take continued work to overcome their discrimination.”
It is not clear how the matter will be resolved, said Joe Burgis, whom the courts have selected as a “special master” to review the housing plans of five Passaic County municipalities.
Will the 15 judges “be getting together to come up with a definitive set of numbers, or will the individual judges go out on their own and make their own individual determinations for their region as to what their numbers should be?” said Burgis, whose Westwood-based firm, Burgis Associates, represents municipalities in North Jersey, including Bergen County. “We still don’t know the answer to that question yet.”
Depending on what happens, some municipalities might also file new affordable-housing plans or amendments based on the report that Econsult Solutions, a Philadelphia-based consulting firm, prepared at the behest of the 230 municipalities, Burgis said.
It’s the latest head-scratcher in decades of debate over how much affordable housing New Jersey municipalities must provide under the terms of a series of state Supreme Court decisions. Those rulings, which are collectively called the Mount Laurel doctrine, established that a municipality’s land-use regulations must “affirmatively afford a reasonable opportunity” to fill its “fair share” of its region’s affordable-housing obligation.
Municipalities that met a court deadline last year were granted five months of immunity from “builder’s remedy” lawsuits, which allow developers to successfully argue that their multifamily housing projects could help satisfy a municipality’s affordable-housing obligation.
JANUARY 15, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Troubles in Ridgewood
To the editor:
We have troubles right here in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and that rhymes with P and that stands for poor planning.
We voted yes on parking but we didn’t understand that all three garage designs would not fit on the site and would encroach on already narrow Hudson Street by 10 to 12 feet, creating huge traffic and safety issues. Mt. Carmel parishioners came out in large numbers at last week’s council meeting to express their concerns about the effects of such a structure on the church community along with many others with strong objections to the garage proposals.
We live in a small town. I believe we are a mile square which makes all of us close neighbors and thereby connected. My neighbor’s problems are mine. I don’t want a facility that hurts Mt. Carmel.
I don’t want a large baseball field that will result in the removal of many acres of woods, which is the home of at least one endangered species. Residents are worried about noise and particle pollution due to their close proximity to Route 17.
I believe we must reduce the 35 units per acre density changes in the CBD to a more manageable 22-24 up from 12.
Habernickel Park neighbors need to have their traffic and safety concerns addressed. We all travel down Hillcrest Avenue and understand the problems. My fellow residents’ issues are mine.
This is our village. We elected our council members to represent us. I thought that meant they would also listen to us and when possible, act accordingly. I see all of our issues bring resolved with some form of compromise.
We would all benefit from that approach and in the process, we wouldn’t hurt our neighbors or in the long run, ourselves.
Special Public Meeting – Multi-Family Housing – January 8, 2016
Ridgewood NJ , There will be a Village Council Special Public Meeting held on Friday, January 8, 2016 @ 5PM in the Court Room at Village Hall. Various Consultants will be presenting proposals for the 4 Multi-Family Housing Studies covering; fiscal impact, traffic, education & municipal infrastructure.
The firms that are competing to conduct the special impact studies that residents overwhelmingly requested on September 30th. The question arises is ,”why would you schedule such a meeting at 5:00pm on a Friday unless you did not want residents to attend?”
Contrary to the view point promoted by the Deputy Mayor , most residents do have a jobs. Jobs are particular necessary to pay the enormous amount of federal ,state and local taxes . No one who can afford to live in Ridgewood who works in the private sector gets home that early .
The other issue that would make sense would be to delay any decision regarding the parking garage until the comprehensive studies are done. It makes absolutely no sense to hire an outside company to conduct the studies without including the proposed garage.
Ridgewood NJ, There will be a Village Council Special Public Meeting held on Friday, January 8, 2016 @ 5PM in the Court Room at Village Hall. Various Consultants will be presenting proposals for the 4 Multi-Family Housing Studies covering; fiscal impact, traffic, education & municipal infrastructure.
Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission – Proposed Master Plan Amendment to Permit High Density Multifamily Housing Around the CBD
Ridgewood NJ, Last night was a huge success for residents in that village , the Village council committed to doing the four studies on the high density issue. Without the pressure from residents, this would not have happened. The meeting went late and there were no big outbursts or excitement.
Village council agreed to 4 comprehensive, independent impact studies regarding the high density housing .The 4 comprehensive independent impact studies are financial, school, traffic, infrastructure.
Mayor Aronsohn made it clear from the git-go that all four studies would happen. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli switched sides like a Gemini – while he was completely opposed to the four studies in September 30, now he is in full support. This is all good, and will delay the high density housing for awhile longer. The hearings on the housing ordinances are continued until February 10. In spite of Aronsohn’s early declaration that the four studies would happen, public comments went on for about 2.5 hours, with 20 people speaking against the housing and often tying it in with not wanting the garage. Seven others had spoken against the housing in the first 1/2 hour comments session.
Also the Village Council Public Meeting was the introduction of the Bond Ordinance supports the largest garage as depicted in the images and as decided on by council majority (3-2). The garage details include parking for 405 cars (net gain of 305) totaling 136,550 square feet, height of 49’2” to the parapet and the tower height at 68’4”. The garage requires the elimination of all on-street parking along Hudson Street, elimination of some on- street parking along South Broad Street and the rerouting of Hudson and Passaic Street traffic.
The introduction of the bond for the garage was 5-0 in favor. This, mind you, is just the introduction. There is a pretty good indication that Susan and Mike will vote it down then, forcing Atilla the Aronsohn to head straight to the county to float the bond. We shall see.
The public hearing and vote on the Bond Ordinance is scheduled to occur in January 2016. In the meantime, Council Woman Knudsen is seeking public input regarding the proposed Hudson Street garage as shown in the simulations [email protected] .
At the bitter end, From 12:02 until almost 1AM, the Schedler people spoke, 9 of them. They asked for studies to be done around Schedler as they are being done in the CBD. They want traffic studies, air quality, noise, etc. one guy had an audio tape that he played of the deafening noise there from 17. A cardiologist explained the serious health risks to children who exercise in polluted air. There was a funny exchange where Gwenn attempted to undermine the doctor’s assertions of respiratory risks when running around in bad air, and she even suggested that maybe no one should even live over there.
Other Highlights for Last night:
ORDINANCES – INTRODUCTION
3515 – Bond Ordinance – Construction of Hudson Street Parking Deck ($12,300,000) – Appropriates this money for the construction of the Hudson Street parking deck
ORDINANCES – PUBLIC HEARING
3509 – Amend Various Salary Ordinances
3512 – Amend Valet Parking Ordinance
3513 – Non-Union Salary Ordinance
3514 – Management Salary Ordinance
ORDINANCES – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
3489 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish AH-2 Zone District
3490 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish B-3-R Zone District
3491 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish C-R Zone
3492 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish C Zone District
3493 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Amend Various Sections – Multiple Zone Districts and General Affordable Housing Regulation
