Tag: Urbanization

Posted on

Residents Question Use of Electronic Signs in High Traffic Areas

Policeelectronicsign_theridgwoodblog
November 29,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Residents are really hoping that the village officials did not put in an electronic sign right by a dangerous intersection. The consciousness seems to be that they are more of a distraction .  It seems that people have trouble making the turn with the new bike lane put in and it is very hard to see pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk at night. If people are now reading a sign adding another distraction I hate to see pedestrians get hit. If it is an electronic sign it should b moved 150 feet down where drivers are past the crosswalk. I hope I am wrong and it is not an electronic sign.

Residents have voiced the same concerns at Ridge School when they considered an electric sign in its red zone and the biggest reason it was never put in was concern that it would distract drivers from children in the red zone. This sign makes an already congested and difficult intersection more dangerous. There is also the blinking sign warning of the 11ft height restriction. An  intersection that was fine is now visually and literally congested.

Posted on

Ridgewood officials delay vote on allowing denser housing downtown

village council meeting

file photo by Boyd Loving

NOVEMBER 25, 2015, 3:28 PM    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2015, 8:58 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — Votes by village officials on zoning changes that would clear the path for high-density, multifamily housing downtown will likely be delayed until January while officials gather more information about the controversy-raising proposal’s potential impacts.

Also, Mayor Paul Aronsohn said Monday. the public will be allowed additional sessions to comment on the five introduced zoning ordinances at the council’s Dec. 9 public meeting. The changes would increase the number of allowable housing units per acre from 12 to 35 in four zones in the central business district.

The Village Council, however, won’t vote on them that night. It will await results of a yet-to-be-commissioned financial impact study, which Aronsohn has called the “missing piece of the puzzle.” The study “won’t answer every question, and it may leave a lot of questions unanswered that we need to address,” he told the council at a meeting this month. But at least the questions would be raised, he said.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-officials-delay-vote-on-allowing-denser-housing-downtown-1.1462468

Posted on

Parking Garage : What does “we have confirmed the economics . . . ” (from PDF attachment) truly mean?

parking_enforcement_theridgewoodblog

 

November 23,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, in the PDF on the Village website called “Hudson Street Parking Deck – Message from the Village Manager” . The Village manager makes the bold pronouncement that the “We have already confirmed the economics by commissioning an independent consulting firm whose work was studied and endorsed by the Financial Advisory Committee. ” . Sounds a bit bold given that the final garage decisions have not been made . The three garage options listed would involve different economic assumptions .

The three designs presented included the original structure, as depicted on VOR site,  with 405 spaces (130,000sq ft), a modified version with 355 stalls (120,000sq ft) and the lowest profile version with 305 stalls (109,000 sq ft). The cost per stall decreases for each added level:

405 stalls @ $28,000 = 11.5 mil

355 stalls @ $29,300 = 10.4 mil

305 stalls @ $31,000 = 9.5 mil

You can see the higher you go the more efficient the project becomes IF, of course,  those spaces  are utilized.

While we have gotten many assurances that the garage will pay for it self ,Several funding options had been presented to the Council.  Have decisions been reached on increasing parking rates, increasing hours of meter operation, adjusting rates for non-resident parking passes, and increasing enforcement times?  Until such decisions have been made and trialed, how could we possibly have “confirmed the economics?”  As they stand now, these are just assumptions made on paper by the consultant. Lets face it does anyone really know how much money the parking authority really takes in ? And what happens to all the money being currently used from the parking authority to subsidize other Village activities ?

Before we commit to spending millions of dollars based payback from projected revenue streams, let’s check some of the assumptions out in the field.
Hudson Street Parking Deck – Message from the Village Manager

Click Here

Posted on

Affordable Housing Deadline dictates housing dialogue in Ridgewood

Projects_theridgewoodblog

NOVEMBER 16, 2015    LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015, 2:23 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

With the deadline to submit a housing element to the courts, village officials must act diligently to avoid possible lawsuits and meet its affordable housing obligations.

Housing was a major topic of last Monday’s meeting as affordable housing and how to proceed in regard to the issue of multifamily housing in Ridgewood’s Central Business District (CBD) came to the forefront.

The village successfully applied for a declaratory judgment seeking immunity from possible builder’s remedy lawsuits in July and was given five months to come up with a housing plan to be submitted to the court.

Village Attorney Matthew Rogers noted the court had found Ridgewood had been acting in good faith, which can be at least partially attributed to the inclusion of the Planning Board’s June 2 decision to amend the master plan and create new zones that allow residential and mixed-use development in previous commercial areas.

Rogers said he advised the court the council was carrying the ordinances in order to conduct additional studies as to the impact new housing would have on the village.

The housing element must first be determined by the village’s Planning Board, as it is the sole arbiter of the master plan document. The plan must then be submitted to the Village Council for consideration and adoption before the Dec. 7 deadline.

However, Rogers said there were a couple of “major impediments” to accomplishing that task.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/deadline-dictates-housing-dialogue-in-ridgewood-1.1456572

Posted on

Ridgewood CBD : Better planning, more trust needed

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ
photo by Boyd Loving
NOVEMBER 13, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Better planning, more trust needed

To the Editor:

Sept. 30 was a great night for Ridgewood. Hundreds of residents bore witness to our council approving, by 4-1 vote, four important studies required to make a truly informed decision on a high-density housing amendment that could change the character of our village forever. Based on a motion by Councilman Sedon, amended by Councilwoman Knudsen, studies for financial impacts, school impacts, infrastructure and a comprehensive traffic review, were all approved.

For the first time in years, residents felt that their voices were being heard. Rather than the frustratingly expected, rushed approval of the out-of-scale high-density ordinances, we instead heard a vote that began restoring our trust.

Unfortunately, at this Monday’s meeting, our council took a scary turn towards breaking that newfound trust. Residents in attendance witnessed several members — Aronsohn, Hauck and Pucciarelli — offer commentary questioning the council’s commitment to the studies, with an angle seemingly against prompt commissioning. It further came to light that no work has commenced towards planning any of the studies, despite the matter’s urgency.

Further disturbing were statements by several council members indicating that they couldn’t recall what studies they voted for on Sept. 30, despite the vote’s place in public record. Interestingly, all the residents in attendance knew the vote. A review of the Sept. 30 video shows that all council members were fully aware of the motion and were given opportunity for further clarification. By the time the vote occurred, there were no such clarification requests and the “multiple studies” motion was put forth by the village clerk: “Infrastructure Study,” “Financial Study,” “The School Impact Study,” and “a Comprehensive Traffic Study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village.”

Knudsen, Sedon, Aronsohn and Hauck voted “Yes.” Pucciarelli voted “No.”

These studies are so important because our Planning Board, despite years of deliberation, strategically missed the mark, never “planning” in a comprehensive manner. Their process was too reactionary to the zoning-change applications. Studies used were too site-specific for proper master planning, leaving many questions unanswered in a process akin to spot zoning.

Regarding one study, Councilwoman Knudsen explained: “… there has never been a comprehensive traffic study done of the Central Business District proper, the adjacent communities and/or the village as a whole. It becomes incredibly relevant when we consider that there are four large parcels being considered for high-density development, coupled with the North Walnut Redevelopment Zone with an assisted living facility of … 76 units per acre, upwards of 98 (units). And coupled with the fact that we are pursuing a parking garage that will add over 300 vehicles to an already narrow, difficult, congested corner of Broad Street and Hudson. So when you take all these collectively, it really becomes imperative that we conduct our due diligence and get this right. So, I think that, to the question: What traffic studies have been done? Not enough.”

“Not enough” is not good enough. Ridgewood needs better. Better planning. Better process and a better foundation for trust.

Please promptly commission these incredibly important studies.

Dave Slomin

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-better-planning-more-trust-needed-1.1454595

Posted on

Dissatisfied residents begin to mobilize opposition to the proposed changes in the master plan

Village Council Special Public Meeting

November 16th 2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Resident dissatisfaction has been magnified by the Village council majority attempt to renege on the deal reached and voted for on the Speedometer 30th meeting . There was an outpouring of resident sentiment against the high density housing proposal on the evening of September 30th.

Out of the roughly 600 residents who packed the Village Hall only 5 spoke in favor of the proposal and all of them were either developers or friends of the developers.  The council was then forced to put off the predetermined approval vote . Michael and Susan supported the residents of Ridgewood who called for a VOTE NO to the proposal.

There are now serious trust issues being compounded by the failure to act on the Sept 30th vote and move forward with NEW comprehensive traffic, school and infrastructure studies along with a financial study.

Almost everyone who attended the September 30th meeting was satisfied that Paul, Gwenn, Michael and Susan had voted with the best interests of Ridgewood residents. Now however Paul and Gwenn appear to be reneging on their vote.

So residents all over of the Village have been talking , organizing, looking at options  to change the current direction of the Village and stop the urbanization and destruction of everything that makes Ridgewood so special.

Posted on

Fiscal impact of Ridgewood High Density Housing must be Considered

parking CBD fullhouse theridgewoodblog.net
NOVEMBER 13, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Consensus can be reached on issue

To the Editor:

I believe wide areas of consensus that currently exist coming out of the Planning Board process for higher density family housing provides hope that we all will be able to do the right thing. Consensus can reach 100 percent if we address the shared fiscal impact which has not yet been considered because, according to our village planner, the Planning Board was precluded from taking it into consideration.

We are all rightfully entitled to develop and invest in private property in Ridgewood. The planning process, while fully transparent to the lawyers involved, was a convoluted community management practice that left out the very simple moral difference between right and wrong. Our free market affords a range of business practices, but one’s profits shouldn’t be realized by increasing the tax burden of every other member of the community they belong to.

We know that every added school-aged resident entering Ridgewood costs more to educate than any family pays in taxes. And, that every town in America has a socialized educational system that distributes the costs of educating some of our residents amongst all. As a parent of three children, I am acutely aware of this since private tuition could easily cost me six times my current tax contribution to the education budget.

We also know that Ridgewood’s ratings on the Internet are the No. 1 reason people move here, but less obvious is that our special education programs, having been labeled “centers of excellence,” draw families to our town as well. The proposed apartments not only appeal to anyone with a child, but they are an ideal environment in which to raise a subset of special needs children for whom living in a detached home is potentially dangerous.

Because of these realities, not “projections,” the negative impact of higher density on our taxes is undeniable. The only question is by how much. It is simply wrong for a select few to leverage our socialized education system to guarantee themselves a business profit on the backs of every one of their tax-paying neighbors. We might easily reach consensus were developers to create an escrow account to reimburse the Board of Education for the cost of educating every new child they bring into town, but I doubt projected profits would allow it.

A simpler way would be for all of us to do the right thing by the one group of our residents who are not being currently accommodated. We can limit apartments to a 55-and-over demographic in order to provide for the current demand for empty-nester housing in town and attract retirees seeking the superior quality of life that our idyllic village setting provides at a stone’s throw from New York City. It’s a no brainer, its fair, and it will bring down taxes for us all.

Martin Walker

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-consensus-can-be-reached-on-issue-1.1454576

Posted on

Ridgewood’s affordable housing obligations discussed

Projects_theridgewoodblog

NOVEMBER 10, 2015    LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2015, 9:51 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Affordable housing obligations have been a hot topic in municipalities all over New Jersey in the wake of the state Supreme Court’s decision in March to return jurisdiction in cases on affordable housing to the courts.

DSCF7229

photo by Boyd Loving

Like many other municipalities, Ridgewood is in the midst of litigation on the matter while attempting to clarify its exact affordable housing obligation.

The village is preparing a plan to submit to a judge by December on how it will meet its obligation.

DSCF7232

photo by Boyd Loving

Jeffrey Surenian, an attorney whose practice focuses exclusively on representing municipalities in affordable housing matters, gave a presentation at last Wednesday night’s Village Council meeting in order to shed some light on the issue.

The council was expected to discuss the issue further as part of its work session later in the meeting, but postponed talks as a public hearing pushed the start of the regular agenda past midnight.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/coah-guidelines-detailed-in-ridgewood-1.1452217

Posted on

Pro-Parking Garage sign from the front of Ridgewood Residents home

Parking Garage

file photo by Boyd Loving 

I have just sent the following email to the Village Council:

“Dear Members of the Village Council:
I have just filed a police report, with Officer D’Amico, concerning the theft of the pro Parking Garage sign from the front of our house. At least seven other signs from our immediate neighborhood were also stolen.
Putting up a sign expressing my views on a political matter is protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whoever stole my sign is trampling on my Constitutional rights, and I will do what I can to see that he/she is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Ridgewood politics continues its descent to a new abyss. Richard Nixon must be looking up, from wherever he is, with a big smile on his face: Dirty tricks are alive and well!
Thank you
Rurik Halaby”

Posted on

Bogus Historic Preservation Commission Endorsement letter Jeopardizes Entire Parking Garage Approval Process

20151022_115546_resized

November 1,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood

Ridgewood Nj, Is the latest controversy over the so called Historic Preservation Commission Endorsement letter of the downtown parking garage enough to derail the entire project ?

“Any endorsement from the Village of Ridgewood Historic Preservation Commission will have great influence on Village residents. Hence, to ensure its integrity, such a letter must be held to the highest standard of accuracy.  Mr. Parrillo’s 10/23 letter is not reflective of any discussion amongst HPC members during the October 2015 meeting.  The October 8 meeting was merely a courtesy review. Members reflected on the appropriateness of the structure  in the Historic Central Business District. Discussion topics included size, height, mass, cantilevers, sconces,  arches, parapets and more.      At no time was there any talk of “approval” nor was there any discussion about encouraging residents to vote “yes” on November 3.  It never happened.  Mr. Parrillo certainly could have composed a letter reflecting his own views. I wish he had chosen to do so.” Councilwomen Susan Knudsen.

“I believe that it is highly inappropriate for any elected official to so openly and blatantly work so diligently to promote a project that they themselves have arranged to be voted on in a public election. We need to carefully consider the information available and show the public that their input matters. Promoting a yes vote shows residents that your mind is made up regardless of available information or opinions reducing the referendum to a sham.

To your point on the Historic Preservation Commission’s endorsement letter, it is unfortunate that that committee’s integrity has been compromised, and it has basically been reduced to the council majority’s sounding board. With all of the other parking propaganda floating around the chair of that committee should have just wrote a letter supporting the project as a resident without dragging the HPC into all of this noise. ” Councilmen Michael Sedon

Posted on

Developer of rejected assisted-living proposal in Waldwick sues zoners

keep-calm-and-sue-everybody-6

OCTOBER 28, 2015    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

WALDWICK — A developer whose plans for an assisted-living facility were rejected by the borough’s Zoning Board of Adjustment in July has sued the board, claiming its decision was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable,” and should be reversed.

The lawsuit filed in state Superior Court last month asks that the site plan for Formation-Shelbourne Senior Living Services’ proposed 79-unit, 94-bed facility at Wyckoff and Crescent avenues be approved because the board “did not follow the guidelines and mandates of pertinent case law” in regard to issuing variances on conditional-use requirements.

Also, it claims the decision was “contrary to the standards, criteria and requirements” of New Jersey municipal land use law, and “inconsistent” with the evidence presented during the application’s 16 hearings.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/crime-and-courts/developer-suing-zoners-in-waldwick-1.1442570

Posted on

Ultimately CBR was holding our council responsible and paying a fortune out of pocket for what our elected officials should do as standard operating procedure

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

Clearly you are not aware of the backstory. If you were, I am sure you would understand that CBR had to pay a lawyer for almost 3 years to attend every meeting for every hour to represent their and ultimately our interests as residents. I am sure you understand how much lawyers charge per hour and the amount they bill when they are doing research aside from meetings. I am sure you realize they did fundraise but ultimately there is a big gap that they filled personally for years. How much did you contribute?

Ultimately CBR was holding our council responsible and paying a fortune out of pocket for what our elected officials should do as standard operating procedure. We are at the point now with the clock running out on this council. Hopefully residents are now paying attention and will be putting pressure on so the right studies are done and responsible decisions are made.

I assure you there is nothing beyond that. No promises of anything else.

Posted on

Why I’ll Just Say “No” to the Parking Garage

parking garage cbd
October 28,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, With the prospect of being out of State on Election day, I mailed my absentee ballot in so that my voice will be heard on the parking garage “referendum” question. My vote was a resounding NO for some very obvious reasons.

–        The property is not suitable for such a large structure

–        Cost overruns are inevitable

–        On street parking rates will escalate to $1.00 per hour and enforcement will be until 9PM

–        Cost of meter enforcement is drastically understated

–        A single structure at the west end of the business district will not relieve the parking issues on lower Ridgewood Avenue. Those attending the movies will not scramble up to Hudson Street to park

–        The restaurants will cut “deals” for valet parking in the garage thereby skewing the cost justification estimates presented

–        We, the taxpayer, will subsidize any and all shortfalls in revenue to pay the multi decade debt service
So what is the real answer to the “parking issue”….. those of us who have been in the Village for many years and have seen the constant drone of ” Oh my God, I had to walk a least a block to get to my pedi/mani  appointment and it started to rain on my freshly painted toes on the way back to my car…..OMG my day was ruined because of the parking situation in Ridgewood”

The answer… one level above grade open parking structures at Cottage Place, Walnut Street and Hudson Street. No fancy 4 story facades. Do the numbers…we can have 3 simple structures for the price of one 4 story behemoth on Hudson Street. And, parking will be readily available for the ENTIRE business district not just the few well connected restaurant owners. If this plan moves forward get ready to present your 8:49 PM parking tickets to the three amigos…. Maybe they can chip in to pay them for you…it’s a good thing at least some of them have a day job!

Posted on

Readers debate Citizens for a better Ridgewood (CBR) dropping Law Suit

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog
Lawsuits cost big money, the Village Council is now going to do the appropriate studies. What would be the purpose of continuing to sue, have a judge order them to do studies? Regarding “trust”, I don’t believe it either. However, sometimes you have to give the other side some room if you hope at least one of them will vote your way in the future. Remember the changed vote on Valley.

This post leaves out the crucial fact that $100k has been spent by private citizens to fight against themselves [village runs on taxpayer dollars, we pay twice!] There is no way CBR can fight the spending power of debt funded developers. Remember, one of the developers has been fined MILLIONS of dollars for their inability to follow the law and still they spend more. How can we fight that?

Well if you believe that then answer this( 9:26). The CBR have a lot of smart people in their group you mean to tell me that no one anticipated the cost of their law suit? Why did they file it ( If they did ) so early? Why didn’t they wait till the council voted and then decide if a lawsuit was to costly. They fold like a cheap suit and the 3 amigos know it . Something stinks here.

While I don’t trust our Council majority to do the right thing here, they are kind of painted into a corner. The only way out for them at this point is to try to literally “pull a fast one” and wrap these supposedly comprehensive studies up in a couple weeks so that they can all vote yes before they get voted out in May.

It’s probably ok to drop the suit for now, but keep a copy handy in case we need to change the date and re-file.

I would not trust Aronsohn, Hauck, and Pucciarelli to do anything other than what would benefit them politically They are the most self-servicing bunch on the Council in a very long time..

I understand CBR. I wonder if your going to have enough money to fight the BOED when they redistrict after all isn’t this what it all about. You want to keep Ridge and Williard for your kids.

Whoever just discussed redistributing should read up on the topic. In 2012 fishbein said ridge, Somerville and Hawes are full. travel, Willard and orchard would lose the most. Ridge is already BY FAR the most diverse school in town. That isn’t even a question

One reason folks at ridge have been on this issue is because most of the current apartments are zoned for ridge We know how many children WILL move into the apartments and what the impacts of so many units will have on congestion in an already congested part of town. Ever drive west ridgewood avenue at 3?

Posted on

Citizens For A Better Ridgewood Drops Lawsuit Against Ridgewood

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog
October 15,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, A spokesman for CBR just made an announcement at tonight council meeting that they are withdrawing their lawsuit against the village  for the changes in the master plan for the Central Business District ( CBD ).

Stating that they trust the council with do the right thing after their decision to do more studies on the large project. Do you believe that. Something smells. They trust the “3 amigos”, (Paul Aronsohn ,Albert Pucciarelli, and Genn Hauck )after all they have done , what is that PT Barnum once said ….