DECEMBER 7, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015, 11:11 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Planning Board members continued their review of the village master plan at last Tuesday night’s meeting, focusing much of the discussion on the housing element of the plan.
As part of his presentation, Village Planner Blais Brancheau explained the review process, noting that the state mandates that municipalities update their master plans at least once every decade.
“State law requires that planning boards, at least every 10 years, require a re-examination of the master plan of the village,” he said. “The purpose is to make sure that those documents are still current and not dated.”
However, he said that the plan should be updated more often than what is required.
Brancheau also went through Ridgewood’s master plan, explaining a few changes he recommended to the board.
“The purpose of the re-exam is not to identify every possible solution to the direction that we would like to pursue, but to identify what we can in the time that we have,” he said. “This doesn’t preclude identifying additional changes or issues when the re-exam is finished.”
THIS Wednesday, December 9th at 8:00 pm at Village Hall
PLEASE try to attend the meeting. The Mayor and Council will be discussing TWO very important issues that could change the character of our village forever: Multi-Family Housing and the Hudson Street Parking Garage. It is crucial that as many residents as possible attend the meeting to show the Mayor and Council that residents remain vigilant and demand responsible decision-making. On September 30, more than 600 residents turned out and our voices were heard when the Council voted 4-1 to perform studies to understand the effects of adding high density housing to the CBD before voting. Let’s continue to have a voice!
Agenda:
At approximately 8:30 pm, after presentations, Village Manager and Council reports, and comments from the public, a $12.3 million bond ordinance will be introduced to fund the Hudson Street Parking Deck. The parking garage discussion is relevant to the high-density housing debate. If the largest of the 3 parking garage options is approved (which is likely, as it is favored 3-2 by a majority of the Council members), the new parking garage could set a precedent for the height, size and bulk of future buildings in the CBD, and could have implications for the size of any new apartment buildings. See attached for photos of the proposed garage, particularly the view on Hudson Street.
The Public Hearing on Land Use and Development (High Density Housing) will continue, and the Mayor and Council will discuss the next steps to be taken with regard to the four independent studies approved onSeptember 30, including financial impact, comprehensive traffic, school impact, and infrastructure studies. We must demand Village Council members honor their commitment and hire an independent firm to conduct all of the promised studies, taking into consideration the effects of adding four multi-family developments, a 98-unit assisted living facility and a large parking garage all at once.
Please come to the meeting at 8:00 pm on Wednesday. Let’s show the Mayor and Council that we did not forget what they voted for on September 30th!
If you can not attend the meeting, you can watch the meeting on Fios Channel 34 or Cablevision Channel 77.
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
RESOLUTIONS
15- Approve Village Cash Management Plan
15- Designate Official Newspapers for 2016
15- 2016 Annual Meetings Statement
15- Establish Interest Rate for Non-Payment of Taxes, Assessments or Other Municipal Liens for 2016 and Set Grace Period
15-Establish Interest Rates for Delinquent Payments to the Water Utility for 2016 and Set Grace Period for Payment of Water Utility Bills
15- Establish Interest Rates for Delinquent Payments for Significant Sewer Discharge Bills for 2016
15- Approve Budget Transfers
15- Approve 2016 Temporary Budget
15- Title 59 Approval – Servicing and Repair of Electric Source
15- Award Contract – Servicing and Repair of Electric Source
15- Title 59 Approval – Furnishing and Delivering Sludge Dewatering Polymer
15- Award Contract – Furnishing and Delivering Sludge Dewatering Polymer
15- Title 59 Approval – De-Silting and De-Snagging of Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River
15- Award Contract – De-Silting and De-Snagging of
Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River
15- Title 59 Approval – Laboratory Analysis Services – Ridgewood Water
15- Award Contract – Laboratory Analysis Services – Ridgewood Water
15- Title 59 Approval – Dewatered Sewer Sludge Hauling Services
15- Award Contract – Dewatered Sewer Sludge Hauling Services
15- Award Contract – Financial Computer Software
15- Award Contract – Preparation of 2016 Village Council Meeting Minutes
15- Award Contract – Valley Hospital, Department of Community Health – Public Health and Nursing Services
15- Award Extraordinary Unspecifiable Services Contract – Field Investigation Study and Purchase of Replacement Parts for Non-Potable Water System – Water Pollution Control Facility
NOVEMBER 30, 2015, 5:47 PM LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2015, 5:47 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Local officials will ask for public comment Wednesday night regarding the size and scope of the proposed Hudson Street parking garage, the construction of which is expected to ease longstanding parking concerns in the village’s crowded downtown.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn said the 7:30 p.m. meeting will feature a presentation by parking deck designer Desman Design Management and give residents a chance to provide opinions on the structure’s height, square-footage, and car capacity. Aronsohn intends to hold an informal council vote that night and introduce a bond ordinance on Dec. 9 to fund construction.
Voters endorsed the garage by nearly a 2-to-1 majority in a non-binding referendum last month. That referendum’s wording said the garage was anticipated to provide a net increase of about 300 spaces without having a “negative impact” on property taxes because parking revenues would be used to pay off the construction debt.
According to documents on the village website, three parking decks of varying sizes have been proposed.
December 1,2015
Ridgewood the staff of the Ridgewood blog
NJ, Planning Board Meeting tonight 7:55 p.m. – 9:15 p.m. – Continued discussion of the reexamination of the Master Plan and development regulations – Residential Land Use.
Our Master Plan has not had a thorough re-examination in 30 years. According to our Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, 90% of the language needs to be re-written. This is a huge undertaking for our planning board. Please attend.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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
