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!
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?
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 ….
Another Front Has Opened Up against Over Development in Ridgewood
October 11,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Another Front Has Opened Up against in what the majority of residents perceive as the over development and urbanization of Ridgewood .Last week signs began to appear the Zabriskie Schedler House, more commonly now called Schedler Park or Schedler field .
The Schedler property boarders Route 17 north in a very quite residential neighborhood cornered between Route 17 and Saddle river.The most notable feature, of the property is the 1830s-style Dutch wood frame home, which historians have dated the construction of the home’s main section to the 1830s, though the existing kitchen wing might have predated 1825. The four separate parcels at the Schedler tract were also the site to a Revolutionary War battle and have yielded artifacts from that time.
The RBSA has been pushing for a baseball field in the location since before the property was purchased by the Village in 2009. In 2014 the RBSA sponsored candidate Residents James Albano ran for Village Council with the express purpose of pushing a baseball field in the location . Albano was crushed by a landslide loss in a council election that featured a “mysterious” email to Candidate Michael Sedon employer at the time in an attempt to pressure Sendon to drop out.
L- R: Isabella Altano from Ridgewood Eastside Development (RED) shows the map of the proposed sports field to Freeholder John Mitchell. Aug 15 2012
In 2012 after another historic home was torn down in Paramus , the site caught the eye of Bergen County Freeholder Maura DeNicola, and Bergen County Freeholder John Mitchell who met with then Ridgewood Village Manager Ken Gabbert, Village Historian Joseph Suplicki and Freeholder Robert Hermansen to discuss the Zabriskie/Schedler house .
A grassroots organization was formed called Ridgewood Eastside Development (RED) in an attempt to protect the neighborhood and preserve the area with some alternative modest development , but mostly the focus at the time was on land making the property and preserving the trees and open space .
The council majority Paul Aronsohn, Albert Pucciarelli ,Gwenn Hauck aka the 3 amigos have as usual ignored the wishes of the vast majority of Ridgewood residents and sided with developers and special interests . https://theridgewoodblog.net/ridgewood-s-schedler-park-maps-and-information/
Agree, so much of the division in town now is due to Pfund’s folly and the desperate attempt to let Valley quickly get its expansion in.
Step by step, building by building, we can re-make our downtown without Pfund’s folly. Contrary to the ravings of a few at this week’s hearing, Ridgewood’s finest hour will not pass simply because we proceed in a logical, organized fashion to constructing a downtown that lasts into the next century without dragging down the rest of the Village.
Mr. Kotch is right, we may be looking at a new council in May and I believe it will be a golden opportunity to repeal ordinance 3066. How anyone thought it was a good idea to allow ” interested parties” to request changes to the Master Plan is a mystery. Who can be seen as more interested than the village residents? We are now forced to be viligent and ready to assemble in order to protect Ridgewood from misguided development.
From the Patch May 2,2012 Conflict with ‘H-Zone’ ordinance and planning board amendment
Although the , the saga continues. The planning board’s amendment to the Master Plan remains on the books and a future council could simply overturn the November vote.
Councilman Paul Aronsohn said it’s time for the planning board to rescind . “We need a blank piece of paper,” Aronsohn said. “It’s time to move on, it’s time to move forward…the mayor and council needs to step up.”
This whole nightmare can be reversed. Elections for three council seats, Hauk, Aronshon, and Pucciarelli, are on May 10th, 2016. That’s in 220 days. It’s time for a slate of candidates, whose platform is to repeal ordinance 3066 which among other things added Chapter 190, Article XIV, Section 143 allowing “interested parties” to amend the master plan.
file photo by Boyd Loving
OCTOBER 2, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015, 8:44 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Informed public must be heard
To the Editor:
With all that is going on in the world and in our private lives, we often don’t focus on the very things where we can actually make a difference. I believe it was Tip O’Neill who said, “All politics is local.” There are several important issues that will be decided on by our Village Council in the very near future.
The council was scheduled to vote on an ordinance that would change the housing density in the Central Business District from 12 units per acre to 35. Many village residents worked hard to prevent this from happening as it has the potential of negatively changing the character of our village. Citizens for a Better Ridgewood, the leading opponent to the density change, had an online petition which garnered over 1,000 signatures that was seemingly dismissed by the current council. A gentleman recently spoke at a public meeting calling for a compromise: an increase from 12 to 22-24 units per acre. His suggestion made so much sense and I can only hope the council listened.
The proposed 90-foot baseball diamond at the Schedler property is another case in point. Many villagers have signed petitions and spoken out at public meetings to prevent this from happening for years. They have offered proposals that would allow for a modest-sized playing field while preserving a historic home and 4 acres of woods. This compromise would allow the village to move forward in a manner that would respect the interests of all concerned parties. It doesn’t appear that the council majority will move in that direction.
We always hope that our elected officials will have an ear to the public and make decisions accordingly. This is not the case currently at the council level. Many recent votes have gone 3-2, always with the same council members in the majority and the two in the minority actively seeking to be more inclusive regarding public opinion.
A functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate. At the local level, you can truly have your voices heard and maybe effect the decisions being made supposedly on our behalf. My anthem used to be, “I fight authority and authority always wins.” With people working together for a common cause, we might be able to change the word always to sometimes. Hopefully, John Mellencamp won’t mind.
We have former Mayor and now appointed local judge Pfund to thank. Without Ordinance 3066, passed purposely in July 2007 when many residents were down the shore, applications to amend the Master Plan would never have even been considered. Then the developers used an old anchoring by applying for 50 units, only to say they’d “comprised” down to 35. The anchor number used should have been the 12 in the Master Plan, and they should have comprised at 18-24, reflecting current Village densities. Development is surely need in the CBD – it’s an eyesore with too much dead space and decaying remnants of the past – but Ordinance 3066 and the 50 number should have never happened in the first place. That’s Pfund’s folly…. These wheels have been in motion since 2007
I had little hope going into last night’s meeting. I am so proud of everyone who came and stood up for our village. Bottom line, we have to repeal ordinance 3066. Also, say no to ordinances requesting our Master Planner. Our Master Plan should be treated with the respect it deserves. It has been in place for decades, protecting our village from the potential high density developments that are on the table now. Should development occur, yes, but within the safeguards of the master plan. Developers: get a variance and if appropriate for Ridgewood it will pass. If the densities are to low for your project and potential profits, to bad, come to the table with something else. But don’t threaten residents with statements “if you don’t give us this, we’ll do something you really won’t like”. That is not neighborly or nice.
We should have been signing petitions to repeal Ordinance 3066 five years ago or more. I agree that 35 units is too high, but that’s because developers are allowed to submit proposals to amend the Master Plan under Ordinance 3066 (passed by then Mayor Pfund under cover of July summer vacations in 2007 to help out his pals at Valley), and its easy to anchor the debate initially at 50 units and then say you’ve “compromised down to 35 units even though the initial anchoring of the discussion should have been at 12 units as per the existing Master Plan.
Editors note : Great job to the Citizens for a Better Ridgewood but we would like to point out the it is an Elected Officials JOB to listen to their constituents concerns , council members do not need to be thanked because it took 500 screaming residents to show up to a Village Council meeting to pay attention to obvious short comings in their misguided efforts to transform Ridgewood into Hoboken .
Hello Friends and Neighbors!
We would like to thank each and every one of you!
Thank you for sending emails to Village Council members and for showing up at Wednesday night’s meeting. Hundreds and hundreds of concerned residents came to Village Hall! Many of you not only showed up, but you waited on line, spoke at the podium and stayed late into the night. Your comments were thoughtful and heartfelt. We are grateful for your passion and support.
Council Tables The Vote and Orders New Studies
The meeting lasted 5.5 hours and 76 residents took to the podium, almost all in favor of housing but at a lower density level. At 11:00 pm, council members began discussing whether or not to continue the public hearing to another date, as it was already late into the evening. Councilman Michael Sedon made a motion to table the ordinances until a fiscal impact study could be done, which would help determine the effects the new apartment buildings would have on the tax base. Councilwoman Susan Knudsen seconded the motion, and asked that a comprehensive traffic study and school impact study also be completed.
These are three important studies that were never conducted at the Planning Board level. The Planning Board is not allowed to consider fiscal or educational impacts in decision-making. Although this seems unreasonable, it is common practice throughout municipalities everywhere. The financial and school-related considerations are left to elected officials, who have the final word and who are presumably much more in touch with the public at large.
Some traffic studies were conducted at the Planning Board level. However, the studies were specific to each proposed development and only addressed the traffic effects at individual each site. The studies never addressed the cumulative effects that developing all of these sites at the same time, while also adding a parking garage and an assisted living facility, would have on traffic in downtown Ridgewood. Similarly, the analyses that were done at the Planning Board level to estimate the number of school-aged children that may be added to our school district if hundreds of apartments were to be built, were based on data from other towns in the state of NJ, but not towns with school districts comparable to the Ridgewood Public School system.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn agreed with the need for further studies and voted yes with Sedon and Knudsen. Councilwoman Gwen Hauck initially expressed concern about the additional cost and time needed to complete studies, but she ultimately went along and voted to approve the studies. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli was the only one to vote no at the time, because he was intent on finishing the process of public comment before taking any action. Once public comment was finished, Mr. Pucciarelli appeared supportive of further studies.
Next Steps
The Public Hearings have been continued until Monday, November 9th, with the hope that the new studies will be completed in a timely manner. We are thankful that our Village Council is moving forward with these additional studies, and it appears as if democracy has prevailed. Now it is up to you to continue to show up to the meetings. As the process continues, residents will be able to listen to the experts and question them as well. This is your opportunity to fully participate and have a stake in how our village moves forward. Please continue to stay engaged!
Final Note
We encourage you to reach out to your council members to thank them for hearing us and for agreeing to continue the process with further studies. We continue, as always, to encourage respectful and thoughtful dialogue!
If you know of any one who would like to receive CBR emails and notifications of upcoming meetings, please tell them to email us [email protected] and put “Add me to Email List” in the subject line.
OCTOBER 1, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2015, 5:23 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Plans to take a final vote on the ordinances that would rezone four parcels of land in downtown Ridgewood for multifamily housing were put on hold as the council decided to commission more studies on the impact of the potential resulting projects.
Wednesday was set to be the final public hearing on the five ordinances and hundreds of residents turned out to hear the council’s decision. Those packed into the council chambers displayed signs and often erupted in applause after a speaker voiced opposition to the amendments. Reaction was similar in the crowded overflow rooms on the first floor where the public watched via live stream on projectors.
Deep into the evening, members of the council intervened to request more studies and analysis, echoing the call of many speakers who believed the governing body had not done its due diligence.
Between speakers, the council broke off into a discussion about possibly continuing the public hearing at another meeting since it was already past 11 p.m. and many residents were still on line waiting to speak.
The discussion resulted in Councilman Michael Sedon officially putting forth a motion to have a financial study on the impact of the new developments in the Central Business District, particularly in regards to the effects new apartment buildings would have on the tax base.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen seconded the motion, asking Sedon to amend the motion to allow for a traffic study along with an impact study on the downtown area as a whole, to which Sedon agreed. As the discussion ensued further, infrastructure and school impact studies were also included in the motion.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck joined Sedon and Knudsen, voting in favor of having the studies done and continuing the public hearings to Monday, Nov. 9.
NOTICE: Village Council Meeting – September 30, 2015
NOTICE – VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 – The doors of the Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Courtroom of the Ridgewood Village Hall will open at 7:00 p.m. on September 30, 2015 for the Village Council’s Work Session and Special Public Meeting. If the Courtroom is filled, overflow seating will be provided on the first floor of the Ridgewood Village Hall with audiovisual equipment available to see and hear the meeting. All members of the public wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so.
We are overwhelmed by the number of residents who have emailed council members, canvassed the community to help spread the word, and shared thoughtful opinions on social media. You are all awesome! Ridgewood is amazing — and worth every effort!
THIS IS IT.
TODAY….THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE TO CHANGE OUR VILLAGE FOREVER.
THE FINAL VOTE WILL BE HELD WEDNESDAY AT VILLAGE HALL.
The agenda says the meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but please arrive by 7 pm to get a seat.
RESIDENT ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS CRITICAL
PLEASE bring your friends, family members, neighbors. A room filled with concerned citizens is our only chance to urge Council members to reconsider enacting these ordinances in their present form.
Details about the Meeting
Please come early and carpool, if possible. Park on both sides of Vets, at Graydon and on side streets, if needed.
The Mayor has stated that ALL residents will be heard (https://ridgewood.dailyvoice.com/…/ridgewood-mayor-a…/592174/).
If the meeting room on the fourth floor fills to capacity, overflow will be directed to the senior lounge on the first floor with a live stream of the meeting.
We encourage EVERYONE to sign his/her name, take a number and get into the cue to speak. Please approach the podium and say something as simple as “I oppose raising the density to 35 units per acre. Please vote NO.” The more people who voice opposition, the better. Short and sweet is good! It’s going to be a long evening.
This is YOUR village and you do have a voice. This will be your last chance to speak up!!
Thank you for your continued support! We hope to see you tomorrow!
Citizens For A Better Ridgewood
3 DAYS LEFT…..Email council to VOTE NO!Paul Aronsohn – paronsohn@ridgewoodnj.netAlbert Pucciarelli – apucciarelli@…
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2015, 11:41 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
As the second of two public hearings in front of the Village Council dedicated to multifamily housing nears, a long chapter in the town’s history may come to a close as officials will render a decision regarding the future of new apartment buildings in downtown Ridgewood.
On Wednesday, Sept. 30, residents will have one final chance to persuade the governing body to vote one way or the other.
The council is scheduled to take a vote on each ordinance, ostensibly settling the issue of high-density housing in Ridgewood.
What is unclear, however, is the status of litigation related to the master plan amendment as it has been revealed that neither the village nor the Planning Board has been officially served.
During a Sept. 15 meeting, it was brought to light by board attorney Gail Price that the Planning Board had not yet actually been served as defendants in the lawsuit.
The Ridgewood News reported last month that Citizens for a Better Ridgewood (CBR) had filed a lawsuit in state Superior Court against the Planning Board and the Village of Ridgewood, citing numerous irregularities, procedural missteps and alleged conflicts of interest as reasons the Planning Board’s June 2 decision to amend the master plan should be declared void.
A copy of the complaint obtained by The Ridgewood News certifies that it was filed with the Superior Court clerk on Aug. 10 and docketed on Aug. 13.
Village Attorney Matt Rogers said he was not aware of any service from the village standpoint, which goes through the clerk’s office.
This was confirmed by Village Clerk Heather Mailander on Wednesday afternoon. She said the village indeed had not yet received a lawsuit.
When asked for a statement, CBR did not directly comment on the status of the lawsuit, but did state the group is “continuing to pursue its original objectives, specifically to heighten awareness about significant zoning changes underway and to encourage the village to engage in comprehensive planning that is strategic and visionary.”
Subject: letter to Hauck in response to her own misinformation
Dear Councilwoman Hauck,
As you and I have yet to formally meet, I’d like to start by introducing myself. My name is Dave Slomin and I have lived at 36 Heights Road for since 2001. My wife grew up in this town, as did her mother (who still lives here). My two sons attend RW Public Schools (RHS and GW). While I have not been a formal appointee or elected official, I have been very involved in working with the Village – whether my input is welcome or not 😉 – on several recent matters, including as a key advocate for Citizens for a Better Ridgewood. My main volunteer work is with the BSA, where I was Pack Leader of Ridge School’s Pack 44 (the largest Pack in North Jersey) for many years and am now Pack 44’s Executive Committee Chair and an Assistant Scoutmaster with Troop 7. I mention these things, not to toot any horns, but so my opinions are not taken as those of an armchair complainer. As with so many other Residents, I am out there caring about my community, putting in my time for Ridgewood and – having attended almost every planning board meeting for the past 2-3 years – I am well educated in the Multi-Family debate, process and ordinances.
I am also President of Andover Properties, a real estate company that specializes in multi-family properties. We own and manage apartment complexes in 4 states, including New Jersey. I know the benefits and difficulties of the multifamily business and I know how investors and developers work, think and act. At many Planning Board (PB) meetings, I tried to pass along some of my experience and knowledge, given the gaps in data provided by developers. Unfortunately, it fell on too many ears that, if not deaf, were wrongly “prematurely decided.” Given the far too little amount of time the Council has relegated to multifamily discussion, I am hopeful that you will consider some key points, insights and corrections from an industry insider: and one who is a big fan of apartments… when properly planned and appropriately built. I am for multifamily development, but at lower densities and scale that in the ordinances.
I write to you, as I am aware of some responses you have provided to emails from members of the Ridgewood (RW) Community. As they were sent from your official RW email address, I am comfortable that you intended for your thoughts to be shared. They were. And unfortunately, your responses illustrate – to this real estate professional – that you and the council really do need more correct and unbiased information on the matter you are voting on. Beyond that, some of your answers leaned more towards the influences of the developers PR firms, than to multifamily realities. And unfortunately, some of your data and response were wrong. I am writing to help… because this is so important.
I am also writing because of a statement you wrote to a fellow resident saying: “If only people understood the other facts and not the points which have become cocktail party innuendo.” I hope to show, with knowledge of “the facts,” how such a statement is wrong and can appear to come from the developers’ PR Playbook. Please know that I do know the facts. As do so many residents. And I’d like to clarify some and provide others you may not know.
So, some responses:
THE MALTBIE/FRANKLIN APARTMENTS ARE 19.5 UNITS PER ACRE, NOT 33.6
In one email, you incorrectly proffered that the apartment complex across from Ridge School (on Franklin and Maltbie) is a great example “for a comparison” as it represents “33.6 units per acre.” I do agree with you that: (1) it is “attractive” and “quaint,” and (2) they “do not look like Fort Lee,” but a key reason for that is the fact that their density is only 19.5 UNIT PER ACRE. The complex has 13 units and sits on .664 acres. Some outdated records show the property to be .459 acres. That was the case until the owner added an adjacent lot to provide parking when some additional units were built. Nevertheless, the property is most definitely not 33.6 units/acre. It is almost half that. But it is an excellent example of a scale and density that would fit beautifully in RW’s CBD. It is also only 2 stories, plus the roof peak. Dramatically less than the 5 stories we may see downtown if you vote in favor of the current ordinances. Maybe that’s why you like how it looks and fits.
YOU SAY THE OAK STREET APARTMENTS HAVE MORE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS DENSE. THAT IS AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION.
In another email you note that the Oak Street Apartments, at 18 units/acres have “more school children in them than higher density apartments BECAUSE they are less dense.” While I can understand how one might make this faulty assumption, it’s not accurate or that simple. There are many other low to mid density complexes in town that have fewer children. And there are many higher density properties in other towns that have lots of children. That’s because there are so many factors that play into apartment demographics. Some key factors are the management company policies and the historic “community” of the complexes themselves. Firstly, management companies, while being required to adhere to law regarding renting vacant units often do have discretion as to how they wish to run their communities. Some managers/owners are happy to have more occupants (including children) in units, if they know they can fill vacancies with paying renters. Others would like to have fewer occupants, as fewer occupants results in less water consumption and often less wear and tear. Furthermore, over time certain properties, like certain towns, gain a reputation, or a community culture. For example, a senior will want to move to a complex known for having more seniors, while a family might skip that complex for one that has more kids… even if both are garden-style properties. So, in sum, your assumption is wrong. Lower densities do not automatically equal more kids. If a manager wants kids or higher numbers of occupants to fill units, and prices units appropriately, there will be more school children. The current ordinance cannot dictate this, so be careful. You just don’t know the answer to this question. And, right now, no one does.
YOU ALLEGE THAT FOLKS WHO WISH TO PUT HIGHER NUMBERS OF CHILDREN INTO UNITS ARE “SCAMMERS” AND/OR WOULD RENT HOUSES FIRST.
In another email you hold that “people who want to scam the schools would rent single or double family houses” before paying a premium for apartments. There are several issues here. Firstly, having high numbers of children in a unit is not a “scam.” It is actual a “right” maintained by law. Many NJ municipalities use occupancy guidelines stating that 150 square feet is required for the first occupant and only 75 additional s/f is needed for each additional occupant (not including kitchens and baths). In a 1,000 S/F apartment, you could potentially, and legally have 6-9 occupants. So again, folks who may wish to put more kids into a unit to benefit from our great schools (provided that the proper guardian is there) are not necessarily running a “scam.” They are really just doing the right thing within the law for their children. As these decisions on occupancy limits often come down to property management, RW needs to tread more carefully. The ordinance cannot define this. So limit the risk. If a property is not leasing fast enough to singles or couples, I guarantee that we will see more families with greater school impacts and costs. That’s just the way it works.
Regarding renters opting for house as a first choice, this again is something that you don’t and cannot know. But you NEED to be right on these things. Be advised that even though the developers are projecting rents in the $3,000-4,000 range, there is no way of guaranteeing that. Nor can you guarantee the “luxury” status in design, and especially management, that the Mayor especially has said he desires. If a property is underperforming – and with so many units coming onboard at once, that may happen – investors will need paying tenants, even if the rents have to come down. Some money is better than no money, when the mortgage bank comes calling.
THESE APARTMENTS WILL NOT EFFECT OUR SCHOOLS.
On this, no true and full study has been done. RW has not done a market study to more accurately determine who may move in. While discussed ad nauseam, data to date has too predominantly been provided by the developers. I am further concerned about the fact that (I believe) only one Council-member currently has children in the Schools. The other members either have no children currently in the system or chose to send their children to private schools. As such, we need all of you to know how current school-age parents are feeling. How have our schools changed since you may have experienced them? What are the current limitations and needs? YOU NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME SPEAKING WITH US. And, on this topic, a 3rd party study really still needs to be done. The very fact that the developers used, and some PB members embraced, the now outdated “Rutgers Study” to determine numbers of school-children was a big data fault. The Rutgers Study looked at no towns with schools anywhere near the quality of Ridgewood. One PB resident speaker pointed out the she chose Ridgewood specifically due to the quality of educational services for her Special Needs child. She said, she’d spoken to many “special needs parents” who are just as aggressive as her and feared that if options availed themselves via multi-family we might see more special needs children. This would, she said, possibly diminish the current programs helping her child. And at up to $100,000 per special needs child, could hit our schools and taxes hard.
So in sum, we have no real data on OUR OWN schools. Lots of speculation from both sides. And that’s dangerous. You should ask for better. Slow down and let’s get it right. That’s why we voted for you!
THE BUILDINGS WITH 80+ UNITS/ACRE YOU NOTE AS “LOVELY” & “ICONIC” DON’T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING… OR ANY PARKING.
Too support a position for higher density, you noted several buildings as “iconic” and “lovely” with higher densities than 35. While you are correct in quoting their densities, you failed to note that none of them have enough parking, and the largest, 263 Franklin, has no parking! They couldn’t and shouldn’t be built today like that. And I guarantee, if the land required for parking was added, their densities would plummet. Please take that into account. As our Representatives, the data you proffer needs to be unbiased and as accurate as possible. Personally, I would argue that 263 Franklin isn’t so lovely or iconic. It’s an example of something that doesn’t fit within its surroundings. Its design and scale is seen more frequently in Hudson or Essex Counties than in northern Bergen… it’s just too “dense.”
RIDGEWOOD WILL BENEFIT FROM TAX INCOME DERIVED FROM MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
Working in the multifamily business for two decades, and having filed dozens of tax appeals, I can tell you that municipalities all agree on one thing: residential development, including apartments, are almost always a tax drain. Residential costs so much more in services… AND SCHOOLS than office or commercial. So PLEASE GO IN WITH YOUR EYES OPEN ON TAXES, there will be a deficit. I believe even Blais alluded to this in some PB testimony, but also noted that tax revenue and financials should not be used in the PB’s considerations. They need to be considered by you and the Council.
APARTMENT COMPLEX OWNERS FILE TAX APPEALS, AND OFTEN WIN OR SETTLE.
I say this, because, anyone who owns properties of these sizes will assuredly be professionals. And RE Professionals file tax appeals as part of the game. Real Estate is not designed to be altruistic. It’s designed to make the biggest profits. Our firm files appeals on most of our properties every year. If our financials are off, we expect to have our assessments lowered. They often are and then we pay less taxes. If the developers don’t get their $3-4K rents, you’ll see appeals very quickly. You’ll see them even if they do!
OTHER OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES ARE LESS OPTIMAL FOR RIDGEWOOD.
You state in one email, “the private owners… might build something worse than what is currently being proposed if we do not approve the amendments.” Given that we started talking about 50 units per acre (500-700 total potential units, per Blais) and buildings sized like the new developments in Fairlawn on Route 208, in our constrained downtown, I’m not sure what could’ve been worse! 35 is certainly better, but is still not appropriately sized. Those 208 properties are still not far off from the scale of what we will see. Please note that. To me, a Walgreens on either of the car dealer sites, would provide a great amount of ad hoc free parking, especially after hours. They wouldn’t be so quick to tow, as they’d lose customers if they did. Furthermore, by raising densities, we are also raising property values and making it more expensive to potentially provide much needed additional parking. I’ve told Paul that it would be much more affordable for RW to buy pieces of land, pave and create new parking lots, than to build and maintain a $15,000,000 garage. But if you raise multifamily densities so high, you will make potential land purchases for parking prohibitive.
“WHAT IF THE OWNERS TRY TO PUT UGLY, BUSY COMMERCIAL ENTITIES HERE?”
This is a comment you made to a resident. Please know that nowhere in the ordinances are aesthetics fully defined. RW can and will have some say, but there is no way to require that the apartments that get built will look anything like the pictures you’ve seen. As you know, the new buildings will be near, but not in, a “Historic District.” Apartments can be beautiful or ugly. Commercial buildings can be beautiful or ugly. It’s up to the property owner. Both apartments and commercial are good options, when appropriately sized. Take this down a notch. Make it really and truly fit. You said you like the Maltbie apartments. Let’s zone for something like that!
“WE NEED OUR BUSINESSES TO SURVIVE…” (E.G. APARTMENTS ARE THE ONLY OPTION).
This has come up again and again: the need to save our business. On this, you and the Council need much more real data. Adding a few hundred apartments will not “save Ridgewood.” There’s no guarantee they will shop in town. What is guaranteed is that the current applicants do not fully provide enough parking for their tenants, guests, contractors, etc. As such, business may very well be hurt if the 26,000 current residents find that traffic and parking worsen. I know many West-siders who use the CBD less during peak hours (e.g. for dinner during rush hour, or coffee and breakfast in the a.m.) due to the longer waits at the underpass. And my family is one of them!
Yogi Berra said of a restaurant, “Nobody goes there anymore, the line’s too long.” Ridgewood has a similar issue. It’s beautiful and special… and successful. But we need more parking and better, safer traffic and pedestrian flow to handle the lines. And, to boot, landlords (many who have a vested interested in keeping rents too high) may need to adjust rents overtime to keep businesses in business. What we don’t need is these somewhat artificially created longer lines right now. Especially until ALL the right work has been done to fully understand the impacts. And from statements I’ve heard members of the Council make, yourself included, I don’t think you have all the information you need.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
We haven’t even gotten to the subject of “financial impacts” which, while not a factor for the Planning Board, the Village Council MUST fully assess. That just hasn’t been done properly yet either. You need to. You don’t really know the answer. Too much “innuendo.”
I hope you will do the right thing and try to help convince some of the other Councilmembers to lower the density and scale, or Vote No as-is. At the very least, put off the vote and plan for the much needed independent studies. Real estate is a game. And RE professionals are generally much better at it than municipalities. It’s just the nature of the business. So please be careful with our Village.
Respectfully,
Dave Slomin
CC: Mayor P. Aronsohn, Councilmembers Pucciarelli, Knudson & Sedon, CBR, Residents of Ridgewood
1. Call to Order – Mayor
2. Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act
MAYOR: “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided
by a posting on the bulletin board in Village Hall,
by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including the date and time of this meeting.”
3. Roll Call
4. ORDINANCES – PUBLIC HEARING
a. #3489 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish AH-2 Zone District
b. #3490 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish B-3-R Zone District
c. #3491 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish C-R Zone
d. #3492 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish C Zone District
e. #3493 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Amend Various Sections – Multiple Zone Districts and General Affordable Housing Regulations
f. #3500 – Lease of 1057 Hillcrest Road for Recreational/Educational Purposes
5. RESOLUTIONS
15-305 Award Contract – Lease of 1057 Hillcrest Road
15-306 Accept Donation from Ridgewood Baseball/Softball Association (RBSA)
3 DAYS LEFT…..Email council to VOTE NO!Paul Aronsohn – paronsohn@ridgewoodnj.netAlbert Pucciarelli – apucciarelli@…
…they say 1. ‘it’s to provide high end apartments to seniors looking to downsize, 2. To re energize our town which is apparently viewed as deteriorating and 3. If you don’t let us do this we will put something on the properties which will be way worse than apartments. People say aren’t apartments better than what is there now? NO. Why do you think they have been barren properties for so long? Because they have been told they have the support of politicians to get this done for them. High density apartments is the most profitable option for developers. For decades developers have wanted to crack our Master Plan which has always been in tact to prevent such overdevelopment. The Village has been lucky to have politicians who were serving the citizens not developers….until now.
3 DAYS LEFT…..Email council to VOTE NO!Paul Aronsohn – paronsohn@ridgewoodnj.netAlbert Pucciarelli – apucciarelli@…
