Reader says So now the Master Plan is something to be tweaked and molded to meet any developers’ needs?
So now changing the Master Plan is reduced to a “regular” negotiable item on the table and is open to regular and frequent changes?
———-
Modifications to the Master Plan should be difficult to implement and should be considered only rarely – when absolutely necessary.
Apparently this mayor and council seem to consider a Master Plan change as one of the many “regular work-a-day tools” at their disposal.
———-
Clearly the ambitious plans of developers do not fit into the “essence” of RW – as evidenced by a need to change the Master Plan.
Changing the “proposed changes” to the Master Plan misses the function of the Master Plan and the problem at hand…
The problem IS NOT that the “original proposed changes” to the Master Plan were too severe.
The problem IS that the developers desires DO NOT FIT AND DO NOT BELONG in RW.
many on the planning board that night were skeptical of the mayor’s proposal that night. it clearly took many by surprise and you really have to question why he brought it up now. my best guess is that he sees the current amendment proposal is doomed and he wants to make sure something gets through. THAT ISN’T THE PROCESS!!
Let’s remember that the ordinance that allows these amendment proposals in the first place was pushed through by friends of developers (which includes their lawyers). They created a legal process that couldn’t be stopped or participated in by residents once it moved past debate at the council level (or so they thought – they didn’t count on something like the CBR). Recall how Al abruptly ceased debate on these and pushed the vote which brought them to the planning board. Now that the process isn’t working in their favor they are trying to split them up to make it look like a “compromise”.
Also remember this: The developers bought these properties knowing exactly what they were allowed to build. They were banking on being able to push through these amendments that quadruple the number of units/acre currently allowed. That’s just bad business decision making (unless you have some reason to believe your amendment will be helped along). Certainly helps explain why saraceno stormed out in the middle of the cross by his attorney of the CBR planner as it was clear he wasn’t going to rattle her.
If the current amendment proposals are voted down the developers have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan. It is not the town’s job to tell the developers how much more they can get away with than is currently allowed – that’s like asking a cop how much faster you can drive over the speed limit while he’s writing you a ticket.
This is the process the developers and their attorneys created…stop whining because it’s not going your way now!!
reposting here with the new thread…
It is my understanding that the mayor is not endorsing either amendment. He is instead proposing to simply divide the existing proposals into 2 different discussions/votes. It may be that the Planning Board chooses to vote for 1 or both or neither.
It does seem to make sense to me to at least allow the opportunity to discuss these proposals separately instead of having the only vote be for or against 300+ units.
Brian –
It is not the mayor’s place to advocate for the developers by advancing new proposals.
There is a process in place that needs to be followed – which IS to only vote on the current proposal in front of the board (vote for or against 300+ units).
If the developers’ proposal does not pass, then THEY have the right to submit a revised proposal (as stated in response #1 above).
It is mayor’s place to advocate for trying to do what is best for the village. This means seriously considering proposals and finding ways to save our downtown while not destroying the village. By pitting these developers against each other we also increase the leverage of the village to get what we want/need as part of these projects.
Maybe the process is part of the problem in this case. If we can find ways to make the process a little more fluid, we can avoid wasting 6 months of time and money hearing about proposals that have little chance of passing. This is good for everyone–think about how much money the folks against the Valley expansion could have saved if they didn’t have to battle that one plan to the death. (Same goes for the “non-profit” hospital).
I fully support any effort to find compromise and to avoid long drawn out legalistic proceedings regarding proposals for 300+ units that we know will not be accepted.
Brian, you miss the point. Of course the process is part of the problem, we shouldn’t have a process for these type of amendments to begin with. It IS a long and legalistic process and will continue to be so unless we are able to reverse that stupid ordinance that was passed. This is the developers/lawyers’ process…they wanted this because they thought it would allow them to get everything they wanted. Now it isn’t working as they envisioned so they are trying to change it again.
I really don’t care who wants what. If the system doesn’t work fix it! We need to stop worrying about the past and the system and figure out a way to sensibly deal with the reality on the table. It seems to me that dealing with these proposals as separate questions is a good step in the direction of a rational approach.
I agree that we need to fix the system. The problem as i understand the ordinance that exists is that we will be dealing with this over and over again even if we approve one or all of these proposals. That is the great fear…that if any of these projects is approved it will open the floodgates for other projects…all using what i will call the brother/sister argument (you let her/him do it so why can’t i?). And given that this has became such a legalized process, no one can assure that won’t sue to try to push through their proposals. I agree that something needs to be done but not with potentially open-ended litigation risk.
The (slow) speed of the process is (or at least SHOULD) be part of the intent and design of any process which can change the Master Plan. Any development proposal that is so severe that it requires a change to the town’s Master Plan SHOULD take time so all parties – including residents – have time to absorb, analyze and review the impact of such a proposal.
Streamlining this process and making it faster and less painful IS NOT the direction that should be taken.
A change to the Master Plan NEEDS to be deliberate (and yes to a degree- difficult) to encourage developers to find solutions that meet their needs AND fit into the parameters of the existing Master Plan – otherwise we are at great risk to destroy all of those intangibles that make RW great and which drew the developers to the town in the first place.
I’m relatively certain that it’s not within the Mayor’s power to advocate for amending the Master Plan at this point. Nor is it within the power of his 2 running mates Mrs. Hauck and Mr. Pucciarelli – both of whom seem to have already made up their minds on the subject.
How about these 2 developers apply for variances just like anyone else that wants to build anything in this town. You want to be a little lenient with them, fine. Just keep it within the scope of the existing Master Plan. There’s your compromise.
Don’t allow 3 people who think they know better than the rest of us make such permanent changes to our town.
More yap ,yap ,yap and nothing gets done !!! We are no further along with any process or proposal than we were four or five years ago. The Village council has been totally ineffective in implementing any type of meaningful change. It is not sufficient to simply “get it” as Paul A often says, – we must both find the problem ……and then FIX it once and for all
#10 Nothing gets done about changing the Master Plan? Perfect. I like Ridgewood, I don’t want “meaningful change”. Landlords with too many vacant properties – lower the rent.
#11 Lower rent ultimately leads to lower taxes …..which in turn shifts the tax burden onto homeowners. Since you like your Village just the way it is with no more development and shuttered buildings in the downtown are you ready to pay more taxes for the privilege of keeping it that way ? Hope you are willing to ante up…..or will you move out like so many others when their kids graduate HS.
#12, huh? lowering rent would increase the number of stores that could survive thus increasing tax revenue through sales.
Many of the buildings are shuttered on purpose as has been discussed and if there was more parking the rest of the businesses could have stayed open.
A little history lesson. We owe this master plan craziness to former Mayor Pfund and his desire to help out Valley bypass everyone in its over-expansion plan. Had he not pushed the change that allowed the hospital and developers to push for amendments, we would not be in this morass. I believe that if the master plan had not been changed to allow these cases, then Valley would have instead asked for exemptions on a building-by-building basis. They would have had something built by now. Smaller, yes. But one new building is better than nothing and looking like a fool in the process. Greed is getting the best of all of them.
And for this fine effort, Pfund was appointed our municipal judge for life.