Planning Board Special Public Meeting Minutes 20150203

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of February 3, 2015.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. The following members were present: Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Mr. Joel, Ms. Altano, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Mayor Aronsohn, and Mr. Abdalla were absent at this time.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward.

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli said there was none.

Chairman Nalbantian made opening remarks regarding safety issues and the hearing process.

Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan – AH-2, B-3-R, C-R & C Zone Districts – Chairman Nalbantian discussed the procedures for public comments, stating this was the second of two nights for public comment. He instructed the audience that those who wished to comment would need to write their name on the signup sheet. He gave a brief history of the 14 months the Board heard expert testimony and held public hearings. Mr. Nalbantian said speakers would have three minutes to make their comments.  

Ms. Jane Remis, 118 Madison Place, stated her concerns about traffic, safety, and accuracy of the estimate of school children from the traffic study. She said there are more children and is concerned about the walking route mentioned in the study. She thinks it is an unsafe route. Ms. Remis stated there are many questions that were not answered and she would like the Board to conduct a review of the Master Plan. Ms. Remis said if the developments are approved she would like the density not to exceed 20 units per acre and that the Board makes it conditional that developers make traffic improvements.

Mr. Bosley and Ms. Eva Smith were called and no one responded.

Ms. Ajanta Kumar, 248 Palmer Court, said she thinks Ridgewood should have luxury apartments that meet the actual demand. She said the demand has been overstated and questioned how many empty nesters would want to move into the apartments. Ms. Kumar said she was concerned about the impact on the overall Ridgewood housing market if the empty nesters do rent the units will there be an excess in homes for sale and possibility that property values would go down.          

Mr. Frank Mason, 971 Salem Lane, said he has been a resident for 45 years and recalls the cutting of the ribbon for Valley Hospital however, he has waited 40 years for a garage to be built, yet he has written it off but hopes the Village will move forward with the proposed housing developments.

Ms. Cynthia Halaby, 374 Evergreen Place, said she is disappointed in the lack of inertia with Ridgewood's inability to reach a hard decision. She stated the paralysis in building a garage, Valley Hospital and now the apartments. She said residents are making statements about density, height, and have no foundation for their comments. She believes developments will have a negligible effect on the number of school children and traffic will be less than if retail was build.

Ms. Jastrzebska Elzbieta, 215 Walton Street, said the developments will increase traffic and that there are many families that move to Ridgewood solely for the schools and when their children graduate, they leave. Ms. Elzbieta quoted Ridgewood statistics back to 1913. She said it is dangerous to walk in town and stated on several occasions she and or her husband were almost hit by a car and asked the Board to assess the safety issue.

Mr. Oliver Beiersdorf, 50 South Murray Avenue, stated his mother was an empty nester and she did not think the developments were for her because she wanted green space and a pool. Therefore, he questions if the developments will meet the real need. He questioned if residents want to remain a village or give up the small town feel. He said 50 units per acre are beyond 12 that were in the original Master Plan. He said the proposals made are driven by the developers. He discussed traffic, the impact on schools, and potential legal costs. He urged the Board to proceed with caution.

Ms. Karen Latimer, 53 Heights Road, said that 50 units per acre is too much and she thinks there should be a place for empty nesters but does not think small apartments by the railroad will serve the purpose. She said there has been talk about the CBR being called racist, classist, and crackpot laymen by those with an ax to grind and she feels this is and not true. She would like to see the developments but no more than 20 to 25 per acre.

Ms. Amy Nidds, 272 W. Ridgewood Avenue, said she feels that the discussion should be about scaling up from 12 and not down from 50 units per acre. She said it is the Board's responsibility to keep the town a Village as this will set a precedent for everyone who lives in the zoned areas.

Ms. Mary Pat Boron, 174 Union Street, said she is strongly in favor of multi-family development in the Central Business District, and especially The Enclave in the former Sealfon's location. She stated if it were not for the School House complex, she would not be able to have remained in Ridgewood. Ms. Boron said there is a long waiting list for people who want to get into the School House. She said that without the proposed multi-family development many seniors would be forced to leave Ridgewood.

Ms. Dockray asked Ms. Boron if the waiting list is only for two bedrooms. Ms. Boron said it was for both. Ms. Dockray said she noticed a sign for an available apartment and Ms. Boron said that was because the unit needed renovations.

Ms. Peters asked if there was a reason Ms. Boron only mentioned the Enclave and Ms. Boron said she thought the location was desirable as opposed to being backed-up to the train tracks.

Ms. Casey Harris, 138 Sheridan Terrace, said she feels that Ridgewood does have a need for multi-family and luxury apartments and is concerned about the parking, public schools and that the proposal is a zoning change.

Ms. Ellen McNamara, 120 W. Ridgewood Avenue, asked the Board to consider two questions, why so many units per acre and why all at once? She stated the issue is the number of people who would be moving into the large developments and the effects of the extra citizens on the infrastructure of the community. She stated her concern about the traffic, congestion, pedestrian accidents, and high school kids having to eat lunch in the hallways because there is no room in the cafeteria.

Ms. Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, said she heard other residents say they would be comfortable with 20 to 25 units per acre where she would prefer 20 units per acre. She said she did not know how the amendment grew to 40 to 50 units per acre. She stated the Ken Smith property is in the amendment as well as other properties. Ms. Reynolds stated other residents said the school superintendent indicated the schools would not be impacted. She said the superintendent testified before the Planning Board hearings and quoted the superintendent stating redistricting is a real possibility. She mentioned a couple who wanted to downsize, could not find anything in Ridgewood and purchased a four bedroom, two and a half bath home in Glenrock which she compared to a similar luxury apartment in the new development that she did not think would work for them. Ms. Reynolds said she and her husband own rental property and have a single one-bedroom apartment that is difficult to rent because it only has one parking space. She asked the Board to proceed with caution.

Mr. Edward Sullivan, 27 Chestnut Street, said the process is akin to how residents probably felt when the first apartment building was going up for development and subsequently the Garden apartments. There probably was concern then about how it might affect the character of the town, but it did not. He said one of the driving forces for the apartments is the millennials who are showing a preference for rental housing and seniors looking to downsize. He stated the impact of the new developments would be minimal and not affect the town, as the other developments did not influence the Village. He said the higher the number of units would skew to smaller apartments, as the smaller number of units would tilt towards larger apartments where families are more likely to have children.

Mr. Mike Andrews was called and no one responded.

Mr. Tom Hillmann, 133 E. Ridgewood Avenue, said he thought the meeting was about building additional parking. He mentioned property was taken from his family by eminent domain for parking and today there still is no parking garage. He said residents keep talking about waiting unit they get additional parking. With apartments he said most for it are about his age while those against are younger and have children. Ms. Hillmann said he saw the development of several other housing complexes and every time residents complained about traffic and more school children. Looking back now people are saying it was a good idea and it had a negligible impact on the school system.

Ms. Dorys Fernandez Obergon, 233 Bogert Avenue, said the main reason she and her family moved to Ridgewood was for the schools and that Ridgewood has a center of town where the communities can gather. She said she thinks the problem businesses are having is because the economy has not fully recovered. She discussed the difficulties finding parking when she travels downtown and that she and others are using the Internet. She said Ridgewood needs to make decisions keeping in mind surrounding towns, yet the largest problem is parking. Ms. Fernandez Obergon said with the increase of residents in a specific area will also increase the need for more police, there would be a greater need for ambulances and other emergency services.

Mr. Bennett Smith, 320 Brookmere Court, discussed his family's search looking at homes in Long Island, Connecticut, New York, and other parts of New Jersey and finally deciding on Ridgewood. He said he purchased his home from a couple that raised four boys were empty nesters and they purchased a condominium in Montvale. He said he understands the need for housing in Ridgewood. He said he was dumfounded to learn the discussion happening is in the context of a Master Plan amendment. He said the real issue is leadership and planning using the parking challenge that has been going on for more than 40 years. He stated he was told his children would board a bus to school only to find there were no buses and they had to walk to school because there was no funding for the buses. He questioned the service impact for the planned communities and if they are paying for the same services and how it is being addressed from a planning perspective.

Mr. David Dessel, 140 Lincoln Avenue, said he is unequivocally for the development of the planned housing. He asked that the Board make an intelligent, balanced, and wise decision.

Ms. Dolores Carpenter, 319 Steilen Avenue, asked if residents were writing to the Village beseeching them to create high-density luxury apartments or did the builders approach the Village with plans for these developments. She questioned if Ridgewood really needs the apartments. She said she and her husband did their own survey of senior friends and found only two were in favor of living in rental apartments. She asked that the Board exercise extreme caution in their decision on the proposed high-density complex and Master Plan amendment.

Mr. Andrew Joseph, 17 N. Murray Avenue, said he would like the Board to reject the application to amend the Master Plan. He said he does not see how the amendment to the Master Plan benefits residents as opposed to the developers. He also asked how the Village would deal with traffic, the potential burden on the schools, and public services. He also stated his concern about other developers due to an amendment to the Master Plan.

Ms. Linda Kotch, N. Hillside Place, said she wanted to discuss transient's verses diversity. She said while she is for diversity in the case of transients – she wants to know her neighbor. She cited a home with two apartments one had a single resident while the other had seven residents to make her case that there is no guarantee one can designate the maximum number of people that can live in a unit. She said she was concerned about the Master Plan, the density issue, and the likely drain on public services.

Ms. Amy Junger, 8 4 Ridge Road, she said she was concerned about traffic and the schools. She is a three-time renter from which she purchased a home in the Village. She stated in all rentals she and her roommates had more cars than their leases stipulated. She questioned how a decision could be made about the developments before solving the parking problem. Ms. Junger said no one could predict the number of children who will move into the apartments.

She said Ridgewood is attracting many local and international students and many families are renting to enroll their children in the schools.

Ms. Tess Giuliani, 174 Union Street, Apt. 2D, said she returned to the microphone to answer a question posed by Ms. Peters. She said Ms. Peters asked a question about open space and she answered in terms of design, but as a rented, she said open space is necessary. She stated examples of renters and duration of their time in the apartments in the different buildings she rented apartments.

Mr. Thurston asked Mr. Slomin if he said he owned many apartments none of them greater than 20 to 25 per acre and he made lots of money from the units. Mr. Slomin said it was anecdotal, what he said was in suburban towns. Mr. Thurston asked if the units are similar to what is being proposed and Mr. Slomin said some are but they vary. There was a discussion about Mr. Slomin's properties and comparisons to the proposed developments.

The meeting was continued to February 19, 2015.

Mr. Nalbantian said the meeting on February 19 would be for summations. Mr. Weiner asked if after the Board summations, the remainder would be for the Board discussion and there would not be any additional public comment. Mr. Nalbantian replied in the affirmative.

Ms. Price stated that some of the attorneys are planning to submit legal memos prior to the meeting on February 19, 2015.

Ms. Dockray asked Ms. Price if the Boards discussion have a substantial change to the amendment that might require more work, would the public have an opportunity to comment.

Ms. Price said if this amendment is amended requiring notice, then the Board would have to have a continued hearing with new publication and the board would need to receive the amended amendment. Ms. Price further clarified the process in response to Ms. Dockray's question.

Ms. Peters asked who was photographing the Board and for whom. Mr. Nalbantian said it was video recording on behalf of the Citizens for a Better Ridgewood (CBR). Mr. Glazer, the videographer said he is not working for CBR. There was a discussion about the volunteer work he is doing and who has access to the video.

The multi-family housing meeting was continued to March 17, 2015.

.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 P.M.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: August 4, 2015