A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HELD IN THE SYDNEY V. STOLDT, JR. COURT ROOM OF THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE HALL, 131 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE, RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AT 7:30 P.M.
-
CALL TO ORDER – OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT – ROLL CALL – FLAG SALUTE – MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Aronsohn called the meeting to order at 8:49 P.M. and read the Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. At roll call, the following were present: Councilmembers Hauck, Knudsen, Pucciarelli, Sedon and Mayor Aronsohn. Also present were Roberta Sonenfeld, Village Manager; Heather Mailander, Village Clerk; and Matthew Rogers, Village Attorney.
2. ORDINANCES
a. Public Hearing - #3489 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish AH-2 Zone District
Mayor Aronsohn moved the second reading of Ordinance 3489 by title on second reading and that the public hearing be opened. Councilwoman Hauck seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: Councilmembers Knudsen and Sedon
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3489 by title:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD AMENDING THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE B-2 ZONE DISTRICT INTO A NEW AH-2 ZONE DISTRICT
Mayor Aronsohn announced that the Public Hearing is continued and open for comment.
Ms. Sonenfeld explained that this ordinance would change the zone classification of two properties on South Broad Street from the B-2 Retail Business district to a new AH-2 Affordable Housing District, and would adopt regulations for the new district. The AH-2 District is intended to promote development of multi-family housing with a portion of such housing restricted to households of low and moderate income. Permitted uses would include multi-family dwellings at a maximum density of 30 to 35 units per acre with 15% to 20% of the units being affordable units.
Lynn Dewhurst-McBurney, 176 Glen Avenue, said that her family recently moved to Ridgewood from San Francisco. They chose Ridgewood for its suburban features, great schools, single family homes, small apartment buildings, ease of commuting, and quiet streets. They did not select Hackensack, Fort Lee or Paterson because of the similarity to the urban life of high density housing that they left behind. Ms. Dewhurst-McBurney indicated that to triple Ridgewood’s housing density would be a shocking change to the character of the Village. This change hasn’t been studied, or vetted even though this proposal has been floated and discussed for over two years. Accepting feasibility studies from the developer is not acceptable, and does not constitute proper oversight or responsible government. Ms. Dewhurst-McBurney noted an additional burden on Village infrastructure, as well as the school system, and the Police, and Fire Departments. She asked for an analysis by an independent third party, which would include traffic, congestion, the impact on the tax base, and effect on Village services. Ms. Dewhurst-McBurney said she would not suggest freezing development and living in the past, but this development is not right for Ridgewood.
Ms. Dewhurst-McBurney said that she finds the fact that this decision rests with only five people, without any public impact other than this forum, where no one’s vote counts, to be incomprehensible. Ridgewood voters should be given the opportunity to review, analyze, and decide whether this proposal is right for the Village. She said she would like her comments to carry over to all of the proposed zoning changes being considered this evening.
Jeff Goldberg, 292 Mastin Place, said that he would like his comments to carry over to all of the proposed zoning changes being considered this evening. Mr. Goldberg recalled that three of the Councilmembers were voted into office three years ago on the premise that they would heed the concerns of residents. The residents have been clear that they favor sensible and reasonable development, but the Master Plan change is neither sensible nor reasonable. Mr. Goldberg urged the Council to listen to the residents, and vote no to this change. He added that if the residents are not heard now, they will be heard at the next election.
Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road, said he is President of Andover Properties, a real estate firm specializing in multi-family investment, and management. He stated that as a real estate professional, this could be a win for the developers because this change will increase the value of these properties. He cautioned that not all of these types of developments succeed as hoped, because there are risks, and real estate is a game with no a guarantees. He asked Councilmembers to do their homework because he doesn’t think they have the correct data. Some of the Councilmembers indicate that they haven’t come to any decisions; however, their words and actions have shown otherwise. Mr. Slomin said that this is about much more than multi-family development. It is about truly open and forthright representation, and the Council must deliver on this.
Mr. Slomin posed a series of questions to Councilmembers, and said that if they couldn’t answer these questions, they shouldn’t vote, but should do some homework. They should study unbiased data rather than the biased information they have been given, including a comprehensive Master Plan review; a Ridgewood specific school study; a parking and traffic study by an engineer hired by the Village; a market study; and a full and thorough financial analysis.
Mr. Slomin stated that on May 5th, the Village Planner said he picked a density of 30 to 35 units per acre because of a developer complaint that 25 were too low. The Village Planner stated that he didn’t look at any financial information because this is not a concern of the Planning Board. Mr. Slomin indicated that this needs to be a concern of the Village Council, and he asked what financial information the Village Council has reviewed since May 2015, which supports a density level of 35. Can the data reviewed by the Village Council be seen if an OPRA request is filed?
Mr. Slomin asked how the financial information would look for the developers if there were only 18 or 24 units per acre and, if a review had actually been prepared. He pointed out that there are similar developments in nearby municipalities being proposed by developers at these lower densities. He asked about the rate of return being used by the Village for these densities, and he inquired as to whether this information was available to the public. He questioned the tax revenue for the Village if rents are within the projected luxury ranges, and what will happen to the tax revenue if these rents are not achieved. He commented that this is where a market study would prove useful.
Mr. Slomin stated that when the Planning Board reduced density by 30%, they didn’t make a similar reduction in floor area ratio, which could result in larger units. This could affect occupancy and the number of children in the school system.
Mr. Slomin said he felt that COAH was unfairly used as a lever to influence Planning Board decisions. He asked what other ways could be used by the Village to meet COAH’s still undetermined obligations. He stated that Fair Share Housing, which is the biggest COAH advocacy group, was accused of dramatically over estimating requirements for towns throughout the State. He asked how many school children multi-family complexes might have at different rent levels, and what the impact would be of both four large developments plus a parking garage on the Central Business District (CBD).
Mr. Slomin noted that there is a non-binding referendum on the November ballot for a $15 million parking garage. He asked why the subject of multi-family housing cannot be added as an additional referendum question. He asked Councilmembers if they are really representing the constituents of Ridgewood if they vote yes on these zoning amendments.
Gail McCarthy, 153 Hope Street, referred to the referendum question on the parking garage. She noted that Councilwoman Hauck had indicated last week that she loves the idea of a referendum, and always thinks that it is difficult for Councilmembers to be able to vote with conviction when they vote, because they only hear from the people who come out to meetings, which is only a small percentage of the general population. She went on to say that she loved the idea of complete participation or increased participation by the residents. Ms. McCarthy requested that this issue be opened up to a complete referendum.
Charlie Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue, said that he is only one kid, but he feels his voice could make a difference. He would hate to see Ridgewood make a change for the worse. He understands that senior citizens want to remain in the Village, and he suggested that if current density housing rules were followed, there would be homes for all the seniors wishing to downsize. Mr. Glazer suggested third party sponsorship research because they can’t be sure if the data they have is correct, or if someone is being paid under the table by those who would like to triple the high density housing rules. This zoning change has the potential to create more parking problems. Mr. Glazer reminded everyone that they have just emerged from a Level 4 drought, but if thousands of people move into Ridgewood, it could mean that drinking water would cost too much money for most people.
Mr. Glazer said that thousands of children moving into the Village would take away from his one-on-one time at school, and could result in terrible scores on standardized tests. There won’t be enough teachers for all the children if this high density law is passed. He stated that now is not the time for this decision due to the lack of information. The developers should be able to construct multi-family dwellings on their property, but high density housing laws should not be changed to satisfy their selfish purposes. Anyone who votes to change this law now without the proper information will knowingly and intentionally hurt the Village now, and for generations to come. Mr. Glazer stated that he is the future of Ridgewood, and has asked Councilmembers to create a happy environment for his future.
Bill McCabe, 96 Avondale Road, grew up in Ridgewood and returned here to raise his family. He has volunteered with organizations in Ridgewood such as RBSA, and the cub scouts. It is the love for this town, and the willingness to support it, that makes it special and he thanked Councilmembers for their time, and service. He attended Planning Board meetings, and reviewed the documentation. He tried to keep an open mind, but never felt comfortable with the data being used to support this monumental decision. A referendum would clearly define what the residents want. Mr. McCabe has been baffled by the lack of understanding by the citizens about the issue in general, and what is being considered. The universal question he is asked by those not familiar with this issue is, “why?” Why is it good for Ridgewood, why such an extreme density, why four locations at one time, and why do buildings have to be fifty feet high. Mr. McCabe responds that he doesn’t have the answers even though he has attended many Planning Board meetings. He said he hopes that the Village Council has the answers, and the data to back up those answers. He suspects they don’t have the answers, particularly regarding the financial questions.
Mr. McCabe pointed out that Ridgewood has gone through many changes since the 1970s with the elimination of the Mom and Pop stores, but it has maintained its character throughout. He told Councilmembers that anyone who votes for this ordinance will never have his support again. He is not opposed to multi-family housing, but he is opposed to the ordinance as it exists, and the commencement of four projects at once.
Mr. Rosen, 891 Hillcrest Road, said that the role of government ought to be the enactment of the will of the citizens. Democratic principles include freedom of speech, and the right to assemble, but tonight’s vote threatens these fundamental principles. Mr. Rosen stated that there have been no independent studies conducted, no referendum, and no opinion poll taken. The decision tonight is not being made by the people, but by representatives of the people who are supposed to preserve Ridgewood for future generations, and to act in accordance with the will of the people. This decision should be made with the utmost consideration. Mr. Rosen mentioned that some would argue that Ridgewood needs the income from increased housing because the economy is struggling, and could be revitalized by urbanization. They argue that economic needs trump the preservation of the Village. This short-sighted view threatens everyone through school over-crowding, among other things; however, the biggest threat is that this view is not in line with public opinion. Mr. Rosen stated that if this Council votes in favor of these zoning changes, it will be voting against the will of the public, and this does not reflect the decision of a democracy.
Jeff Voigt, 99 Glenwood Road, stated he is a member of the Zoning Board. He said that on July 3, 2013, Paul Aronsohn and his wife; and Councilmembers Hauck and Pucciarelli attended a Republican fund raiser for Governor Chris Christie at the Bank of America building in Ridgewood. Each ticket was paid for by John Saraceno, an event host of Governor Christie’s, for an item of value worth at least a $1,000. John Saraceno had an application known as the Enclave Development in front of the Planning Board, and the zoning amendments surrounding this same development is now in front of the Village Council. Mr. Voight read from the Village code, Chapter 3, Section 53, entitled “Conflicts of Interest” which states that “an elected official shall not accept or solicit anything of value as consideration for, or in connection with the discharge of his official duties; shall not accept any gift or gratuity whether in the form of service, loan or promise, or any other form from any person, firm or corporation, which would tend to influence them in the discharge of their official duties. In addition, any officer or employee who violates any provision of this section can be suspended without pay or removed at the discretion of the appointing authority”. This law also states that the Court shall have the power to impose one or more of the following to anyone convicted of a violation of any municipal ordinance: imprisonment in the County jail, or in any place provided by the municipality for the detention of prisoners for any term not exceeding 90 days, or by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or by a period of community service not exceeding 90 days.
Mr. Voigt reported that at a follow up Village Council meeting on July 10, 2013, as noted in the Village minutes, Mr. Rogers was asked by Mayor Aronsohn to look into the Village gift law, as it related to the free tickets given by Mr. Saraceno. On July 11, 2013, Mr. Rogers was quoted by the Ridgewood News as saying “attending the fund raiser falls outside of the Village gift ordinance, and it was completely appropriate for the officials to attend. It would have been a disservice if they did not attend.” Mr. Voigt said that he couldn’t find any other reference to this incident in the Village minutes which makes him think that this is the only follow-up reply Mr. Rogers had to this request. Mr. Voigt stated that Mr. Rogers has side-stepped the conflict of interest ordinance, (Chapter 3, Administration of Government) quoted above in his reply to the Ridgewood News. The free tickets were to the event for Governor Christie, were not a gift, but more aptly defined as an item of value. Mr. Voigt said that an example of a gift would be a donation by the RBSA, as opposed to an item of value.
Mr. Voigt questioned why Mr. Rogers did not address the conflict of interest issue. Based on the Conflict of Interest ordinance, Mr. Voigt asked if there is a conflict of interest for Mayor Aronsohn and Councilmembers Hauck and Pucciarelli regarding the Enclave application. Mr. Voigt is also concerned about other business relationships that might constitute a conflict of interest, including a working relationship that Paul Aronsohn and Albert Pucciarelli have with John Saraceno as members of the Board of Trustees of the Ridgewood Library. As a member of the Zoning Board, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, legal counsel always requests that members recuse themselves if there is any personal relationship with an applicant. These relationships include friendships, business relationships, such as board participation, and relative proximity from the applicant’s home. Mr. Voigt asked that the Village Councilmembers be held to the same standards
Mr. Voigt again asked Mr. Rogers if he thought Mayor Aronsohn and Councilmembers Hauck and Pucciarelli should recuse themselves from the Enclave Development application based on this conflict of interest. He asked if Mr. Rogers would agree with his recommendation to have an independent counsel look into this.
Amy Beiersdorf, 50 South Murray Avenue, pointed out that many in the audience helped Councilmembers get elected by signing petitions and displaying yard signs. This was done on the belief that if elected, Councilmembers would do their best to represent everyone to the best of their ability. She said that people are invested in this process, and are upset about it. Ms. Beiersdorf said that an overwhelming number of residents oppose this proposal, and she implored the Village Council to vote no tonight, or at least wait until they get more information so that this can be done right. She doesn’t want to see the town ruined, and feels that no one on the Village Council does either.
Art Wrubel, 79 Ridge Road, a former member of the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission and a professional planner, stated that the business district started out as one block of commercial development that expanded over the years. He pointed out that this proposal consists of three developments that are definite, and one proposed development. Mr. Wrubel said that the developments will be scattered throughout the downtown and, based on his experience, will not have a major impact on the Village. The Village has ordinances addressing height, and several years from now, individuals will not realize the impact of these structures unless they are standing next to them. Mr. Wrubel observed that three of the four sites were previously automobile showrooms, which have been closed, and he categorized them as derelict. New buildings will be two stories high at most, and constructed out of aluminum. The physical and visual impact of the proposed building will not overwhelm this Village. The impacts on parking, water, fire, schools, and open space have been studied. A traffic study was funded by the developer through an escrow account, and the Village hired their own traffic expert to conduct the study. Mr. Wrubel concluded that he hasn’t heard any convincing argument as to the negative impacts of the proposal, and the potential for good architecture could actually enhance the downtown.
Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, said she is disappointed at the way the majority of the Council has decided to hold this hearing. Mayor Aronsohn was a Councilmember at the time of the Valley Hospital hearings, and has seen how civil, transparent, and thorough this process can be. She recalled that the Village Council set aside seven nights of meetings dedicated solely to Valley Hospital. The dates were announced well in advance, were held at the High School Auditorium, and were broadcast live. At each of these meetings, the Village Council brought in experts, including an architect, engineer, traffic expert, and planner. These experts were available for questioning by the Village Council and the public, and subsequent meetings were held for public comment and statements by Councilmembers. There were so many questions asked of the experts that everyone felt no stone was left unturned when it came time for the vote.
Ms. Reynolds said that the process surrounding the multi-family housing proposal has been the exact opposite, leaving everyone frustrated and confused. Only Mayor Aronsohn has been present at the Planning Board meetings, and she wondered how the other Councilmembers could vote when they have never been able to question the traffic expert, engineer or the planner. Ms. Reynolds stated that the residents feel there has been no effort by the Village Council to make this an open and transparent process. She said that Dr. Fishbein, Superintendent of Ridgewood Schools, was brought in during the discussion period at the Planning Board meeting, but he needs to come to the Village Council to answer questions as to the impact on the schools.
Ms. Reynolds stated that the financial aspects of the proposal have not been discussed. Whenever this point was raised at the Planning Board meetings, the public was told that costs are not a factor for consideration by the Planning Board. The Village Council is able to consider a broader range of topics, and finances should be one of them. At the November 17, 2014 meeting of the Planning Board, Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, stated that the Tax Assessor’s opinion was that the number of children and rents that were projected were accurate, and the projected costs were reasonable. Later that evening, Mr. Brancheau said that if the projections are wrong, it could result in a financial cost to the Village. In an article from the Ridgewood Patch dated February 7, 2013, Mr. Brancheau stated that “as for the typical fiscal impact of multi-family housing, it varies; sometimes there is a positive ratable, and sometime there is not, and whether it makes money or loses money is not the point.” Ms. Reynolds commented that this means a lot to her, and most residents are interested in whether or not their taxes would be raised.
Ms. Reynolds referred to a meeting on November 17, 2014, in Upper Saddle River at which time actual figures as to the cost for a proposed high density housing project were discussed. The resident who brought this up couldn’t understand why this wasn’t being done in Ridgewood. The Planning Board attorney responded that if the Planning Board adopts the Master Plan amendment in any format it would then go to the governing body for consideration of zoning ordinances. This was similar to what had taken place in Upper Saddle River. Ms. Reynolds stated that the Planning Board adopted the Master Plan amendments, and the proposal is under consideration by the Village Council; however, there has been no information as to the fiscal impact. If the Council votes without hearing information on the fiscal impact, they are negligent in their fiduciary responsibility. This is not good or proper planning. Ms. Reynolds thanked the Councilmembers who wanted answers to these questions, and she said it is unfortunate that they were shot down by other Councilmembers.
Matthew Gertler, 375 Glenwood Road, said he is against this development, but not all development. He asked the Village Council to consider the company they keep, their reputation, and the legacy they will leave to the Village. He stated that three Councilmembers have already indicated their support of the proposal, and he was disappointed to admit he had voted for all three of them. Three of the Councilmembers have voted as a block, but only one may be around to see the ramifications this project could cause. Mr. Gertler said that some families have ties in Ridgewood going so far back they would never leave, but could the same be said of some of the Councilmembers. Mr. Gertler encouraged independence among Councilmembers, and he said that this would be a great time to exercise impartiality from the block.
Mr. Gertler said that this project is destined to fail, due to the haste of the project, and the absence of an independent study. He said that the future of the present Councilmembers is at stake, and the first line of each individual’s political obituary could be forever linked to this vote.
Rurik Halaby, 374 Evergreen Place, said that he has seen Ridgewood on a continuous decline for the last forty-six years, and apartments are one way of addressing this decline. This development could revive the CBD. Mr. Halaby stated that the Planning Board has done a thorough job of vetting this subject which has been going on for six years.
Mr. Halaby spoke about density, and stated that the apartment building at the intersection of Franklin Avenue and Maple Avenue stands at sixty-five feet, with a density of 125 units per acre. It does not appear to be overwhelming for the neighborhood, and the endless debate of compromising at 20 units per acres is nonsense, and would make the apartment uneconomical, which is what the opponents of the project want.
Mr. Halaby is pleased to see the progressive attitude of the majority of the Village Council regarding this proposal, as well as the parking garage and senior housing. These key developments will add to the viability of the Village. He added that there must be renewal in order to preserve a town. Renewal is painful and costly at times, and he urged the Council to vote in favor of the apartments.
On a related topic, Mr. Halaby said that Mr. Rogers is one of the finest attorneys he knows who has done a fantastic job for the Village. He should not be called into question relative to Councilmembers taking a bribe.
Ron Simoncini, 249 Avenue, has followed the evolution of this proposal over the past four years at the Planning Board level. Initially, the project called for 500 units, and this was reduced to 250 units, which was a win. Everyone got to ask questions, and the Planning Board successfully went through a long and arduous process. His sense of win includes the interaction among everyone, loyalty to each other, and respect for each other. He apologized for the suggestion that there might be some type of pay-off of Councilmembers going on, which is completely undignified.
Mr. Simoncini stated that the respect of Village professionals will be lost tonight if Councilmembers don’t vote in favor of the proposal. All of the Village professionals were patient and thorough in their testimony, and their conduct was beyond reproach. If every important issue in the Village has to go to a referendum, what does it say about the Village Council? It means that faith in the electorate, in the applicants, and the professionals, as well as State law, which guides most of the issues the Village Council is confronted with, and can’t be avoided. It is impossible for the Council to govern when any of these questions are up against people who have impassioned and sincere views. The Village Council was elected to hear all these different issues, and not to present them to the residents of the Village who would not be able to conduct a successful process like the Planning Board. Mr. Simoncini reminded everyone that members of the Village Council are serving as volunteers, and their political careers are not leading them to the White House or anything else that would convince them to take a bribe. This is a process to determine what is best for four sites that are otherwise undevelopable, and if residential units of a certain density aren’t put there, they won’t be developed. Mr. Simoncini said that he appreciated the service of all Councilmembers and added that they have been elected to do a job, and have earned his respect.
Mandy Roth, 221 Gardner Road, said that a lot more homework is needed before a decision is made. If her children do not do their homework, they have to go to bed with that reality on their conscious, and it will be the same for the members of this Council.
Dana Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue, distributed a letter to Councilwoman Hauck that had been signed by one hundred residents. He is frustrated because this process is not working for residents, and he recommended a dialogue, which would be more constructive. It is a mistake not to hold this meeting at the High School where everyone could be accommodated. Mr. Glazer said that Mr. Slomin’s questions get at the heart of the matter, and if his questions can’t be answered, the Village Council should not be voting tonight. Mr. Glazer read his letter into the record. The letter stated that the group is just as concerned as Councilwoman Hauck is about the vacant store fronts in the Village; parking problems in the CBD; the fact that the schools are filled to capacity; and that changes need to be made to make the Village better. Voting yes for the Master Plan is not the answer because Councilmembers do not have the information necessary to make an intelligent decision, as noted previously by Mr. Slomin. The Planning Board was given impact statements paid for by the developers, which should not have happened. Excessive time was spent reviewing and debating this data. The only properties considered for rezoning were selected by the developers, and the Planning Board did not proactively or seriously consider other locations. There was no testimony justifying 35 units/acre, and Mr. Glazer questioned why other numbers were not used. The Planning Board allowed a threatening letter from Fair Share Housing to be read into evidence, which was accepted without any cross examination. This amounts to hearsay, and he questioned how the Village Council could say they have done their due diligence, and call for a vote tonight. Mr. Glazer asked why a financial planner hasn’t been questioned, and he asked for information on the financials as well as an impact study. Mr. Glazer asked how the Village would deal with a water shortage, and sewage issues that will result from high density housing that will proliferate in the downtown. Mr. Glazer said that this is not a decision that can be made in one evening and he recommended that the Village Council consider this vote.
Greg Ricca, 42 Heights Road, said that one of the functions of government should be to ensure that the Village is looked at, and developed as a whole, in a cohesive way. People are concerned that this developer-driven process is skewed, and the municipality is constantly reacting to proposals made by developers. He questioned the developer regarding the basis used to determine the number of units. No answer was given based on any analysis or process. This is a problem, and people feel the process has been taken over as a result of this ordinance. People feel that this is not a government process, but a development process.
Ken Brabant, 243 Sunset Avenue, said that he would like this comment to apply to all five ordinances. Mr. Brabant said that he was opposed to raising the density to 35 units/acre, and he urged Councilmembers to vote no to all of the ordinances.
Jeanette LaRocco, 454 Bogert Avenue, said she grew up in Greenpointe, Brooklyn when it was similar to Ridgewood, and had a low crime rate. Three decades later, this area is over built, crowded, expensive, and the crime rate has skyrocketed. Every piece of available property is being torn down and renovated to accommodate more and more people. Ms. LaRocco decided to move to Ridgewood because of the grass, and trees, exceptional public schools, town-wide family activities, and architecture. The crime rate remains low, and her children were able to walk safely to school, beginning with Kindergarten through High School. Ms. LaRocco predicted that all hell would break lose if the Master Plan is amended, and it will be very difficult to turn down proposals from developers in the future. There have been discussions on a parking garage in various forms for sixteen years; however, after only a couple of years of discussion, the Village Council feels it can vote on an amendment that will change Ridgewood forever. This is ludicrous, especially since the benefits to Ridgewood have not been satisfactorily explained. No survey has been undertaken indicating the need for these new buildings. Ms. LaRocco stated that the biggest need is for affordable housing for those fifty-five and over. She pointed out that people move out of Ridgewood due to high taxes, and adding luxury apartments does not address that problem.
Ms. LaRocco questioned how resources would be allocated for these new developments, especially in light of the recent drought. Unbiased studies are necessary to understand whether or not there is a need for overdevelopment in Ridgewood. She said that the goal of developers is to make money, while Ridgewood residents are interested in preserving a way of life. The Village Council needs to vote no until all proper studies are done to show the unbiased disadvantages to Ridgewood if the Master Plan is amended.
An unidentified resident said that he does not agree with the changes to the Master Plan, and if the Council votes yes they will lose his respect. He asked for data showing the difference financially between twenty-five units and thirty-five units. If there is no data, it proves that the Village Council has not done their due diligence, and they are relying on information from the developer. Mr. Baines agreed with the recommendation for a referendum.
Christina Neuman, 445 George Street, thanked Councilmembers Knudsen and Sedon for reading her emails. She said she felt ignored by other Councilmembers. Ms. Neuman has done some research and said that the information provided by the developers is simply marketing materials. The developers have indicated that there will be no impact to town services; however, the town has been under Stage Four water restrictions for most of the summer. She wondered if they would be under these same water restrictions for the rest of their lives as a result of this development. Ms. Neuman said that if the Councilmembers really think this development is of such importance, it should be put to a referendum to give residents a voice.
Elizabeth Nixon, 284 Cantrell Road, asked that her comments apply to all of the ordinances. She disagreed with the statement that the properties in question are only suitable for residential use. She feels that the people or companies that own this land are holding the Village hostage. They are leaving the properties vacant for such a long period of time that people will be happy with anything that is built. Ms. Nixon commented that the developers are refusing to accept any other suggestions.
Melanie McWilliams, 431 Bogert Avenue, asked for Councilmembers to address the question of whether or not they are guilty of accepting a bribe. They could answer by recusing themselves from this vote, and putting this question on a ballot for a public referendum.
Scott Van den Bosch, 302 Stevens Avenue, said he would like his comments to apply to all matters under consideration. He stated that as long as he has been living in Ridgewood, during political campaigns every candidate begins a speech with a statement as to how special Ridgewood is, and that it has to be protected and maintained. This high density housing is a farce and nothing but profits for developers at the expense of Ridgewood residents. He is concerned about the impact of the developments on the schools, quality of life, traffic, municipal infrastructure, and property taxes. In earlier testimony, Mr. Van den Bosch recalled that the Village Planner said that additional students could be handled through larger class sizes and redistricting. If this comes to pass, the blame will clearly lie at the feet of the Councilmembers who voted in favor of these developments. Mr. Van den Bosch said that class sizes in Ridgewood are already too large, and the result will be angrier parents, in addition to higher taxes. He urged Councilmembers to oppose these amendments, and put the questions to a public vote. Mr. Van den Bosch said that Councilmembers are needed who will stand up for the citizens and the preservation of the town, and not self-interested developers who care little about Ridgewood.
Peter Cahill, 126 Madison Avenue, Midland Park, said that he owns property in Ridgewood. Mr. Cahill noted that only one person has spoken in favor of this development this evening, and his reason was because if multi-family housing isn’t built, the property won’t be developed. These are commercial properties that would be leased if they were offered for rental. He said that there are 500 people here tonight, and almost everyone is opposed to this proposal.
Mr. Cahill reiterated that he is a property owner in Ridgewood as well as a real estate developer, and real estate broker. He was born and raised in Ridgewood, and has family members living in the Village. He said that if he was the developer and saw this level of negativity, he would abandon the project and go somewhere else. He wondered why the developer is so confident that the Village Council will vote in favor of this proposal.
Chris Kaufman, 642 Midwood Road, said that he is a local realtor, and it is in his best interests financially to have this type of development. He is also a baseball coach, junior wrestling coach, and football coach. He has two children in Hawes School. One class is made up of several more students than the other class, and he sees a distinct difference in the level of learning based on this class size that he would not have thought would be so significant. The effect of this development on the schools is his number one priority. Mr. Kaufman stated that Ridgewood is at a crossroads, and if the Village Council approves this proposal, it will forever change the Village. If the proposal is not approved, Ridgewood will remain the amazing place that exists today.
Niti Mistry, 416 Colwell Court, said she grew up in Maywood where the children have to attend Hackensack High School. Hackensack is a city, without the quaint downtown feel of Ridgewood. Parents feel it is safe to allow their children to go to downtown Ridgewood after school, but this wouldn’t happen in Hackensack. Ms. Mistry doesn’t want changes made to the downtown so that it is not safe to walk, and the change to Ridgewood Avenue and Maple Avenue will impact the downtown. Her three children are involved in Taekwondo and finding a parking space in the middle of town any night of the week between 5:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M., when she takes her sons to practice, is almost impossible. She cannot imagine what it would be like if these multi-family properties are developed. She also works in the CBD, and often hears comments from customers that they enjoy the services offered in the Village, but it is difficult to park. She fears that consumers will be deterred from coming to the stores in Ridgewood because of added traffic.
Ms. Mistry stated that she has only recently become familiar and involved with this issue, due to time constraints such as family obligations and work. The difference between past meetings and today is mass ignorance versus mass awareness, and there has been a shift in the community that cannot be denied. Ms. Mistry said that a yes vote would be a gross misrepresentation of what the people want, and she urged the Village Council to vote no.
Angela Stoehr, 139 North Walnut Street, stated that the Master Plan is what makes the Village special because it limits high density development. The ordinance that was meant to help Valley Hospital opened the doors to developers who jumped on it in order to build and make money. She understands that these properties are eyesores, but something else could be done, such as apartments, at a lower density. Ms. Stoehr recommended keeping the Master Plan as is, and she asked the Village Council to vote no to the proposed amendments.
Michael Berg, a resident of Lake Avenue, thanked Councilmembers Sedon and Knudson for replying to the email sent by his wife, Jennifer. Mr. Berg stated that both he and his wife oppose the amendment to the Master Plan. They attended Planning Board meetings on this issue, and had hoped that logic and common sense would prevail. They were extremely disappointed at what appears to be the future of Ridgewood. They chose to move to Ridgewood seven years ago, mainly based on the reputation of the community and the school system. They have spoken to many friends and neighbors over the past few years at school, sporting and church events as well as dinner parties, and other social occasions. They have never heard anyone speak in support of the Master Plan amendment, and asked the Councilmembers who they are representing.
Mr. Berg said that they are against the proposed number and size of the multi-family housing because it will negatively impact the quality of education of his children. He feels that the key to Ridgewood’s success is the positive reputation of the Ridgewood school system, which can only support so many until the quality of the classroom education erodes. It has become apparent that the School Board has had to do more with less, relying on families to raise, and donate thousands of dollars and hours. Adding more school age children to the system without increasing resources and physical space, or adequate funding will be a tremendous burden on everyone.
Mr. Berg agrees with the need to revitalize the downtown business district, but there are over 25,000 residents already, and he can’t understand that adding several hundred more residents would be the panacea for a lagging downtown economy. The problem with the CBD is the lack of parking, and the need for a better variety of quality stores. The issues that need to be addressed in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce are how to lure the residents to the downtown area instead of going elsewhere, and simply adding more residents into an already congested area will not solve the problem. Keeping people aged fifty-five and older in the community is a worthy objective, but it must be done in a more measured way with a lower density, and limitation on the size and height of the buildings. Mr. Berg has seen no independent studies indicating that these proposed apartments fit the needs of the empty nesters. The proposed developments are not restricted to ages 55 and over, which is one of the criteria cited in the Master Plan amendment. If this is the case, the development should be designated as such.
Mr. Berg reminded Councilmembers that they serve the constituents, and not the developers, or would-be future residents. During Pope Francis’ visit to the United States last week, he reminded government officials to put aside financial interest to do what is right and in the best interests of their communities. He emphasized the importance of protecting children and families, therefore, Mr. Berg urged Councilmembers to protect the interests of the already over 25,000 Ridgewood residents, including the children in the Ridgewood schools. He asked Councilmembers to vote against this amendment and protect the 6,000 children currently attending Ridgewood schools.
Carrie Giordano, 57 North Hillside Place, requested a spread sheet from the Village Council relative to the cost of how this will affect the residents of Ridgewood.
Peter Cabache, 448 Oak Street, said that his wife selected Ridgewood as the place where they would live, and over time, both the town and the people have grown on him. He is discouraged over the present situation because he doesn’t feel that the residents were made aware of changes being contemplated. He didn’t want to move into a city, but to a town with a good school system where his kids could grow up. He doesn’t understand how these types of developments could be considered in such a historic town. Mr. Cabache asked that the Village Council vote no on this issue.
Ed Feldsott, 67 Heights Road, said that he worked hard to get all five Councilmembers elected, and he feels betrayed. He hopes that this large turn-out of people tonight, along with the hundreds of emails that have been sent to the Councilmembers, will convince them to support the residents of Ridgewood, and not the carpet bagger developers. He grew up in the city of Yonkers, but chose to live in Ridgewood because of its small town feel. Mr. Feldsott indicated that he would be willing to support a 50% increase in density. He asked those who do not support the 35 unit per acre density to stand up. After surveying the room, Mr. Feldsott concluded that 90% of the residents oppose the proposal, and he asked the Village Council to vote no to this proposal, or to give the residents the opportunity to vote on this via a referendum.
Jim Griffith, 159 South Irving Street, said he just turned eighty-one and has lived in Ridgewood for fifty-two years. He commended the Planning Board for the job they do. He recalled a conversation he had forty years ago with former Mayor Pat Mancuso. Mr. Mancuso said that the founding fathers got it right, and indicated that there were no reasons for change. Mr. Griffith disagreed, stating that the Village must be kept current and up to date. The Planning Board recommended the amendment to the Master Plan, and Mr. Griffith supports their decision. Many of his friends have moved out of Ridgewood because they want to have a smaller residence, with the latest features, which were not available in Ridgewood, including two bedrooms, an elevator, and interior parking. Mr. Griffith said that there are only seventeen of these types of apartments that exist in Ridgewood, therefore, he asked the Village Council to vote in favor of the amendments.
Diane Palacios, 342 North Van Dien Avenue, chose to live in Ridgewood thirty-seven years ago because it is a charming, small town. She doesn’t want to see any change which will compromise the aspects that she treasures, and she will never live in an apartment in a multi-family, high density setting. Senior citizens don’t want to be in a prison, and they don’t want to be told what they can and can’t do and have. Senior citizens want to stay in their house in a place with small town ambience. If this development takes place, Ridgewood will become congested and polluted, and she asked Councilmembers to vote no on all of these ordinances.
Martin Walker, 114 Cottage Place, made a public plea for visionary leadership before the Councilmembers vote on these amendments. He pointed out that some on the Village Council, all of the Planning Board members, Village employees, lawyers, engineers, public relations consultants, developers and concerned residents have labored long and hard on this project covering every issue involving high density housing except for the future of Ridgewood families. Mr. Walker asked that the Village Council make Ridgewood families their first priority. There is no doubt that future families moving into this high density housing will benefit downtown Ridgewood, but the heart of the community is the families that are here now. Mr. Walker urged the Village Council to represent the interests of all citizens, including the children. He said that current empty nesters who want smaller homes fit into the over age fifty-five category, and many towns have reduced their tax burden by fostering multi-age communities by adopting this option. The Planning Board seems to have ignored this option. He attended a Planning Board meeting where one developer said that over age fifty-five housing was undesirable because it “lacks vibrancy”. Mr. Walker asked that the Village Council vote yes to a better future for Ridgewood families by voting no to these proposed amendments. He stated that the opportunity for retirement in Ridgewood should exist, and he encouraged a plan for lower tax growth. Opening multi-family housing for families with school age children will result in higher taxes for everyone. He asked that the Council come forward with a plan for incorporating reasonable density, over age fifty-five restricted housing into the Ridgewood Master Plan.
Oliver Beiersdorf, 50 South Murray Avenue, asked that his comments apply to all five ordinances. Mr. Beiersdorf stated that he and his wife grew up in Ridgewood and urges the Village Council to vote no on these amendments. He disagreed with an earlier speaker who indicated that the town was in decline. He said that Ridgewood has the best schools, open space, and a downtown that has been protected by smart zoning, meaning twelve units per acre. This zoning has retained the Ridgewood character that is loved by everyone, which is about to be turned around.
Mr. Beiersdorf said that this proposal will triple the density from twelve units/acre to thirty-five units/acre. This is being done at the request of a few, select developers for a few, select properties, and many would say that this is spot zoning which is illegal. This is now a lawsuit, and Mr. Beiersdorf suggested that they wait to find out the results of the lawsuit before proceeding further. These five-story buildings with more families have many serious implications, including the fact that a dangerous precedent is being set. More and more developers will want fair treatment under the law, and will seek to change the Master Plan for their individual developments. If they are turned down, another lawsuit will ensue with the argument that a denial is arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Beiersdorf recalled that the Village Planner said that this is an unlikely scenario, and he asked if the future of the Village can be bet on unlikely. He has spoken to several land use attorneys who indicate that this situation is not just possible, but it is probable. This is a slippery slope, and the flood gates are being opened to more high density housing. He asked that the Village Council not approve these ordinance amendments, and that the vote be deferred until everyone is heard. He suggested that the hearings be suspended due to the conflict of interest issue, and get the opinion of a special counsel on this question. Mr. Beiersdorf encouraged Councilmembers to put this to a vote via a referendum.
Alexi Kerkamkopf, a resident of Hillcrest Road, said he had lived previously in the Soviet Union which eventually dismantled due to mismanagement, among other things. It seems as though the representatives here don’t listen to the public who have their own agendas. He asked Councilmembers to listen to the public, and put this question to a referendum, so that the public can decide. Mr. Kerkamkopf said that he lived in Brooklyn for ten years before moving to Ridgewood, and he doesn’t want to go back to that situation.
Wendy Dockray, 460 Alpine Terrace, said that she grew up in Ridgewood and moved back ten years ago. She has listened to all the testimony, and the analysis relative to multi-family housing and the enabling ordinances before the Village Council. She opposes the ordinances not because she is opposed to multi-family housing, but due to the following reasons:
-
Height, density, floor area ratio and setbacks as provided for in these ordinances will result in buildings out of scale with the Village. There are only four buildings in the CBD that reach the 50 foot height limit. The provisions in the ordinance providing for additional height to accommodate architectural features are not sufficient to have the buildings conform to the scale of the community. She gave a photo to the Village Clerk of a location in Englewood with similar street frontage to the Dayton Building and has the architectural features similar to what is provided for in the proposed ordinances. She said that it doesn’t create a building that matches the community.
-
There is no credible evidence that these building will address the needs of senior citizens, and this is not a valid argument in favor of the ordinances. The parameters set by the ordinance are vastly different than those associated with townhouses or multi-family dwellings with outside gardens and green space. The minimal requirement for outside space could be met by a rooftop, which doesn’t meet the needs of senior citizens. The rent ranges from between $30,000 and $48,000 per year, as noted in testimony at the Planning Board, which is a lofty sum for retirees. Ms. Dockray said that no study of the housing needs of senior citizens has been done, and this is a weak attempt at addressing these needs.
-
Insufficient fiscal analysis was done with regard to the impact of this rezoning, but it is important for the Village to account for this impact in light of the fact that there is going to be a loss to the Village as a result of these proposed developments. Mr. Brancheau’s report included a statement indicating that there remains a question in his mind relative to the cost of necessary traffic improvements, and whether or not the Village has sufficient resources to pay the difference between the total cost and the developer’s portion. Ms. Dockray said that many residents have raised the question about fiscal impact.
-
There are concerns about meeting COAH requirements, but cutting the density back to twenty-five units per acre will only cost 1.5 units in affordable housing per acre. This would significantly reduce the overall impact to the community.
Ms. Dockray believes that with the resources, intelligence, and abilities possessed by the residents of Ridgewood they can make up the 1.5 units per acre in a better way than what is proposed by these ordinances. She asked that the Village Council vote no on these ordinances because the Village can and must do better than the ordinances currently being considered by the Village Council.
Tom Graham, 501 Stevens Avenue, said he would be speaking in opposition to all of the ordinances. Mr. Graham stated that if this is not done right, they will be back in several years discussing a change in the name from the Village of Ridgewood to the City of Ridgewood.
Barry Sands, 339 Spring Avenue, recalled that earlier in the meeting, Councilwoman Knudsen seemed frustrated when she asked for information on numbers relative to a question raised about the house at Habernickel Park. Mr. Sands stated that this is the same level of frustration he and other residents here tonight are experiencing.
Elaine Libenson, 41 Clinton Avenue, has made several observations. Ms. Libenson said that the Village Council is blessed, or some would say cursed, by an intelligent and well engaged citizenry. No one has said that there should be no development at the sites in question, but have agreed that there should be intelligent development. There have been calls for an independent analysis to help the Village Council determine the appropriate housing density if the current standards are to be changed. Her second observation is that holding this meeting in this room demonstrates a lack of understanding or appreciation on the part of the Villager Council of the level of interest by the public regarding this issue, as well opposition as to how this matter has been handled. She pointed out that there are 300 people waiting downstairs to be heard. Ms. Libenson noted that there was a petition signed by between 1,300 to 1,400 people that has been disregarded. She urged the Village Council to delay its vote this evening, and instead open further public hearings in consideration of this issue or to put these questions to a public referendum.
Amy Junger, 84 Ridge Road, thanked Councilmembers Knudsen and Sedon for responding to her email. She said that she feels completely disregarded by the other members of the Village Council. No one can quantify how much this proposal may impact the schools, raise taxes, reduce property values, and increase traffic. They need to see the pros and cons for each issue. If anyone can quantify, why a three times increase is better for this town than a two times increase vote yes. If that cannot be done, then there must be a no vote.
Robert Kotch, 60 North Hillside Place, said that he is speaking in opposition to all five amendments, and that the density should be kept at twelve units per acre. He finds it incredible that a developer can initiate the process, and tell him that this town has to change. He heard the rumor that Councilman Pucciarelli would not be able to vote, because of a conflict of interest, due to the fact that his law firm represented the Ken Smith auto dealership. He asked that this item be clarified. Mr. Kotch has researched Councilman Pucciarelli, and learned that his expertise lies in the area of hotel and commercial real estate development; and financing aircraft purchase, sales, and leasing. It seems possible that a real estate attorney who is a partner in a firm could have a potential conflict of interest, and Mr. Kotch wanted to know the law pertaining to conflicts of interest. This does not feel right to him.
Mr. Kotch suggested that rather than having a developer tell the Village what he wants, they should have hearings, focus groups, and meetings to determine what is best for the CBD. Mr. Kotch said that he wants more amenities for the citizens, such as recreation. There is a huge community of interested citizens that want the Village to be better and thirty-six units per acre is only a land grab for the developer.
Councilman Pucciarelli reiterated that he does not have a conflict of interest, and he added that many lawyers have served on the Village Council. He does not think he should be disqualified for having raised four children in Ridgewood for forty years, and for being a very active citizen in the town.
Dolores Carpenter, 319 Steilen Avenue, thanked Councilmembers Knudsen and Sedon for answering the emails she sent. Ridgewood is cosmopolitan with a small town atmosphere, and the residents love being a cut above the rest. They work hard to maintain this reputation, and elect responsible government officials who will represent the residents, speak their voice, and work hard to maintain the special qualities and characteristics of Ridgewood. Keeping this in mind, Ms. Carpenter asked the Village Council to take a good look at the high density housing projects proposed for the CBD. She asked if the residents were asking to have these apartments built or was it the builders who asked if they could build these apartments. The vast majority of the constituents vehemently oppose this building project, and if there were a referendum today this proposal would be soundly defeated. Residents do not want the Master Plan changed so that the housing density can be tripled. They don’t want five-story apartment buildings destroying the bucolic atmosphere, or the over-crowded schools, traffic and parking that will result from this development. Ms. Carpenter stated that they don’t want to be Hackensack, and she asked Councilmembers to think long and hard about what the residents want, and to vote no to this proposal.
Linda Kotch, 60 North Hillside Place, said that this thirty-five unit per acre number that everyone is talking about could include two, or as many as four people, which could mean as many as 140 people per acre. She recommended that Councilmembers think about this a little longer.
John Bykowsky, 184 Bellair Road, stated that going from twelve units/acre to thirty-five units/acre is not a compromise. The developers had originally requested fifty units/acre in an attempt to scare or bully the Village into accepting thirty-five units/acre. Mr. Bykowsky said that the developers walked all over the Planning Board, but they should not be able to walk all over the Village Council.
Lorien Gallo, 327 McKinley Place, said she is vested in Ridgewood, since she lives here and also owns a business on Chestnut Street. She supports development, but not the type that is proposed. She asked the Village Council to vote no.
Felicia Angus, 82 Fairmount Road, said that she attended a meeting, and questioned one of the developers about making the entire development a senior citizens development. His reaction was that the market for senior citizen housing is flooded; however, she read in the paper that Mayor Aronsohn has been in favor of these developments since the beginning. Ms. Angus noted that no one has the information they need to vote yes, so why not wait until everyone, including the Village Council, has all the facts and figures, and then have a vote.
A resident at 668 Wall Street said he has been in risk management for many years. He referred to the proposal, and asked what are they trying to accomplish, and what are the risks. The school and the downtown are Ridgewood’s greatest assets, and this proposal could jeopardize both. Property values will go down, and taxes will go up. Mr. Walkin pointed out that there is no financial information, and independent bids are lacking. Mr. Walkin urged the Village Council to vote no on these amendments.
Kieran Doyle, 330 Franklin Avenue, thanked Councilmembers Knudsen, Sedon and Hauck for replying to his email. Mr. Doyle said that Mayor Aronsohn and Councilman Pucciarelli are also members of the Planning Board and participated in the hearings at that level. The three other Councilmembers did not participate in this process, and therefore did not have the opportunity to hear testimony and question the witnesses. This process is just beginning for these three Councilmembers, as well as most of the audience members. A no vote tonight will allow this conversation to continue for Mayor Aronsohn and Councilman Pucciarelli and to begin for the remaining Councilmembers, along with other residents in the town. Mr. Doyle noted that items such as the financial impact, as well as resulting tax benefits or burdens, were excluded from consideration by the Planning Board.
Mr. Doyle stated that if Councilmembers were genuinely interested in the opinions of residents, they wouldn’t have an issue with a referendum on this subject. He also asked Councilmembers to consider carrying this meeting over to a future date because there are several hundred people downstairs waiting to speak. This observation was confirmed by the Fire Department.
Councilwoman Knudsen pointed out that she sits on the Planning Board as the Village Council liaison and she cast a no vote to the proposed amendment on June 2, 2015, when the Planning Board voted on it.
Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the Fire Chief has indicated that there are between thirty and forty people waiting downstairs. She didn’t know how many wanted to speak. Earlier this evening, it was reported to her that there were 274 people downstairs.
Leigh Warren, 140 Washington Place, asked if the Village Council was aware of any other towns that have made this type of a dramatic increase in zoning, and if they know of any, how these towns are faring now. She asked about any changes that would be implemented to cope with the additional traffic. She also wondered how this development would affect the water supply. Ridgewood Water had commented that this development will have a minimal effect accurate. She questioned whether this statement was accurate.
Ms. Warren said that she is a teacher and had two extra children added to her class this year. This has had a significant impact on her classroom, and this development will significantly change class sizes. Ms. Warren questioned why the developers were not required to provide adequate parking spaces for their tenants. She wondered how the Village could move forward with this development, if these questions cannot be answered. She stated that she, along with many others, loves Ridgewood but some residents will decide to leave because they don’t want to live in this type of overcrowded environment. Ms. Warren asked Councilmembers to give this proposal a lot of thought.
Jennifer McCabe, 96 Avondale Road, said that she is not opposed to development. Her concern is that no comprehensive planning has been done, and that the overall needs of the Village have not been taken into consideration. Ms. McCabe asked the Council to respond to the questions that have been raised tonight before casting the final votes on this proposal.
An unidentified resident stated that she opposed raising the density to 35 units/acre. She asked the Council to vote no.
Bernadette Walsh, 444 Red Birch Court, asked that her comments apply to all of the ordinances. Ms. Walsh stated that she is a former Councilmember, who understands the seriousness of the decisions the Councilmembers will be making. She referred to a book by Henry Leuning, who was a founding father of Ridgewood, and particularly interested in Parks and Recreation. In the book, Mr. Leuning stated that control of the future destiny of Ridgewood lies largely within the power of the people of today. He went on to write that it is possible to preserve the Village’s present high standard as a residential suburb and to assure the continued enjoyment of its many advantages and beauties for future generations. It is possible to achieve development and growth with far-sighted vision aimed at definite high standards, which will ensure that the best interests of the community are safeguarded, and promoted as they have been in the past.
Ms. Walsh stated that Mr. Leuning went on to state that this is a critical point in the history of Ridgewood. He noted that it is logical to assume that many people will be attracted to Ridgewood, but their aims may be different from those who came in the past. He indicated that everything possible should be done to preserve the Ridgewood of today, along with reasonable safeguards for the future. Many outsiders will want the bar lowered, so they can easily come in and exploit the Village for their own profit, and present property owners must ensure that the bars are kept up and strengthened. Mr. Leuning stated that there is one neighboring community that has suffered as a result of the intrusion of the greedy outside developer, and unless the people of Ridgewood control and regulate growth of the Village, an outsider will try to do it for them. Ms. Walsh noted that this book was written in the 1930s, and she pointed out that it contains plans for a large park in the Ackerman and Bellair Road area, which was later sold to a developer.
Ms. Walsh stated that she has known Mr. Saraceno since she moved to Ridgewood eighteen years ago. She also knows the Bolger family, who have great intentions, and would be the most inclined to make sure that only good is done for Ridgewood. She has researched the developer relative to the Brogan Cadillac site, and found that a judge announced damages in the amount of $84.5 million in a long running lawsuit against the developers of Garden Homes. The lawsuit involved breach of contract, fraud, and systematically cheating their partners, among many other things. She referred to another article in May 2015, stating that a New Jersey developer was ordered to pay a $225,000 fine for Clean Water Act violations, relating to fuel spills, at ten different Garden Homes' construction sites.
Ms. Walsh said that Councilmember Pucciarelli needs to research whether or not he can vote on the proposal because of the fiduciary responsibility of his law firm to the lease holder of the property. She also learned that Mayor Aronsohn received two campaign donations from the owner of Garden Homes.
Carol Recchia, 442 Bogert Avenue, noted her opposition to the 35 units/acre zoning proposal and she urged the Village Council to vote no.
Bennett Smith, 320 Brookmere Court, asked Councilmembers to reject these zoning amendments, and take another approach to address the density concerns. He commended the Mayor for his time and efforts addressing the parking concerns. He was confused as to why there would be a referendum on the parking, but not the issue of multi-family housing. Mr. Smith stated that he attended some of the Planning Board meetings, and he recalled that one of the attorneys for developers said that the residents of Ridgewood are over educated, and suggested that they are thwarting the efforts of his client.
Mr. Smith was recently involved in a Ridge School activity where children walk throughout the town and learn how the town operates. The children arrived at Village Hall where they were met by Councilman Pucciarelli, who explained the process of Village government, and how candidates are elected to represent the residents. Councilmember Pucciarelli explained the workings of the Planning Board and said that the Board had just approved a plan for multi-family housing. He pointed out that sometimes it takes a long time to get things done, but this is good for the town, and should have happened a long time ago. Mr. Smith questioned whether all the issues raised by everyone here tonight will make a difference. He wondered if Councilman Pucciarelli’s vote would be based on this long held belief, or would it be based on the disregard for the community’s thoughts and concerns.
Marisol Romero, 258 Steilen Avenue, said that she is opposed to all five ordinances. Ms. Romero stated that she is the mother of a special needs child, and she asked that the Council consider that 10% to 20% of children moving into Ridgewood, who will live in the multi-family housing, will be children with special needs, needing special education services. Parents of existing special needs children are presently struggling to get services for their own children, and she couldn’t imagine the drain that additional special needs children would have on the budget of the school district. Ms. Romero is sure that all of the school children in Ridgewood would be impacted in some way. She asked that Councilmembers think of the special needs services that will be required when considering their vote on this issue.
A resident at 29 Ridgewood Avenue said that she is against this project because she feels that taxes will go up and the level of service will go down. She asked the Council vote no to these zoning amendments.
Drew Watson, 300 Highland Avenue, said that his comments are applicable to all of the ordinances. Mr. Watson stated that he and his wife have lived in Ridgewood for over thirty years, and are empty nesters. He supports multi-family and low-cost housing in Ridgewood; however, the proposed apartment buildings are much too large, and do not fit the town. According to the October 2014 report by Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, twenty-three units/acre is the average density in and around the downtown area. The proposed density of thirty-five units/acre is more than 50% higher than this average, which doesn’t make sense, and will change the charm and character of the town. The density of thirty-five units/acre would result in two hundred and fifty apartments. Mr. Watson proposed a density of twenty-three units/acre that would produce one hundred and sixty apartments, or a decrease of 35%. This would mean fewer students entering the already crowded schools, and less traffic. Mr. Watson pointed out that there have been no surveys that would indicate that here is a high level of interest in this type of housing by empty nesters. He added that he and his wife have no intention of moving to this type of housing arrangement.
Mr. Watson said that there was no evidence presented indicating that the downtown is sliding sharply downward economically, and is in need of revitalization. He stated that some may worry that large commercial enterprises, like Costco, will build on these properties if this proposal is not approved. There is no evidence to justify this view either, and it would appear that the use limitations would prevent this from happening. If this were not the case, Mr. Watson is sure that Mr. Brancheau could initiate further restrictions. There are people who may be fearful of the lawsuits that the developers might bring if they don’t get what they want. Mr. Watson recalled that in his closing argument, one of the lawyers for two of the builders said he would guarantee that there would be builder remedy lawsuits filed under affordable housing. As a former lawyer, Mr. Watson said that if Ridgewood is sued for a density of forty-five units/acre, they will be in a much better position if they begin with a density of twenty-three units/acre instead of thirty-five units/acre.
Mr. Watson stated that at a Planning Board meeting, Mr. Brancheau was unable to give an explanation when questioned as to why the density at thirty-five units/acre was better than the lower density at twenty-five units/acre. The Councilmembers should not vote on this proposal until the analysis on this question is completed. He asked Councilmembers to vote no tonight, and to consider a density of twenty-three units/acre for future development.
A resident at 263 Franklin Avenue stated that he lives in a multi-family housing unit. The resident said he doesn’t oppose development, but he suggested a thorough and independent economic and social analysis of the effects of these new units. A comparison is also needed relative to the effects of a twenty-five units/acre building as opposed to a thirty-five units/acre or forty-five units/acre building. This information needs to be available to the public. The resident indicated that responsible development requires active solicitation of developers, residents, and government officials.
Saurabh Dani, 390 Bedford Road, said that he believes, based on all the information he has obtained on-line, including the builder’s website, that there will be an increase in the number of students in Ridgewood. This will affect taxes. Residents have been told that because the buildings will be scattered throughout the downtown area, there will be no impact on anyone or anything. Mr. Dani asked if there has been any research into the fact that once high density housing has been approved for four buildings with thirty-five units/acre that other builders will expect to have their projects approved with the same zoning. Mr. Dani stated that because the Planning Board does not get involved with assessing the impact of the development on taxes, this becomes the responsibility of the Village Council. Most people are questioning whether or not the Village Councilmembers have done their research before voting on this proposal. The Planning Board indicated that the financial implications would be researched and discussed by the Village Council, and this has not been the case.
Mr. Dani mentioned that these units are being directed for use by senior citizens because empty nesters need to be encouraged to remain in Ridgewood. There is nothing in the proposed ordinance amendments that reflect that these units are being marketed to senior citizens, and Mr. Dani rejects that argument.
Mr. Dani asked if any studies were presented that were not funded by the developers. He is interested to find out whether Councilmembers will respond honestly when questioned by residents, or whether they will listen and present their remarks prepared by the builders, and then vote yes. Mr. Dani said that he intends to vote in the next Village Council election, and he wants to be an informed voter. He has heard that some of the Councilmembers will not be running for re-election, and the opportunity to approve these ordinance amendments is the reason they wanted to be on the Village Council. It appears that Councilmembers are not listening to the public, are voting in favor of the developers, and will not have to suffer the repercussions of this vote because some or all are not running in the next election. Mr. Dani indicated that if the three members of the Village Council who have previously stated that they will vote yes, go forward with that vote, it is clear that they are not listening to the residents.
Harry Bourque, 133 Sheridan Terrace, stated that the residents of Ridgewood really care about the town, and he asked Councilmembers to reject these zoning amendments. This is a big decision with huge ramifications that will linger for a long time. Mr. Bourque asked Councilmembers to listen to the residents, and vote no.
Jimmie Yoo, 330 South Pleasant Avenue, stated that Village leadership has failed to clarify how or why the Village would benefit from the approval of these five ordinances, other than the potential net gain of revenue for the Village. Residents are left to speculate relative to the true motivations of Councilmembers, and he stated that there would have been less of a backlash tonight if transparency had been exercised. Many have referred to the strain on Village services and quality of education, and he noted that there is no option for full day Kindergarten in Ridgewood due to overcrowding. Full day Kindergarten will never be a reality with this high density housing. Mr. Yoo recalled that several years ago, residents could always count on Mayor Aronsohn to vote no in situations such as these, because he believed in the best interests of Ridgewood residents. Mr. Yoo stated that the construction of these apartments will dilute the quality of life in Ridgewood, and he urged Councilmembers to vote no or agree to take this question to a referendum.
Chris Sargente, 203 Heights Road, stated that he is not opposed to residential development in the appropriate density. The problem is that he doesn’t know what that density is, and neither does the Village Council based on the type and quality of the information that has been provided. There would be benefits from this development, but the question is whether these benefits could be achieved at a lower density that still incentivizes a developer to anticipate a reasonable return on their investment. The Village Council should have conducted impact studies that would determine the costs and benefits to the Village, at various density levels. There is information on the changes to the Master Plan that consists largely of reports and testimony offered by the developer’s experts or by the Citizens for a Better Ridgewood’s (CBR’s) planner. This information is an inadequate substitute for independent studies that would greatly benefit the town, and determine the true impact of various density levels.
Mr. Sargente stated that he has been a trial lawyer for some time, and has worked with experts over the years. Except in rare instances, the testimony and reports of experts are used to achieve the desired end for the client, and are suspect or generally unreliable. After attending the hearings, it was his impression that the developer’s conclusions regarding traffic, parking spaces, and school age children were grounded on questionable assumptions. The CBR plan questions some of the intentions of the developers, but it does not present competing studies, and is not a substitute for independent studies commissioned by the Village Council. Mr. Sargente urged Councilmembers to resist making a decision at this time, and instead set a tight timeline for completion of independent studies to evaluate quantity, and financial impact on the Village schools and open space. Any decision to approve these developments, without sufficient study, will raise a question as to whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious inviting judicial scrutiny. The desire to reach an end to a very long process is short-sighted, but might be understandable if only one high density development was being considered. Mr. Sargente reminded Councilmembers that there is no going back.
Mayor Aronsohn announced that it was 11:00 P.M., and he would recommend carrying this meeting to a future date so that anyone who had to go home but still wished to speak would have that opportunity at another date. Anyone still in line and wanting to speak could go ahead tonight. He suggested that there be no vote by the Village Council tonight. Councilman Pucciarelli agreed with Mayor Aronsohn, and indicated that they should pick a time to stop hearing comments, and continue to another meeting. Councilwoman Hauck said she would be willing to stay as long as needed, but she wondered how coherent everyone was when it is so late in the evening. Councilwoman Knudsen agreed with Councilwoman Hauck, and said that if the audience is interested in continuing, she is willing to stay. Councilman Sedon said he would agree to stay, but he would prefer tabling the ordinances until a comprehensive financial study could be done. Councilwoman Knudsen said that if this is a motion by Councilman Sedon, she would be happy to second it. Councilman Sedon confirmed that he was making a motion to require a financial impact study to see exactly what benefit, if any, this development would have to the tax base; would the development be revenue neutral; would it drain the tax base; or would it contribute to the tax base, and lower taxes for everyone. He said that this process relative to the proposed amendment has been handled incorrectly, and it needs to be slowed down. The Village Council needs to hear from the experts in open meetings, in order to give residents the opportunity to ask questions.
Councilwoman Knudsen asked Councilman Sedon if he would amend his motion so that a comprehensive study would include a comprehensive traffic study not confined to the CBD only, but to include adjacent neighborhoods, and the Village as a whole. She added that a full and thorough school impact study must be conducted across the board. These meetings should be conducted in a more conducive environment to allow everyone to be in the same room at the same time, and to speak in an orderly fashion. Councilman Sedon accepted the changes to his motion proposed by Councilwoman Knudsen.
Councilman Pucciarelli said that he wants to stay the course of hearing what the public has to say, and to continue this hearing. He suggested that the meeting adjourn at 11:30 P.M., and at that time the process could be continued to a future date.
Councilwoman Knudsen said she understood that even through Councilman Sedon wanted this issue tabled until a comprehensive study could be done relative to various features of this plan; he wanted the meeting to continue for public comment for the remainder of the evening. Councilman Sedon indicated he was agreeable to have residents continue to speak. Councilman Pucciarelli said that people are getting tired, and 11:30 P.M. would be a sensible time to stop the time for public comment. He added that tabling these ordinances is an interruption of the orderly process that is now in motion, which has been requested by the citizens of Ridgewood.
Councilwoman Hauck stated that four and a half years of testimony addressed a lot of questions. Information was presented on traffic and population growth, as well as density. She was curious as to what kind of studies Councilmembers Knudsen and Sedon were suggesting. Would they be studies by professionals not currently employed by the Village because many people thought that the testimony of Village professionals was biased? These various studies could cost approximately $8,000 to $10,000 each, and if these professionals were hired by the Village people would claim they were biased because there is such an element of distrust at this time. Councilwoman Hauck admires everyone who is being patient, and respecting the process, and who wants the best for the Village. She is not sure which independent experts could be hired. The financial analysis is simply speculation because nothing is known about what type of apartments will be built, what the price will be, and what the ratables will be in the future.
Mayor Aronsohn suggested that the Village Council listen to those who still want to speak tonight. He would be agreeable to conducting a financial impact study because it was not addressed by the Planning Board. Councilman Sedon said he would prefer continuing with the motion that is on the floor, which would include a financial impact study, a comprehensive traffic study, infrastructure study and school impact study. Councilwoman Hauck asked who would Councilman Sedon recommend, and she questioned him on the cost. Councilman Sedon said that offhand he didn’t know who they would hire or how much it would cost. This is one of the most important decisions facing Ridgewood and additional information is needed. Upon questioning by Councilwoman Hauck, Councilman Sedon said that he was aware of limited traffic studies, some information offered about the number of school children, and several other studies done at the Planning Board level.
Councilwoman Knudsen stated that there were traffic studies done specific to those immediate locations; however, there has never been a comprehensive traffic study done of the CBD, the adjacent communities or the Village as a whole. This becomes relevant because there are four large parcels being considered for development, coupled with the North Walnut Street redevelopment zone with an assisted living facility of 76 units/acre. A parking garage that will add over 300 vehicles is being contemplated in a narrow, congested corner of Broad Street and Hudson Street. When you look at these three proposals collectively, it becomes imperative that the Village Council must due their due diligence and get this right. Councilwoman Knudsen concluded that not enough traffic studies have been done.
Councilman Pucciarelli does not want to interrupt the process that has been set in motion. Residents asked to be heard in an orderly process, and they have been accommodated. There are Village professionals here that were prepared to offer statements about taxes, which might better inform Councilmembers about studies that are needed.
Ms. Mailander reviewed the motion made by Councilman Sedon for multiple studies, including a traffic and infrastructure study, financial study and school impact study. The traffic study would encompass the CBD, surrounding neighborhoods and the entire Village.
Ms. Mailander called the roll. Councilwoman Hauck said that there are two pending traffic studies of the CBD that are included in the Hudson Street Parking Garage, which could be applicable here. She questioned how long this would take. Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this would require a detailed Request for Proposals (RFP) similar to what has been done with the parking garage. Councilwoman Hauck stated that this process will take three or four months and will cost several thousand dollars. She is concerned about the duration of this process, and she pointed out that the Planning Board and Village professionals have invested in a thoroughly vetted process. She wants to know how long this process will take, assuming the Village gets independent advisors.
Councilwoman Knudsen agreed with Councilwoman Hauck’s concerns, but added that it appears that the residents are rejecting this high density housing at 35 units/acre.
Councilman Pucciarelli said that he is still listening, but he doesn’t think people are rejecting high density housing altogether. He doesn’t agree with this spontaneous motion and applause in the middle of this process.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Knudsen, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: Councilmember Pucciarelli
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Bill McCandless, 71 Ridge Road, said that he is trouble by the high density, and he thinks that a lower density could be a solution. The affordable housing decision looms large, but this process that is continuing is not being properly handled. The Superintendent of Schools has indicated that the concept of crowded schools is one to be decided by the community who has clearly indicated that this is something they don’t want. The Planning Board was barred from including schools in their decision, as well as the economics, and he is happy that the Village Council has decided to examine both of these
James Park, 305 South Van Dien Avenue, expressed disapproval of the five ordinances.
Jim McCarthy, 153 Hope Street, thanked Councilman Sedon for putting his motion forward. He said that the quantity of hearings does not substitute for the quality of hearings. In this case, the requirement is being driven by a subset of the Village Council, independent of the overwhelming desire of the residents for development at a lower scope and scale than what has been proposed. Mr. Rogers clearly stated at the last meeting that the Village Council would be well served to establish a record, in order to uphold any decision. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the liability for a potential builder’s remedy might be better managed by doing one or all of the following: holding this matter over; scheduling a binding referendum; and/or calling for a comprehensive update of the Master Plan. Mr. McCarthy stated that Ridgewood would come out a winner if it is able to prove its character as a dynamic, close knit, communal village.
Jen Celiberti, 140 Woodland Avenue, encouraged the Village Council to vote no on these ordinances. Ms. Celiberti stated that it is clear that there are more people present tonight who are against the ordinances than are in favor of the ordinances, but that doesn’t make those who say no any angry mob. She asked that Councilmembers do not forget the number of people opposing these ordinance amendments. She agreed that the Village has to change to remain current and fiscally sound. She doesn’t oppose change and is excited about the parking garage, but changing the Master Plan the way it has been proposed is not the answer. Ms. Celiberti has followed the process, and although she doesn’t have a solution, she knows this isn’t the answer. She suggested developing a new Master Plan and submitting it to bid to developers. Ms. Celiberti stated she opposes all five ordinances and would support a referendum on this issue.
Jen Detaso, 145 Heights Road, said that she opposes all of the ordinances. She noted that there have been four speakers in favor of the ordinance here tonight, and all the rest have asked the Village Council to vote no to this proposal. One of the speakers in favor of the amendments said that these properties would not be developed if these amendments are not passed. Ms. Detaso asked if anyone on the Village Council believes that statement. She asked if the developers purchased this property with the knowledge that the rezoning would be taken care of. She hopes they bought the property knowing that it could be developed in many different ways. She is certain that the fiscal study will demonstrate that there are many uses for these properties. Ms. Detaso added that this this is a clear case of spot zoning, and she asked Councilmembers why they would do this.
Kathryn Gilligan, 356 Franklin Avenue, said that there are apartments behind her property, and she knows that some families rent these apartments in order to send their children to Ridgewood schools. When she questioned a member of the Board of Education about this, she was told that nothing could be done about it. These people won’t pay the high taxes, but they want the education, and it is time for people to do something. Ms. Gilligan only heard two people who support the plan, and one is a paid cohort of the developers. She wonders how many of these developers actually live in Ridgewood.
Tom Engle, 20 Richmond Avenue, said that the feelings of the majority have been made very clear, and each Councilmember must hold themselves accountable to the citizens by voting no to all five ordinance amendments.
A resident of Oak Street said that he is in the advertising business and knows the importance of a brand. Ridgewood is a valuable and beautiful brand and the Village Council is the steward of this brand. He said that he appreciates the steps taken a little earlier to make this right by ordering the extra studies, and he hopes the Village Council continues on this path, because high density is not what the town is about.
Sandipan Deb, 250 Phelps Road, said he is not against change, but they need to keep in mind that some change is incremental and subtle, as opposed to radical change. This proposal results in a radical change to housing density and the questions that need to be answered are whether or not this change is necessary, and/or beneficial to the beneficial to the Village. There is not proof that the change is beneficial or necessary, and Mr. Deb suggested that the Councilmembers be more cautious before approving this radical change.
Mr. Deb said he is not involved with housing or real estate, but he knows that HUD is a nationwide government agency proposing high density public housing to increase diversity in places like Ridgewood. He said that there are other communities that are ahead of Ridgewood; therefore, Ridgewood has the opportunity to wait things out to see how the government reacts. Councilmembers have to reflect the will of the residents in the Village, and to ensure that any changes that are made are made in the best interests of the Village. Many here tonight feel that Councilmembers have their minds made up; however, he has hope and he encourages the Village Council to represent the will of the people and vote against the ordinance amendments. If there is any confusion relative to the feelings of town residents, there is always the possibility of a non-binding referendum. He reiterated his opposition to the ordinance amendments.
Patrick Reilly, 160 Highland Avenue, said that he has spent the last twenty years in commercial real estate, and the biggest response he has received from towns about proposed projects is that the area “is not zoned for that”. In industry terms, this means don’t bother submitting the plans because they will be immediately rejected by the municipality. Ridgewood residents are opposing a proposal that doesn’t conform to the present zoning, which the town has had in place for decades. Zoning ordinances and the Master Plan protect residents so they don’t have to constantly monitor the Planning Board for issues like this. Mr. Reilly noted that a loophole was put into place by a previous Mayor to ease the passage for expansion of the Valley Hospital. This loophole must be closed so that the Village is not faced with this scenario again.
Mr. Reilly stated that there are many ways for these properties to be developed. The developers think that the highest and best use of the properties is high density housing, but this is subject to the zoning that is in force on these properties. A decision of this magnitude should not be made because of a loophole, and he urged the Village Council to vote no on these zoning amendments. An aggressive discussion relative to the crux of this whole issue, which is the loophole, is needed.
Christine O’Meara, 129 Lake Avenue, encouraged Councilmembers to reject the amendments. She moved here with her family from Hoboken four years ago to escape over-crowding, noise and large class sizes. She would hate to see it change.
Brian Ward, 35 Coventry Court, recalled that his daughter met Mayor Aronsohn when he was visiting Travell School. His daughter was thrilled to meet the Mayor, and after that she became very interested in government. Mr. Ward said he would hate to have to tell different stories when the vast majority of speakers here tonight oppose this high density housing. Mr. Ward supports the idea of a referendum because the Village Council hasn’t made the case to the residents to make that choice. He is not convinced that Councilmembers know enough about the subject to make the correct choice. He asked that the Village Council take their time to debate this action, and make the right choice.
Joyce Schimmel, 131 West End Avenue, thanked Councilmembers for taking on this thankless job. She thought it was ridiculous for anyone to accuse any Councilmember of intentionally taking a bribe. Ms. Schimmel is in favor of multi-family housing but not at such a high density. She agrees with the idea of independent studies because the Major and Council doesn’t understand everything that was presented to the Planning Board. She suggested that these studies be put on the Village website so people can educate themselves before attending a meeting.
Phil Rogers, 37 Randolph Place, stated that Mr. Sedon has given the Village Council an opportunity to take some time to answer the questions posed by the public. It is obvious that there is no public support, and any affirmative votes do not represent the residents of Ridgewood. It is the job of the residents to question the integrity of the Village Council, and this amendment has no benefit to the citizens of Ridgewood. The residents shouldn’t have to question the motivation of their elected officials. Mr. Rogers asked the Village Council why they think this development would benefit all the people in this room and the taxpayers of Ridgewood.
Sean Neenan, 180 Godwin Avenue, said he read many of the studies regarding this development online along with the transcripts, and has concluded that this was a developer-driven process. He noted that an expert hired by a developer will give the answers that the developer wants to hear. He questioned the benefits of this development to the town and the residents, and he urged Councilmembers to vote no.
John Saraceno, 17 Coventry Court, said that the reason more people in favor of this development don’t come out to these meetings is because they are badly treated. He referred to the event that was held for Governor Christie mentioned earlier this evening, and said that Tom Riche and Bernadette Walsh who were Councilmembers at the time, also attended. No one is upset with them, but that could be because they are not supporting this development. Mr. Saraceno pointed out that this type of scenario is repeated whenever a big issue comes before the Village Council, and the reality is that studies were done relating to all of the issues. The Planning Board studied all aspects of this issue for four and a half years, at no cost to the Village. There was nothing biased about any of the studies and an ordinance was created so that a developer would be required to pay into an escrow account that would fund these studies and reports. Developers have paid in the millions of dollars to hire professionals to do studies, and Mr. Saraceno said he has personally spent $800,000. There is no doubt that other things could be built on these properties, but it is his opinion as a resident, that this is the best, most appropriate use at this time. Mr. Saraceno agreed that it is unfortunate that everything is happening at the same time, but the unfortunate reality is that every previous Planning Board and Village Council have done nothing for the last forty years. These vacant car dealerships will eventually be developed, and this development will generate traffic. He pointed out that the traffic studies have concluded over and over again that this development will have the least impact on traffic of any type of possible development in Ridgewood.
Mr. Saraceno recalled that the Planning Board made every effort to listen to Dr. Fishbein, representatives from the Water Department, Police Department, Fire Department and others. There are countless reports which agree that controlling the number is the issue. Mr. Saraceno had asked for 37 units/acre, and eventually decreased the height of the structure from four stories to three stories. The height of the building is the same size as Roots and is not out of character with the look of the Village.
Mr. Saraceno said that the speakers tonight think they know what they’re talking about. They need more time to understand the reality that this is the best thing that can be done for the Village, in order to begin to move it forward. Creating more retail space or another medical arts building does nothing to help the Village.
Melinda Carley, 139 Richards Road, said that after listening to Mr. Saraceno she thinks there is a miscommunication, and there could have been better dialogue if there had been more awareness in the Village. She has many friends and neighbors in the Village and has attended some of the Village Planning Board meetings, but knows of no one who really understands the development or is in favor of it. Ms. Carley said that at one Planning Board meeting someone stated that the people living in these apartments wouldn’t be driving cars very often because they would be using the train and the walkable downtown. She knows that this would be wonderful if it were true, however, she knows from the experience of moving to Ridgewood from New York without a driver’s license that this is not the case. Ms. Carley said that you can be provided with study after study; however, the reality is something different. Certain things that are being proposed that are not true or right for the Village and this is why so many people are coming out and asking the Village Council to vote no. She added that a no vote is really a yes vote for something that could be really wonderful for the Village. Ms. Carley asked the Village Council for the opportunity to raise her children in the same town as everyone on the podium.
Roger Pinches, 429 Van Buren Street, said he is also a teacher at Ridgewood High School. Mr. Pinches stated that as an educator, he know that people move to Ridgewood for the schools, and often move out after their children have finished high school. He is concerned about the stress on the school that will result from this development. Mr. Pinches agreed with a comment by one of the Councilmembers that it is difficult to assess the accuracy of studies that have been or will be done in the future. He stated that trust is an issue, and he urged Councilmembers to address the trust issue very early in the process. He suggested that an ad hoc committee be formed, so that as this process progresses, problems can be solved at a lower level rather than in a meeting of this type. If both sides are open-minded, progress will be made.
Mr. Pinches stated that it appears there are two votes against the proposal. He hopes that anyone else considering a no vote will indicate that, and perhaps put an end to this tonight. Councilman Pucciarelli responded by stating that his mind is not made up and he wants to hear from everyone before making any judgements. Mr. Pinches observed that approximately 95% of the speakers tonight are opposed to this project. He concluded that the voices of the developers should not outweigh the voices of the residents, and he urged the Village Council to vote no.
Mr. Chen, a resident who moved from China to Ridgewood about a year ago, said that he is a consultant involved in various types of studies, and he is keenly aware of the cost of such studies. He said that there are only 25,000 people living in Ridgewood, and it would be very easy to take a vote of the people relative to their support or opposition to this project. He is involved in marketing research, and if you want to sell something, you have to convince people that they need it. The developers should be responsible to actively sell the idea as to why this development will benefit the residents.
Kathryn Schmidt, 123 South Irving Street, said she supports change and development, but over the past two and half years that she has observed Planning Board meetings, she finds she can’t support this development in its present form. Four multi-family developments are being proposed at an unprecedented density level, coupled with a multi-level parking garage, and an assisted living facility. This seems like too much for the CBD to absorb all at once. Ms. Schmidt asked that the Village Council consider voting no on some, but not all of these ordinances. If they were only looking at approval of one or two of the ordinances, she would feel differently. After five years, the Village could determine how well the CBD was functioning, and consider going ahead with an additional ordinance.
Ms. Schmidt stated that at several Planning Board meetings she attended, she heard calls for a more comprehensive review of the Master Plan, which could be followed by decisions made in that context. She understands that COAH requirements are probably overshadowing this decision, and she recommended facing this head on within the context of a Master Plan. She said that moving forward with all five ordinances will certainly impact the look of the Village, which she cannot support.
Adrien Webb, 287 Mountain Avenue, said that like most of the residents, he loves the Village, with the exception of parking and traffic. This development would be the worst thing to add to an already over-stressed downtown area. He doesn’t like to avoid downtown Ridgewood, and he wants to support local business, but it is difficult due to the traffic and parking situations. He finds himself going to Ho-Ho-Kus or Midland Park because it is easier to park. Mr. Webb recalled an earlier speaker who indicated that if this development isn’t approved, it will be replaced with something that is a lot worse. This is a commonly used argument that is not very compelling, and there must be a stronger way to sell the attributes of this proposal to the residents. Mr. Webb urged the Councilmembers to vote no on all of the ordinances.
Anne Loving, 342 South Irving Street, thanked Councilman Sedon for making this motion tonight and she added that she feels she experienced a miracle tonight with the four to one vote that followed. She recognized that Councilman Pucciarelli responded to allegations of a conflict of interest, and Councilwoman Knudsen corrected an error about her membership on the Planning Board. She asked if Mayor Aronsohn would ever address the issue raised about contributions to his campaign by one of the developers of the multi-family projects. Mayor Aronsohn said that this was the first time he had heard this allegation.
Kelly Nakasone, 321 North Pleasant Avenue, said that her family has been in Ridgewood for three generations, and she loves the town. She said that she doubts anyone’s minds will change as a result of more studies, and she hopes that Councilmembers will listen to Councilwoman Knudsen. Ms. Nakasone is hopeful that Councilwoman Hauck will change her mind, as she has indicated that she doesn’t want to waste taxpayer money. She asked the Village Council to vote no, so that she can raise her children in the same environment as she was raised.
Brian Fowler, 57 Clinton Avenue, said he is opposed to all five ordinances that would increase density. He referred to the process, stating that it was suggested that further delay of this matter would demean or be insulting to the hard work done by the Planning Board and other professionals. He said that the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Planning Board on a wide range of matters and they have final say on those matters. The MLUL requires a final decision by the Village Council, relative to the amendment of a zoning ordinance contained in the Master Plan. The Village Council must give the amendment an extensive, thorough, and independent review. Mr. Fowler explained that in the vast majority of cases, a review by the Planning Board is sufficient, but in this case it is very important for the Village Council to conduct its own detailed review. In all the years he has lived and worked in Ridgewood, he has never seen an issue come up that was more important, and had the potential for a greater impact on the future, as this issue. Mr. Fowler observed that there is the perception that this process has been developer driven, and that all viewpoints, arguments, and actions have not been adequately heard and vetted.
Mr. Fowler stated that the Village Council has taken a great step forward with the decision to undertake additional studies. He agrees that the Village Council needs to take a step back and they owe it to everyone to look at these matters independently. He thanked the Village Council for taking these actions.
George Williams, a Godwin Avenue resident, recalled that when he was a student in Ridgewood in the 1950s, there were people of all ages living here, which made the town an interesting place. He eventually had five children of his own, who went through the Ridgewood school system, and he has found that over time, people move away after their children have completed their education here. He finds this disappointing, because the older people add color and knowledge to the town, which it wouldn’t have had otherwise. Mr. Williams said he hasn’t heard any evidence that this development will allow older residents to remain in the town. He pointed out that he hasn’t heard anyone say tonight that nothing should be done with these properties and that they should remain vacant. People are upset about the size of the structures and the process. Mr. Williams indicated that this process involves a change to the ordinances, which is something that only the Village Council can do. This process is being given another chance, due to the vote tonight. This is a positive step, and a wonderful example of the democratic process. He said that Councilmembers must use their judgement as to what is best for the town. He added that he would prefer a meeting where there is some rapport between the audience and the Councilmembers, because this would give people other ideas and points to consider.
Jeff Krusel, 274 Franklin Turnpike, said that he and his wife moved to Ridgewood in order to raise their children in the best environment possible. His wife is a teacher in the high school, who has told him that she already has over thirty students in her classes. If this proposal goes forward, he does not believe his children will get the attention in the classroom that they deserve or the education he hoped they could get by moving to Ridgewood. He heard five people speak in support of the proposal; however, it seems as though those five people will stand to benefit financially if these properties are developed. He asked that the Village Council take into consideration all of the speakers here tonight and vote no to the zoning amendments.
Mayor Aronsohn moved that the public hearing on Ordinance 3489 be continued to November 9, 2015. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Knudsen, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
b. Public Hearing - #3490 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development – Establish B-3-R Zone District
Mayor Aronsohn moved the second reading of Ordinance 3490. Councilwoman Hauck seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3490 by title:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD CHANGING THE ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE B-1, B-2 AND C ZONE DISTRICTS TO A NEW B-3-R ZONE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR THE NEW B-3-R ZONE DISTRICT
Mayor Aronsohn announced that the Public Hearing was now open for comment. No one from the public came forward and Mayor Aronsohn moved that the Public Meeting be continued to November 9, 2015. Councilman Sedon seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
c. Introduction - #3491 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land use and Development – Establish C Zone
Mayor Aronsohn moved the second reading of Ordinance 3491. Councilman Sedon seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3491 by title:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD CHANGING THE ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE C ZONE DISTRICT TO A NEW C-R ZONE DISTRICT AND ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR THE NEW C-R ZONE DISTRICT
Mayor Aronsohn announced that the Public Hearing was now open for comment. No one from the public came forward and Mayor Aronsohn moved that the Public Meeting be continued to November 9, 2015. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
h. Introduction - #3492 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land use and Development – Establish C-R Zone
Mayor Aronsohn moved the second reading of Ordinance 3492. Councilman Sedon seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3492 by title:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD AMENDING THE ZONE REGULATIONS FOR THE C ZONE DISTRICT
Mayor Aronsohn announced that the Public Hearing was now open for comment. No one from the public came forward and Mayor Aronsohn moved that the Public Meeting be continued to November 9, 2015. Councilwoman Knuden seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
i. Introduction - #3493 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land use and Development – Amend Various Sections – Multiple Zone Districts and General Affordable Housing Regulations
Mayor Aronsohn moved the second reading of Ordinance 3493. Councilwoman Hauck seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Village Clerk read Ordinance 3493 by title:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD AMENDING VARIOUS DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE INCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL ZONES, YARDS ABUTTING RAILROADS, NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS, PARKING BENEATH BUILDINGS, SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS, OUTDOOR STORAGE IN RESIDENTAIL ZONES, DISPLAY OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR SALE, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
Mayor Aronsohn announced that the Public Hearing was now open for comment. No one from the public came forward and Mayor Aronsohn moved that the Public Meeting be continued to November 9, 2015. Councilman Pucciarelli seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
f. Public Hearing - #3500 – Lease of 1057 Hillcrest Road for Recreational/Educational Purposes
Mayor Aronsohn moved the second reading of Ordinance 3500. Councilwoman Hauck seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Clerk read Ordinance 3500 by title:
AN ORDINANCE TO LEASE THE GATE HOUSE LOCATED AT 1057 HILLCREST ROAD, IN THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, COUNTY OF BERGEN, FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED FIVE (5) YEARS FOR RECREATIONAL/EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Mayor Aronsohn announced that the Public Hearing was open for comment. No one came forward and Mayor Aronsohn moved that the Public Hearing be closed. Councilman Sedon seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Knudsen, Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Councilman Pucciarelli moved that ordinance 3500 be adopted on second reading and final publication as required by law. Councilman Sedon seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
AYES: Councilmembers Hauck, Pucciarelli, Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Knudsen
ABSTAIN: None
3. RESOLUTIONS
The following resolution, numbered 15-305, was read in full by the Village Clerk as follows:
4. ADOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Village Council, on a motion by Councilman Pucciarelli, seconded by Councilman Sedon, and carried unanimously by voice vote, the Special Public Meeting was adjourned at 12:51 A.M. on October 1, 2015.
_________________________________ Paul S. Aronsohn Mayor
_________________________________ Heather A. Mailander
Village Clerk
