I want to check. Anyway, Good evening. This is the village council regular public meeting. The date is January 14th, 2026. The time is 7:30. Adequate notice of this meeting has been
provided by posting on the bulletin board in Village Hall, by mail to the Ridgewood News, the record, and by submission to all persons entitled the same as provided by law of a schedule, including the date and time of this meeting. Roll call. >> Council member Mortimer >> here.
>> Deputy Mayor Pin >> here. Council member Whites >> here. >> Council member Winterrad here. >> Mayor Vanos >> here. Will you all please join us in a salute to our flagg to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it
stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Please forgive our haste in going through that. And now I move the bills, claims, and vouchers and statement of funds on hand
as of December 31st, 2025 be accepted as submitted. >> I second it. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> White, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Vaganos, >> yes. I move that the village council minutes of December 3rd, December 10th,
and December 17th, 2025, having been reviewed by the village council and now available in the village clerk's office, be approved as submitted. >> I second. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, yes. Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Vanos,
>> yes. We have some fun stuff tonight, so we're going to go into the well and get started. We have a very very special proclamation this evening. Chris Rutershouser is our village engineer and he has been with the village for well over 20 years and
he is retiring at the end of the month and we are very sad to see him go but we are very very happy for he and Lori who are going to be beginning a new chapter in their life although you do quite a bit of traveling right now Chris so
we're going to read a proclamation his honor Chris and Lori would you please come and join There we go. And I I have to note that all of the supervisors that work with Chris are here in the audience this evening, which is just a testament to
what a great guy he truly is. So, we are very happy to have you, Chris. We're going to be very sad. I I remember just Uh a year ago, Heather was contemplating that gee, if Chris ever leaves, that's going to be a big hole to fill because
you cover a lot of ground and um and you have served this village so wonderfully for so long. So with that, I'm going to start our proclamation. Whereas Christopher Rutershouser began working for the village of Ridgewood on July
22nd, 2002 as the village engineer. In 2008, Chris was put in charge of the engineering division, the divi, the traffic and signal division, and the water pollution control facility. And whereas on April 30th, 2018, Chris was
promoted to the title of village engineer, director of public works, overseeing the following divisions: engineering, village fleet services, garage, streets, traffic and signal, and the water pollution control facility.
And whereas Chris has overseen many construction projects in the village of Ridgewood, including the rem the renovation of Village Hall, the construction of the Hudson Street garage, the restoration of the Zabriski Shedler House, as well as traffic calming and pedestrian safety
improvements in both the central business district and on residential streets. And whereas Chris is an expert when it comes to bid specifications and bid openings, as well as being the best in the village at writing resolutions, Heather once told me that she really
likes the way he writes them and ordinances for all departments due to his attention to detail and excellent research skills, which makes him a valuable resource for all village departments. And whereas Chris works diligently on a daily basis for the
village of Ridgewood, balancing competing demands on his time, which often requires him to stay well into the evening hours in order to finish his assigned projects. And whereas among his many accomplishments, Chris is most proud of the fact that he was able to
monetize and charge fees for wastewater connections on new developments and that he established a process for accepting liquid waste at the water pollution control facility from septic system haulers which have both resulted in significant revenue for the village and
whereas over 23 years of service after over 23 years of service to the village of Rididgewood, Christopher Rutershouser will will be retiring on March 1st, 2026. And whereas Chris is the loving husband of Lori, the devoted father of Samantha
and Nicole, and the supportive father-in-law of Matthew and Jake. And whereas Chris looks forward to retirement and improving his fishing skills in Vero Beach, Florida, while enjoying travel, relaxing, and spending time with family and friends. Now
therefore, be it resolved that the village council of the village of Rididgewood does hereby proclaim January 14th, 2026 as Christopher Ruthouser Day in the village of Rididgewood in appreciation of his over 23 years of
dedicated service to the village of Rididgewood and on behalf of the many residents and village employees whose lives he has touched and wishes him a long, happy, and healthy retirement. on behalf of a grateful community. Let's give it up for Chris Rutous. [applause]
Uh mayor, members of the council, thank you very much. Uh you picked a very auspicious day. Uh today my mother turned 93. I'm going to send her a copy to that proclamation. So I think that'll be a great present for her. Thank you very much. >> Chris, thank you so much. Come on.
[applause] You doing the wedding line. Here you go. Photo. Photo. Photo. Where's Carol? Photo. >> Thank you. >> I always forget the photo. >> We can. >> [applause] [applause]
>> Okay, jamboreeers, come on up. As a Jamberee alum, I'm so excited to read this proclamation because Jamberee does such great work raising funds for uh our high school seniors scholarships.
Whereas Jamberee was established in 1947 by Rididgewood residents in order to raise need-based scholarship funds for Rididgewood High School students. And whereas Jamberee is an annual musical theatrical production that this year
will have over 150 parent and guardian participants working on scene construction, painting, journal production, filming, photography, cooking, serving, props, costumes, vocal, choreography, behind the scenes,
and performing. Whereas many volunteers, including producers, script writers, photographers, musicians, choreographers, jamboree board members, and others work behind the scenes throughout the year to create
unforgettable Jamberee productions. And whereas the primary source of scholarship funding is through the sales of Jambburye journal advertisements and the annual journal is produced by dedicated volunteers, many of whom no longer have students in the school
system. And whereas Jamberee participants gener generously and selflessly volunteer and donate time, talent, and services to ensure the production is not only entertaining, but also generates appropriate funding in
support of need-based scholarships for graduating seniors to attend college. And whereas it takes countless volunteers to make Jamberee successful, including current parents and stu of students, many Jamberee alumni,
dedicated members of our village community and student volunteers. And whereas the theme of the 80th jamboree this year is lights, camera, jamboree, [laughter] celebrating screens, scenes, and
scholarship dreams. Now therefore, be it resolved that the village council of the village of Ridgewood does hereby proclaim February 5th, 6th, and 7th, 2026 as Jamberee days in the village of
Rididgewood. and thanks the current and past volunteers who have participated in Jamberee and distributed over $2 million raised for scholarships in the past 15 years to numerous graduating Rididgewood High School seniors. Let's give them a
hand. [applause] >> [applause] >> I just want I'll introduce Pat and uh and Sarah and Greg and Janet. >> Thank you very much. So, we're the producers for Jambbury 2026 and uh we're
actually we'll keep it short. We're off to rehearsal tonight. We're in the midst of uh getting prepared for February 5th, 6th, and 7th. Uh we really appreciate the sport. It's so important for us. Uh we have some friends in the audience here, the support of sponsors in Rididgewood. It's such a great uh a
great show. It's a real privilege for us to be part of it and a real privilege for us to be representing the town. I'm a Rididge High School graduate, so it's also great for me to kind of come back and and offer some some assistance to uh to graduating Richard High School seniors. If you want to come to the
show, www.rhsjamberee.org February 5th, 6th, and 7th. Thank you very much. [applause] So, this is very exciting. Um, I'm going to read the proclamation for Lunar New Year, but I'm going to give it a big plug. If you've never been, this is a
great event also at Rididgewood High School and come hungry. That would be my biggest piece of advice. So, whereas the Rididgewood Asian-American Pacific Islander AAPI Alliance is collaborating with the Rididgewood ChineseAmerican Association, the Rididgewood Korean
Parent Community, and the Rididgewood Indian Community to jointly produce the Lunar New Year's Festival in the village of Rididgewood. And whereas the Lunar New Year festival celebrates the diversity in the village of Ridgewood, promotes Asian culture, and uplifts the
experiences of our AAPI friends in the village. And whereas 2026 is the year of the firehorse, symbolizing strength, independence, and a forward moving spirit. And whereas the element of fire adds passion, creativity, and a spark for new beginnings, creating a vibrant
energy for the year ahead. And whereas the year of the fire horse is anticipated to bring high energy, bold action, and pursuit of dreams with confidence and speed. Whereas the lunar new year festival will be held on January 25th, 2026 in the Rididgewood
High School campus center. Now therefore, it be resolved that the village council of the village of Rididgewood does hereby proclaim January 25th, 2026 as Lunar New Year festival in the village of Rididgewood and thanks the Rididgewood Asian-American Pacific Islander Alliance, the Rididgewood
Chinese American Association, the Rididgewood Korean Parents Community, and the Rididgewood Indian Community for sharing their cultures and history with the village of Rididgewood and wishes them the most successful events. [applause] Yeah. Um, first I wanted to thank the
village council. Everyone has been so supportive. This is our fourth year doing it and it will be amazing. Please get tickets. Do Come Hungry. We have a buffet of vegetarian options and lots of
food. It is included with the ticket price. Lots of giveaways and games. It really does celebrate a very significant holiday for many of us who celebrate. And if you don't, you'll get to hear all about what the year of the horse is and some wonderful events as family
entertainment. Um the tickets are at I'm going to give my plug to Rididgewood.org and it will be on January 25th. Please, it's for the whole community. Everyone welcome. [applause] I'm going to take a photo.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank Thank you all for indulging us tonight. We know that we have a very full schedule tonight. We are going to try to get to everything. Um and so we are actually going to be moving some
things around um so that we can so that we can get to everything better. And I'm going to need a motion to this effect, which is I'm going to move because they don't take long and I want to save time for all the public comment that we can
get in. Um I want to move the the village resolutions to immediately after the Rididgewood Water resolutions. And I also want to move the there are we have five public hearings related related to affordable housing. And I'd like to do
them in this order because I think it will allow us more time. And so we would do Hold on. Get this right. >> Resolution 4075 first. Resolution 4072.
Second 4073. >> Excuse me. Ordinances. Ordinances. I beg I beg your pardon. >> Yes, I can. I can. So, if you if you go to the back of the packet or near actually not the back of the packet because we have resolutions there um
where the where the ordinances for uh for affordable housing are >> we would do. >> Yes, >> you're moving the resolutions right first. I >> I already said it. >> Okay. Okay. >> Right. Um but we're going to move the ordinances in this order. We're going to
get to all of them. Uh 4075 1st, 4072 second, 4073 third, 4071
4th and 4074 fifth. Mhm. >> And I am also, for the record, I am recusing myself from participating in um
ordinance 4074. And Pam will be running that portion of the meeting. So, may I have a motion? >> So, I'm going to move to move resolutions associated with number 12 for Rididgewood Water and resolutions associated with number 14th for the
village. um to to move them first. We do have to go back to public comment, but my motion is to move the resolutions forward for both Ridgwood and the village. So, I'm making the motion. Do I have a second? >> What about the ordinance? >> I'm going to do that when we get closer. >> All right. Second.
>> Okay. Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> And if okay with you, Paul, to keep up. So, for the public, can I move the ordinance order when we get to them? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Good. And then we just have to circle back to public comment. >> And now we're going to go to public
comment. Before we do, I want everyone to understand that for each ordinance, there will be a public comment period. >> Public hearing, >> excuse well, a public comment during the public hearing. And so there will be an
opportunity to comment on that specific ordinance. And so for in order for this to run as efficiently as we can get so we can get as many people in as possible, if we can if we can avoid commenting on the affordable housing
ordinances during this public comment period, everyone will have an opportunity to comment on them at the hearing for those ordinances. >> And this way the record will be straight. So if someone asks for the
record on a particular ordinance, the public comments on that ordinance will be there. If you comment at the beginning, then that's not going to be part of the public record for that ordinance. So I encourage you to please make your public comments for the ordinances during the public uh during
the public hearing. >> Okay. And with that, >> Mayor, if I may, um just so everybody's aware, I know there's a lot of interest in this meeting tonight. Uh this meeting is being broadcast on the website through a platform called Swagot. It's
also currently live and up on YouTube. However, because of the disruption in Verizon service that has affected probably a lot of people in this room, but folks all across the nation, um we are not currently broadcasting on channel 34. uh because that is a Verizon
VIOS platform and as much as it has tried to make it make it uh broadcast live um because of the outage uh that service is being interrupted. So if you are speaking to anyone else in the community through text or email or anything of that nature this is
available on the village website through Swagot. It's called Ridgewood TV. There's a link on the homepage. It's also available on the village's YouTube channel and is being broadcast live on both of those platforms. Just >> the zoom is for the remote access.
>> Yeah, we we we are not broadcasting through Zoom. There is a >> Oh, we are >> as well. >> Okay. Because because there is there is a Zoom link that's providing that's allowing this to be broadcast downstairs in the overflow room. >> Good. >> Paul, could I say one more thing just
for We have from our vantage point, there's several open seats. So, um, we would love for everybody to have a seat. Should you want a seat, if there's people downstairs and want to come up, we'll try to accommodate you. You could also, if anybody standing wants a seat, you can take these rolling chairs. Um, I
want, you know, people should be comfortable. It's not weird to move the furniture, meaning just the chairs. And if anybody downstairs wants wishes to join us, there's several seats for our neighbors up here. >> Oh, good. I I've been up here the whole night, so
I'm unaware. If anybody would like to take a seat, >> the the fire the fire official is downstairs in the overflow room. He's in charge of counting how many people are permitted to be in this room. He also understands that after the presentations that were made by the council at the start of the meeting that if there is additional seating, those folks will be
invited up here to join us in the main chambers. >> Oh, great. >> Okay, >> great. >> And so let's go to public comment. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person. At one minute, I will ring a bell. When the time is up, I
will say time is up. >> Anybody here for public comment? >> Public comment. Um they are put name address on the record, please. >> Natalia. Um orig >> resident.
>> Thank you. So just a side note, there are people downstairs that are not prevented by police from going upstairs despite some seats still available. Can you >> and the fire marshall is downstairs telling people that there are seats available up here now? >> I'm just saying you guys were wondering.
Anyways, I want to start uh my speech. So good evening mayor and council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would like to be begin very clearly. I support affordable housing. I support Ridgewood meeting its legal obligations
and I support uh doing it in a way that is careful, fair and respectful of existing residents. Those goals do not conflict, but the way these ordinances are written puts us on the path where they will.
The legal reality is under New Jerseys fourth round framework, compliance is measured by realistic developmental potential RPD. uh RDP and [snorts] for Rididgewood that number is four units.
The village clearly uh already and you might know it already claims 16 affordable housing credits. That matters because once RDP realistic development potential is met, the
village legal obligation narrows. The law does not require expanding height, bulk, or density beyond what is necessary to maintain quote unquote realistic opportunity for affordable
housing. The village retains discretion in where to zone, how much to allow, and how intense development becomes. So when the residents hear we have no choice that is not a legal im
inevitability. It reflects a policy change a policy choice about how compliance is achieved and not whether the compliance is required. When affordability requirements increase
without clear objective limits on bulk and intensity, developers respond. They ask for more height, more floor area ratio, i.e. building volume measure, more density. That count outcome is
foreseeable. Courts evaluate zoning not only by intent, but by whether its structure predictably produces variance, pressure, and litigation risk. I respectfully request that these
comments be entered into the official record and that the council explain on the record why existing limits must be exceeded to meet a realistic opportunity standard rather than a as a matter of policy preference. And finally, for the
record, I asked the council to identify what specific aspect of fourth round compliance requires increasing height, density, or building bulk beyond existing standards rather than adopting
objective controls such as the floor area limits and facade length controls that preserve a realistic opportunity for affordable housing. Thank you. >> Thank you, Natalia. >> [applause] >> Good evening and loving Rididgewood
resident. I'm very concerned because I keep hearing the mayor indicate that we will try to let everyone speak. It is not the fault of the public that so much was on this agenda tonight. There could have been a separate agenda for all of these ordinances that everybody's so
concerned about. And I am going to be very very concerned if public comments are cut off or some people are not permitted to speak. That's really going to be wrong. We've had that over and over again with this. Thank you. [applause]
>> Thank you, Ann. >> Anybody else for public comment? >> Shelley Rothstein, Ridgewood resident. Um, there is an obvious effort to diminish the importance of these zoning changes by grouping them with a regular
business meeting tonight. This is not regular business. There should have been a special meeting scheduled in a venue that can accommodate all of the people that who would have liked to attend. Nobody should have been banished to the
basement. What we see here tonight is disrespectful to the residents and to those especially who were forced into the basement. It's unacceptable. [applause] >> Thank you, Shel.
>> Mayor, through you, all the residents who are in the in the lower level have gained access to this room and there is no one downstairs at this point. >> And also, may I we still have several remaining seats. I'm counting six in the front row. So, it's it's very important
to us that people who want to attend attend. If you're downstairs, um we can't leave the meeting, but we we have space available. >> I know. I just want to make sure. >> Hi, my name is Rosio. I'm a resident and
I have a question for the council. I'm asking whether the council has adopted the findings required by NJSA455D-62A explaining ordinance 471's inconsistency with the 22 master plan
and if not why the ordinance is moving for vote tonight. >> If I may if you're done that's fine. And I just want to make sure everybody remembers that we're supposed to be talking about things other than the ordinances, the particular ordinances that are on the agenda. There will be a public hearing and if you want your
comments on the record with regard to that particular ordinance, you have to save your comments to that time. Otherwise, they won't be on the record. So, if we can remember that, that would be helpful in terms of keeping a clean record with regard to these ordinances.
Anybody else? Seth Mayonus, resident 30 years. One thing, >> excuse me, your name, please. >> Seth Mayonus. >> Oh, sorry. >> 30 years. >> Um, so one thing that I see missing in all this is there's a lot of impacts
from an environmental perspective, traffic, and and all this stuff. So my request to you is what has what work has been done with the New Jersey D? What is done with the New Jersey DOT? Because
some of these things are really going to add it's really crowded out there already and you put all these new cars on and you you know you got you know all this additional traffic. A lot of concerns. I don't see anything in here
about that and I would hope that the the mayor and the council will address that as part of this process. >> Thank you, Seth. [applause] >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> John Fry, North Irving Street.
>> So, different not thinking to directly about these projects that are going on very specifically right at the moment. I think it's time that we come up with an event that talks about the town like a town hall experience the vision of the
council visual of other leadership within the town to gather together some public space go to BF go to a big auditorium and have an open an open forum most corporations that I've all worked with they indeed end up with
having a vision statement from the leader at the beginning of the year you go to the meeting you understand what the vision is. Everybody has a stake of where they're going, what the direction is. We're ending up with a lot of surprises here indeed. Um, you know, what projects are on your long-term
plans here. Um, how do we manage the the next mountain Laurel experience? I'm sure Matt's going crazy with thinking about that at this point. Where the next round is going to be. Community parks and the athletic fields. What is the direction? What is the thought? We have major projects going on with some of
them. the performing arts center, um, all the infrastructure things that my associate was just speaking about. All the list just goes on of all these things. But where do you see this in a year, five years, and 10 years? Right now, I feel like we're sort of out there
whacking at a mall here as each topic comes up and we don't as a group don't totally understand what's going on in the community. So, please um, let's have a gathering. Let's have an open forum with all of you and other leaders for the town. I think the water department,
the engineering department and so on should be available at the meeting and that we can ask questions. You guys can present information. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, John. [applause] >> Good evening. Bill McCandless, resident. I I would like to speak specifically to what was just Excuse me.
>> I I didn't catch your name. >> Bill McCandless. >> Thank you. I'd like to speak specifically to this idea of a gathering. I would propose we already have it. In 2022, we put together a master plan for this village that this council
is not paying attention to. It's quite clear. Nothing you're doing is connected to what we've done and agreed on as a community. It is being disregarded at every turn.
Intersections labeled [clears throat] dangerous are now open for development. Intersections that are known to be dangerous with colliding signals are ignored. The village can't even keep snow off of crosswalks.
It's very clear what's going on. I would worry about how well the village would be able to spell out its plan at such a gathering and I would encourage everyone to go back to what we already agreed to
and I would say that it's on the council to explain why they wish to set this document this agreement aside. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] Anyone else? [clears throat]
Hi, I'm Susan Shriber. I've lived in the village since 1979. I'm one of the fortunate residents who has the drain ditch in my backyard very
close to the high school. Now there was a meeting I attended I don't know how many months ago in which uh I thought that there would be some um way to deal with the ditch. Um now I
understand it's pro public property correct is my property. Well, um I thought that after we had some floods, some very serious flooding many years
ago, um there were some agreements that the town would uh clean out the ditch. It's does fill up with leaves. It fills up with debris. Um the retaining wall is
falling in. Okay, it's starting to come apart. The there are rocks apparently that were built I don't know how many years ago, but they're falling in. Um, and even though we haven't had a lot of precipitation,
um, I think we should do something that perhaps might prevent a future catastrophe like we have had in the past. And with the high school right near there and the artificial turf being
a problem if it floods. Uh went to that meeting too and I haven't seen anything since any information uh any kind of help that we might be able to get. It's not just my house. I don't know how many
people are here who have that ditch in the backyard. Uh but it can be a real serious problem. And this is the area you want to build, Kensington. So, thought I would say something. I
tried reaching you, uh, Mr. Kazak. I don't know if your secretary told you. I tried reaching you. It was around Christmas time. Okay. So, maybe we could get together
and talk. Okay. That's all I want to say. >> Thank you very much, [applause] Hi, how are you? My name is Graatzia Nigro Mastelon. I'm originally from Fort Lee. Um, and I moved to Rididgewood
because my town was getting crowded and um, and um, the mayor owns Greek to me and we owned Michelle's Bake Shop from the same neighborhood. So, I just wanted to say I live by vets, okay? And that's
where this whole thing is going to go. And we all know what's going to happen. I just want to say that I have my daughter grown up here and my family moved here. Everyone left Fort Lee to come to Rididgewood. And when we did that, it was because we wanted a
neighborhood that we grew up in. Old Fort Lee was like Ridgewood is now still. And I don't think that we have to do so much building like we did there. I mean, Fort Le is different because it's right by the bridge. It has a lot more
traffic, a lot more interest, a lot more, you know, involvement with New York City, but we're a little further out. We should stay a little further out. I mean, you can bring fort you can bring buildings and stuff here like they did in Fort Le, but here
you have the chance to not let it go nuts. You have the chance to control it. you have the chance to keep it nice and you know Fort Le is still nice and we still go there and see everybody but you
know it becomes a place more like a city and this is a village it's not a city so I I think that for all the kids and my family and all the families that moved
here mostly for the kids and I live by vets and it's already hard to park and the kids have to walk and all these kind of things. It's an inconvenience that I don't really care if they don't have a place to park. They can walk and they can park in my house and but I want
there to be some understanding that this is bigger than people complaining about an ordinance. This is bigger than like, oh, I I want to build this building and Latino is going to build the other one or Nigros are going to build this or Greek to me is going to build this. We're all build. It's just how much are
we going to build. That's the difference in Rididgewood. You don't have to do what you did in Fort Lee. We don't have to do it here. It's different. It's just stay little. Keep it little. You have nothing to lose. [applause]
Thank you, Gratzia. And I ate many of your uh pastries at Michelle's over the years growing up. >> It was good. >> It's a great place. >> It's a good thing. [laughter] Anybody else?
Seeing no one, I'm going to close public comment and we will uh address some of some or as many of the questions as we can. Matt, you want to take the lead on this? >> I'll try to one I might refer to Beth Manis.
>> Oh, yes. Um many of you know Beth um our planner who is also here to help answer as many questions as we possibly can. So, >> and I think I think the best way to do that is >> and and if anybody can't hear, just let us know. We'll we'll address it.
>> I was getting carried away. Um >> I think the first thing to do, I think, is to ask uh Beth about uh the meaning of RDP and how that influences our uh housing element and fair share plan. Um and the question was is that our RDP is
four and how come we're building more than basically how come we're building more than four if our RDP is only four? >> Sure. >> Is the green light on? >> Sure. Uh hope folks can hear me. Uh our RDP for around four is is indeed four
units and so we we've satisfied that. But in addition to municipalities like Rididgewood that are taking a vacant land adjustment and therefore have an RDP, municipalities must also provide additional mechanisms to meet the unmet
need. And there are two overall categories I suppose of unmet need that must be addressed. One is what's referred to these days as realistic zoning requirement. And this is a new standard or a new requirement
set forth in New Jerseys Fair Housing Act that was adopted in 2024. And it says 25% of a municipality's unmet need for round four must be satisfied through realistic zoning of uh
redevelopment properties. So, it doesn't require an area in need of redevelopment, but it requires uh overlay zoning or redevelopment planning of property that can be redeveloped with affordable housing. And so, that's category one of unmet need. The second
category is just simply the overall unmet need requirements. Municipalities are are in general obligated to meet that 25% and to do more than that
generally, but it's not quantified in the same way that the 25% realistic zoning is, but it's generally two two requirements for unmet need. 25% and then just the overall additional unmet need. >> Okay, I'll go to the next one. There was discussion or comments made about the
village being able to use its discretion to limit height to limit setbacks and the like and we should use that with with our planning for affordable housing. Well, we do use that with our planning for affordable housing. Somebody mentioned NJSA
405D-62A. That is the general statute that permits and gives a municipality the authority to enact zoning ordinances to control such things. However, when it comes to Mount Laurel, we've been through this many times and we talked about this in
December. When it comes to affordable housing, those aspects are cautioned with regard to the mandate that the constitution of the state of New Jersey requires each town to do to provide that affordable those affordable units and and satisfy in compliance because
everybody uses that word compliance in compliance with that which Beth just spoke of. And when you're talking about compliance, you can use and you have to use your ability to zone for a height,
for setbacks, for frontage and things such as that, but that's what gets qualified. And if you look at, and we'll talk about Kensington later, but if you look at Kensington, it meets our existing height ordinance. It meets our existing setback ordinances.
it meets all of our ordinances with the exception of what's there now which is known as um F. Okay, it doesn't meet that. And that is why we're taking the position and that's why we understand that more than likely since it meets
that existing criteria that's already in our ordinances that we've used our discretion on in the past to allow development on these properties. That's why it's something that's the court's going to deem compliant. Now, the issue with regard to
consistency with the master plan has been brought up as well. The master plan is a policy document and the man master plan is a document that that's prepared by the planning board. Planning board takes the study does the study. They deal with all the elements
which include a housing element and they decide what should be that policy going forward. They reviewed these ordinances at a meeting and determined that I I think I don't have the letter in front of me, but they sent a letter to the council
saying that the determined that these ordinances are not inconsistent with the master plan. So, they made that determination. So, that is something that has been done and it's been part of the process.
Um, someone mentioned DOT and D. Well, if this was a brownfield site or a site for hazardous waste, and we're talking again about Kensington or any of the sites that we have in our ordinances, the D might be involved. The DOT gets
involved on state streets. In this instance, uh Franklin Avenue, I believe, I know I know Maple is a county road. Um so the county has jurisdiction over the traffic on Maple Avenue. All right. and any other road, Broad Street I believe
might be county and the and the county may have jurisdiction over that. So depending upon where you are, the local agencies, unless you have a state highway going through, DOT is not going to be involved. Okay, they're just they're leave it out of their jurisdiction.
So um that doesn't happen. Uh someone brought up the next Mount Laurel. The next Mount Laurel is in 10 years. So the next set, the fifth round is expected to come through in 2034. When we went through the third round
back in 2015 through 2020 about it, we looked ahead. In fact, Valley Hospital was still at its location, still at its campus on Lynwood Avenue, but they knew that Valley was moving and going to be moving to Paramis, which didn't happen until within the last two
years. They included that in the third round because they were looking prospectively and that's what the courts do with regard to this. When they look at our housing element, they look prospectively as to what you're going to do next. And that's why it was brought up at that
time. And I can tell you that I fought to keep it out of the third round thinking it would be good for the fourth round. Court wouldn't allow it. Court said it had to be included then. So um I think that may answer most of the
questions but again the the issue of our discretion using our power and authority to zone with regard to these things is limited by that constitutional mandate for development.
It's not unfettered. It is limited. >> Thank you Matt. Anybody else have anything to add at this time? And I know we have a lot to get to. >> Excuse me. Excuse me. Public comment is closed. You'll have another opportunity during the ordinances.
>> I I And that's fine. And that's fine, but we don't we don't do it back and forth. And listen, I I I greatly appreciate that we don't have um a colloquy back and forth that we don't have people um uh saying things from the audience when they're not at the mic because this is how we can conduct our
business and we can get it done and we can address as many of your questions as we possibly can. So, I greatly appreciate it >> through you, mayor. I will uh reach out to Susan individually just in the interest of time tonight uh and bring you up to speed on both the jurisdiction of the ditch behind your home and also
uh the Army Corps of Engineers involvement. So, I'll reach out to you tomorrow and we'll uh we'll touch base on that. I did also want to echo that that with respect to the ditch, we do have a residential flood advisory committee and that has come up and we've addressed it. But if you want to reach out to us, we can connect you because
our neighbors already reached out. And if the retaining wall is in distress, please include a photo and we'll address that as well. And all our emails are on the website. >> Excuse me. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else?
>> Yes. Uh the planning board after meeting to consider the five ordinances uh their issue where their issue was whether the five ordinances are consistent with the master plan that
the village passed that the village um came up with in 2022. Um they wrote a letter to the village council saying while the board accepted the testimony of Beth Mcmanis
uh village planner that uh that the proposed ordinances are consistent with the housing plan, the housing element and fair share plan of the village of Rididgewood and that the proposed ordinances are not inconsistent with the
2022 village master plan. The board requests that the village council consider the comments and concerns of the members of the planning board and the public as set forth in the minutes and the audio recording of our January
6th, 2026 public hearing. Below is a bulletpoint outline of these concerns. bulk it bulk items density, traffic impact, flooding in the area, pedestrian safety, small town feel.
And uh so we will do that. Anybody else? Um and with that, I'm just going to make one comment to Gratzia. Are you still here tonight? There you are. Gratzia, it's nice to see somebody from the old neighborhood. Uh I grew up in Little Fort Le. It's not
Little anymore. We're not going to let what happened at Fort Lee or anything like that happen here. And excuse me, >> I don't interrupt you when you speak. >> I do not. And and excuse me. Thank you.
And every action that we are taking tonight on affordable housing is because it is courtordered. We don't have a choice. That's where we are. We have fought it and as I explained in a prior meeting that
everyone was not here, the court threatened us with a loss of zoning immunity. The loss of zoning immunity is the death penalty in affordable housing cases. If you don't want massive development, you better not lose your
zoning immunity because once you do, that's when you'll get what you really don't want. And with that, we are going to go to our resolutions for Rididgewood Water. And Heather, take it away. >> Okay. The following resolutions number 26-03
through 26-17 will be adopted by a consent agenda with one vote by the village council. They will be read by title only. Award soul source contract furnish corrosion control inhibitor. Award soul source contract removal and replacement of
existing granular activated carbon vessels at car 20 ravine and prospect pas treatment facilities. Award soul source contract customer portal and invoice cloud for rigid water customers. Title 59 approval servicing and repair of portable water wells and pumping
facilities. Award contract servicing and repair of portable water wells and pumping facilities. Title 59 approval HVAC maintenance and repair award contract HVAC maintenance and repair water headquarters well facilities and
PEOS treatment facilities award contract under state contract mass notification system award professional services contract engineering services for water main replacements west Glenn booster station to Glenn water tank award professional services contract asset
management plan development for POS treatment facilities authorize shared services agreement testing of water samples for caulifform and E.coli bacteria with Hawthorne authorized change order professional engineering services construction administration and
observation of the ravine PAS treatment facility authorized refund of water overpayment 500 Route 17 in Rididgewood. accepts rigid water annual maintenance fee and establish interest rates for delinquent payments to the watery utility for 2026 and set grace period
for payment of water utility bills. May I have a motion for that consent agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites? >> Yes. >> Wiggrad? >> Yes. >> And Vajanos? >> Yes. >> We'll now move on to the other general
resolutions. Hold on one moment. This is number 14 on your agendas. >> The following resolutions number 26-18 through 26-44 will be adopted by a consent agenda with one vote by the village council. They will be read by title only. Authorize
2026 temporary budget appropriations, general budget, water utility budget, and parking utility budget. Authorized tax assessor tax collector to file appeals and/or settlement stipulations. Award contract grant writer. Award contract annual maintenance for software
for finance department. Award contract under state contract purchase and installation of additional shade systems and replacement cable systems and hardware. Award contract under Bergen County contract untreated rock salt. Award professional services contract
elevator sub code inspection inspector award professional services contract. Professional planner authorize execution of agreement reassessment of all real property for tax equalization purposes. Reject all bids impacted soil removal as a shedler of the brisky property. Mr.
Casmmer, you wanted to make a um statement about that. I >> I'll do it before the motion. Is that okay? >> Authorized shared services agreement child health clinic with Fairlong Glenrock and Mawa. Authorized shared services agreement for a health officer with MAWA. Authorize shared services
agreement, removal of trees on county roads. Authorize 2025 budget reserve transfers. Establish interest rate for delinquent taxes and non-payment of assessments and other municipal leans for 2026 and set grace period and due
date. Establish interest rates for delinquent payments for significant sewer discharger bills for 2026. Authorize electronic tax sales. Authorize cancellation of tax overpayments and delinquent amounts. Authorized tax collector to charge for
mailing of tax sale notices. Authorized partial 2025 tax refund block 3612 lot two. Authorized tax overpayment uh reimbursement block 45502 lot 46. Authorize Bergen County Police Chiefs Association mutual aid plan and rapid
deployment force. Adopt form for notice of tort claims. Certify compliance with federal civil rights requirements. Accept donation. purchase and installation of plaque for Irene Habernickl family park pavilion. Appoint alternate member to the planning board
and confirm endorsement of community development block grant family promise of Bergen County finding a way home. Moving families to stable housing program. May I have a motion? >> I'm going to move it. But before we vote, uh I would like to hear from Keith. There's an item that came from
closed onto this agenda. So I'm moving it. Can I get a second? I'll second >> mayor through you. Before um the council votes on the consent agenda item, I would like to just bring up uh resolution 26-27, which is the resolution to reject all
bids for the impacted soil removal at the Shedler's Zriski property. Um as everyone is aware on the council, uh we accepted bids on January 6th for the remediation of the Shedler property. Um,
upon receiving those bids, the lowest bidder withdrew their bid um a day or two after I guess the next day after the um the bids were due and the second low bidder had an issue with their bid bond.
So, this item was held uh for last week's council close session uh because of the legalities of awarding those bids. At this point, all of the remaining biders exceed uh the budgetary amount that the council has allotted for
this project. Um so by the rejection of these bids, we're also authorizing the engineering department to go out and rebid this project. Uh those bids will be due on February 3rd, and it is anticipated that the council will be able to discuss those bids at their work
session on February 4th. >> Okay. So I have >> Thank you, Keith. >> I have a motion and a second. Uh, roll call. Uh, >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> And Bianos, >> yes. And now we're going to move to our
ordinances that are not affordable housing. I'll let you know when we get to affordable housing. And the first few of these do not have a hearing, so we'll be able to move through them very quickly. I move the first reading of ordinance 4076.
>> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parent. Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. Yes. Vatanos. >> Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4076 by title? >> An ordinance to amend chapter 265 of the code of the village of Ridgewood
vehicles and traffic at section 265-59 schedule 9 stop intersections. >> I move that ordinance 4076 be adopted on the first reading and that February 11th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer. >> Yes.
>> Perin. I just wanted the public to know this has to do with putting a stop sign at the entrance to the parking lot at the recycling center and I vote yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> And Vadianos, >> yes. >> I move the first reading of 40 of
ordinance 4077. >> Second that. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Vaganos, >> yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4077 by title? An ordinance to amend chapter 145 fees of
the village code for grid grad and pool membership fees, tennis pickle ball membership fees, and summer day camp fees. >> I move that ordinance 407 4077 be adopted on the first reading and that February 11th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion.
>> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> And Vagatos, >> yes. >> I move the first reading of ordinance 4078. >> I second. Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, yes. >> Wiggrad, yes. And >> Vaganos,
>> yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4078 by title? >> An ordinance to rescend and repeal chapter 210 of the code of the village of Ridgewood entit entitled park and ride facility. >> I move that ordinance 4078 be adopted on
the first reading and that February 11th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parent, >> yes. Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> And Vaganos. >> Yes. I move the first reading of ordinance 4079. >> Second.
>> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> Vaganos. >> Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4079 by title? An ordinance to amend salary ordinance 4067 fixing the salaries, wages, and other
compensation for the non-union employees of the village of Ridgewood County of Bergen and state of New Jersey for the year 2026. >> I move that ordinance 4079 be adopted on the first reading and that February 11th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion.
>> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Karen, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Glados, >> yes. I move the first reading of fordinance 4080. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites? >> Yes. >> Wiggrad? >> Yes. >> And Vajanos?
>> Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4080 by title? >> An ordinance to amend salary ordinance 4066 fixing the salaries, wages, and other compensation for non-union officers and employees of the village of Ridgewood County of Bergen and state of
New Jersey for the year 2026. I'm um Okay. Did you say 80? Okay. I just want to make sure. I move that ordinance 4080 be adopted in the first reading and that February 11th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Haron. >> Yes.
>> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> And Vanos. >> Yes. I move the first reading of ordinance 4081. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. Perin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad,
>> yes. >> And Vajanos, >> yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4081 by title? >> An ordinance to vacate the public interest of the village of Ridgewood in a certain property located at block 2908, lot 20, and transfer its interests
therein to the adjacent property owners consistent with the attached map. I move that ordinance 4081 be adopted on the first reading and that February 11th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes.
>> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> And Vajanos, >> yes. I move the first reading of ordinance 4082. >> I second. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, yes. Vaganos, >> yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please
read ordinance 4082 by title? >> An ordinance to amend chapter 145-10 be for of the village code for use of fields. >> I move that ordinance 4082 be adopted on the first reading and that February 11th be fixed as the date for the hearing thereof.
>> I second the motion. >> Mortimer >> yes. >> Haron >> yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> Andos. >> Yes. I move the first reading of for of ordinance 4083. >> Second. >> Mortimer. Yes. >> Parin.
>> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> Vaganos. >> Yes. So ordered. Will the clerk please read ordinance 4083 by title? >> An ordinance amend chapter 145-10 fees of the village code for use of fields.
I move that ordinance 4083 be adopted on the first reading and that February 11th, 2026 be fixed as the date for the hearing thereon. >> Second the motion. >> Mortimer. Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites. Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> And Vaganos. >> Yes. We are now going to go to two ordinances that have public hearings
that anyone can comment on, but they are not the affordable housing hearings. We're going to get to them immediately after this. And I ask again that you keep your if you have public uh if you have uh affordable housing comments, save them for just a few minutes. We're
going to get to everything. >> So I move the clerk read ordinance 4069 by title on second reading and that the public hearing thereon be opened. >> I second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites? >> Yes. >> Wiggrad? >> Yes. >> Vaganos? >> Yes. Will the clerk please read the
title of ordinance 4069? An ordinance to amend chapter 265 of the code of the village of Rididgewood vehicles and traffic and section 265-42 reserved parking spaces and section 265-52 schedule 2 midblock crosswalks.
>> The public hearing is now open. >> Good evening, mayor and council. Boyd loving Ridgewood resident. Uh, I sent Councilman Mortimer a note this week about this crosswalk and that is the paint has faded to the point that you can no longer see that there's a
crosswalk there unless you're right on top of it. Crosswalk warning signs were never put up at this crosswalk. Uh, so people are driving down East Ridgewood Avenue and they really don't know that a crosswalk is coming up. So now that you are formalizing this crosswalk, I do
believe that some action needs to be taken to make sure that there is no tragedy at that location because the crosswalk can't be seen and you do not know that you're approaching one from the distance. Thank you. >> Thank you, Boyd. Anyone else? >> Seeing no one, I move the public hearing
be closed. >> I second the Can I comment? >> Uh when when we close it. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites? Yes. >> Wiggrad? Yes, Vaganos. >> Yes, Frank. >> That that item was added to the citizen safety meeting and that's tomorrow night
at 7 PM in the senior lounge. We have moved rooms so we could get more people in. So, I encourage everybody to come. >> So, you'll be addressing it at that time, right? >> Yes. >> Thank you, Frank. >> Siobhan. >> Sure. I move that ordinance 4069 be adopted on the second reading and the final publication as required by law.
>> I second the motion. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> White, yes. >> Winterrad, >> yes. Vaganos. >> Yes. I move the clerk read ordinance 4070 by title on second reading and that the public hearing thereon be opened. >> I second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin.
>> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> Vaganos. >> Yes. Will the clerk please read the title of ordinance 4070. >> An ordinance to amend chapter 265 of the code of the village of Ridgewood vehicles and traffic a section 265-29 parking meter zone designated.
>> The public hearing is now open. Seeing no one, I move the public hearing be closed. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Karen, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Vagos, >> yes. >> I move that ordinance 4070 be adopted on the second reading and the
final publication as required by law. >> I second the motion. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wrad, >> yes. >> Vag Jones, >> yes. And now we've come to the heart of the meeting, these next five ordinances,
which I'm going to uh ask that a motion be made to change the order. And once we do that, um I know Matt has some things he needs to inform us about, and we'll make one or two comments and then proceed. So I would ask that uh council
consider a motion to put them in the following order. Number 4075 first. Number 4072 second. Number 4073
third. Number 40714th and number 4074 which I will recuse recuse myself from fifth. May I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Mortimer. Yes.
>> Karen, yes. Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. And Vajos. >> Yes. And what we're going to do is with each of these, Mike, um Matt's going to um explain the setting that we are in tonight and and how this is going to go.
Beth will, as we come to each um ordinance, explain what each ordinance is about because they all affect different properties in town. And once you have asked your questions, we will be writing down all your
questions at the public hearing. When we close the public hearing, as we just did with that prior public hearing, then we will address those questions and move on to the next ordinance. Okay. So, Matt.
All right. Um, I I was asked to just address these or ordinances from the standpoint of process because we have five ordinances pertaining to affordable housing on the agenda tonight. Um, we're going to have public hearings on each one in the order that the mayor just explained and the council just voted on
and approved that rearrangement. Um, during public hearing for each ordinance, uh, you get five minutes to speak. Um, please when the ordinance is called, it's going to be explained. If you want to speak about that ordinance, speak about that ordinance during that
time period. Does two things. It makes the process move a lot smoother and it makes the record complete with regard to the ordinance itself. So, if we're dealing with 4073 first or whatever the order was,
>> which one? 4075 first. Those who have issues with 4075 and want to speak about it, come up for that one. Uh otherwise, if you're talking about 4072, when we're when we have a public hearing for 4075, it's not going to make any sense to
anybody who reviews the record. Second thing um uh we want to talk about is that with regard to um the the public and your awareness. I think a lot of the people in the public are aware that there is a lawsuit that
was filed by municipalities um in the state courts first and then in the federal court second uh challenging the affordable housing process and the new rules, the fourth round. Um, from what I understand in the state courts,
for the most part, any of the remedies that were requested, any of the lawsuits that were there, the um the courts have refuted them and dismissed that complaint. There still remains open a federal lawsuit that some recent things
have come down um on and and may impact what we're doing tonight. Now, um I know that there is there was a hearing on January 7th with regard to a request by the municipal consortium for an injunction to be issued by a federal
judge in joining the process of the fourth round of affordable housing in the state of New Jersey. That judge entertained testimony on January 7th and is expected to give a decision on the injunction. An injunction means to stop
it and look at all the law before anything has to go further. As you know, we're under a court a legislative direction and a court order to get all the ordinances done by March 15th. Um,
in light of the fact that there may be an that there may be injunctive relief ordered by a federal judge and that that injunctive relief, although limited in its scope, may have an impact on what we're doing tonight. I'm recommending to the council that we have the public
hearings tonight, but we don't vote on them until February 11th so that if there is an injunction that's ordered by the court that has some impact on it, we have not acted on the ordinances and
we may be subject to whatever injunctive relief is out there if it affects us. We don't know. I don't know what the judge is going to do. I don't know how far the the decision is going to go. I don't know if it's going to enjoin anything, but just to be safe, that's what I'm
recommending to the council to do. So, I think we're going to need a need a motion or some an action by the council at this point in time to decide that that's what they want to do in terms of holding off on having a vote on the ordinances. We're still going ahead with
the public hearing. You're still making a record of what comments you have and and issues you have with the ordinances. It's not affecting that at all. It's just that the vote I'm recommending the vote not take place until February 11th >> through through your mayor. Procedurally, I think you go through the
public hearing on each individual ordinance and at the conclusion of each public hearing, accept a motion to carry it to the February 11th meeting for final for final consideration. This way, the public's input has been taken into your deliberations. Sounds like a plan.
>> Good. >> And Evan, you and I discussed uh addressing the public on some positions that we've discussed. So, >> yeah. Thanks so much for the opportunity, Paul, because I really did want the opportunity to kind of break this down um in sort of plain English and kind of speak about what it is that
we're uh presenting tonight. And to what Matt just described, essentially, there's a federal court looking at this issue. If that federal court rules in favor of the municipalities, we may be able to avoid these ordinances. That's the reason why we're holding the actual holding the vote off tonight is because we want to see if we can get some relief
in federal court because the state courts have not been helpful to us. Um I do want to be very clear at the beginning that there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation about these ordinances out there and I think whomever is getting their information from social media um I think they're doing you a great disservice. In
my mind really these ordinances that we're voting on or we're hearing tonight really do three things. First, it allows for senior living to be used in a property on Franklin and Marshall that is already zoned for commercial residential use. Second, we add a 20%
set aside for affordable housing uh to any new properties, any new multif family housing in the um in the village. This is what was done with the Dayton um with Chestnut Village several years ago. Um this is pretty common. Um this is just affect any new uh new projects that will come to the village come going
forward. And then finally, um this would also these ordinances also add several units per acre to properties within the village that are already zoned for multif family housing. Um these ordinances will not turn us into Brooklyn or Queens. Uh the info posted
again on social media and some of those pictures over there, they're not accurate. Um and again, I would really ask folks to look at other places to get your information from. With that said, and I want to be very clear on this, we hear all of you. We know most of you do not like these
ordinances. To be equally clear, none of us up here like these ordinances either. These ordinances are being forced upon us by the courts and the affordable housing mandate coming out of Trenton. A judge has all but ordered that we enact these changes. This matter was not decided by us. It was decided by the
courts. Now again, as Paul discussed, we're going to have one last chance in federal court in Newark. It's my fervent hope that the judge there rules in favor of municipalities in New Jersey and allows us to protect the character of our towns. If we can get uh if we can get that relief, I guarantee you we will
likely vote very differently than we originally were planning on voting. Now, let me also be clear. I have no doubt there is a need for affordable housing in New Jersey. I equally have no doubt that the affordable housing mandates that are being imposed upon us is the wrong way to fix this problem. Like many
of you, my family and I moved to Richard for the character of the town and the people. There's a reason we left New York City. I did not want to raise my kids in the middle of highdensity housing. We all want to protect the character of this village. However, we're all subject to New York law, whether New Jersey law, whether we like
it or not, and we need to act proactively to pro protect the village. Let me provide a little background on what we've done so far. We started this fight last summer. Given how dense the village already is, we argued extensively that there simply was no room in Rididgewood for more housing.
Separately, when Kensington wanted to build an assisted living facility, we unanimously voted that down this past summer based upon some very keen and very smart objections uh by some of you in the audience. We held a hearing, a special hearing on Kensington last month. We held several other hearings as
well. Um this was discussed really at length. We were then sued by the fair share housing coalition of New Jersey to come up with a plan to meet the state imposed mandate. Kensington then joined that lawsuit. Again, we held numerous public meetings beginning over the summer through the end of last year, held
sessions with groups of concerned residents, spent significant amounts of time meeting with our lawyers and municipal planners to basically fight the lawsuit and protect Ridgewood. We're also not alone. Dozens of towns across New Jersey are facing the same lawsuit. Tene, Franklin Lakes, Denville,
Saddle River, and others were all subjected to these same arbitrary and heavy-handed lawsuits at the hands of the state of New Jersey. Then in December, the state judge overseeing the litigation gave us and several other towns an ultimatum. As Paul had mentioned, settle the lawsuit or lose
your immunity to the builder's remedy lawsuits. Now, what that means is a loss of immunity is absolutely an existential threat to the village. Currently, we protect the character of the village through our zoning laws. Certain areas are restricted to single family homes.
There are limits on how big you can build, on the density, things of that nature. These laws prevent us or prevent developers from coming to the village and turning us into Montlair or Hackinack or to Fort Le. If we lose that immunity, these
developers can simply go to a court, get permission from a single judge to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and as big as they want. We cannot let that happen. And the judge knows this. That's why she put a verbial gun to our head and basically said we had to make a
deal. If we lost, we'd also be responsible for millions of dollars in attorneys fees, both ours and to the affordable housing coalition. So what we did was we then worked with our lawyers. We worked with our municipal planner to come up with a way to give away as little as possible to save us from the loss of immunity. The ordinances that
you're hearing tonight represent the best deal we could make to protect the village from a far worse fate. Now, I know there are numerous ideas out there about what we could have done differently. Maybe we could have come up with a different plan. I'm sure that some of those ideas are quite good. But again, we leaned on our experts to come
up with the best plan and the best settlement we could. Other towns did the same. Many of those other towns that I mentioned did not fare as well as we did. Franklin Lakes is being forced to allow the building of 800 town houses. Again, this was not something we could
let Rididgewood uh be subjected to. So, I saw we basically had two options. Take no action and leave it to judge, lawyers, and developers as to what the future of this village will look like. Or we could act responsibly, make some hard choices, and pick the locations for development that do the least amount of
damage to Ridgewood. Now, again, I want to be very clear. I hate this law. I dislike these ordinances, but they are absolutely the lesser of two evils. With that said, there are a few points I found convincing. These ordinances do not add any multif family housing to
areas not already zoned for multif family housing. This was a critical point for me. Every location we discussed tonight is already zoned for multif family housing. This will resolve and a second point and this is key and Matt hit upon this. This will resolve our requirements for at least the next
10 years. My fervent hope is that the state of New Jersey fixes this debacle sometime in the next decade. But as many of you have seen that map that Beth put together for us, if we are able to if these ordinances get passed, we'll be able to protect the village from future development for at least the next decade.
Again, this represents the best deal we could make and it's the lesser two evils being visited upon us by the courts. I'm hopeful that the court in Newark will give us some relief and I'm glad that we're not going to be voting on this tonight, but that we still we have to be prepared to move forward uh if need be.
Now, there are just two more points before I turn it over to Paul to start the form uh to start the hearing. I'm hesitant to even bring this up, but I know this was some chatter and I know that there have been in the past some people who have not acted wisely. Let me be very clear that no one up here has ever taken a dime from any developer or
special interest groups. If anyone has facts to the contrary, please present them. But I implore you to lean on your better angels and not make baseless accusations because they're convenient. Secondly, as I said before, no elected official ever lost their job by fighting
developers. It would be far more politically expedient for all of us to be up here banging our fists on the DES and saying we're going to keep fighting and we're going to fight against any development. But I think none of us want to pander or none of us want to lie to you and say that that's really a realistic possibility that task. If we did that,
we'd only ensure that we lose our immunity and essentially we'd seed control to the developers in terms of what Richard will look like. Again, I don't like these outcomes, but I do and I am confident this is the best outcome we can hope for and I'll be the best way forward if we lose in Newark. I want to
thank Beth, our planner, Matt, our lawyer. Again, a lot of work was done to try to protect the village and I want to thank you all for having the patience to listen to us tonight and keep an open mind. Thank you so much, Evan. And we're going to proceed. For those of you who are here for Kensington, that is going
to be the fourth hearing. And I put that forth because I I'm think I'm not sure but I think the others will go more quickly which would allow more time for discussion of Kensington. So if you have any comments about Kensington again we
will alert you when that hearing comes up but please save your comments to them. And so we will begin. Here we go. >> Wait, Paul, could I if I just because there's been initial public comment there's no more overflow downstairs. There's ample room here. So, if people
are watching and thinking about coming, we have seats. Um, please take them. We just want to make sure everybody knows they're invited and we're going to be here for as long as we have to be here to listen to you. So, if anybody thinks they're going to be in the basement, that's not happening. We have space available here.
>> There are extra seats uh uh rolling seats over there and you're welcome to grab one. >> There's like >> and there's seats in the audience. >> So, let's begin. I move the clerk read ordinance 4075 by title on second reading and that the
public hearing thereon be opened. >> I second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Perin. >> Yes. Whites. >> Yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. And vaganos. >> Yes. Will the clerk please read the title of ordinance 4075? An ordinance to amend chapter 190 land use and
development of the code of the village of Ridgewood to modify the mandatory affordable ha housing set aside standards. >> And before I open the public hearing, Beth, will you please explain what this ordinance does?
>> Sure. This is a village this is an ordinance that affects villagewide all properties in the village. It does not change zoning districts in any way, shape, or form. is does not dictate where affordable housing shall be planned by the village or proposed by a
developer. Instead, what it does is it takes the village's existing mandatory set aside ordinance and adjusts the required affordable housing set aside. The set aside as it exists today is a 15% set aside where the units are for
rent or 20% where the units are for sale. This ordinance will adjust it to be 20% regardless of tenure, regardless of whether the units are for sale or for rent. And it applies villagewide. Uh
although it it only applies to uh new developments that might be proposed, it has no impact on existing zoning or existing uh developments that have been uh that are already zoned or otherwise proposed in our housing plan. And so
what this existing ordinance does and and how it will continue to operate is if the board of adjustment grants a de uh use variance to allow for uh attached multif family housing. Uh it states that
if they grant that then affordable housing set aside shall be imposed. They're they're able to deny the application just like they would uh without affordable housing. if they do uh if they do grant it, they must impose an affordable housing set aside. And
that same requirement applies to the village in the case of a resoning or in the case of a new redevelopment plan that might be adopted in the future. >> So Beth, in layman's terms, that means that if somebody builds a building with 10 units in it, two of them must be affordable.
>> That's it. Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> And and mayor, if I may, through you to Beth. Beth, this is an ordinance that many municipalities as part of the settlement are being pushed by the courts, if not forced by the courts to adopt. Right. So, this is
not something that's unique to Ridgewood that's being considered tonight. This is being done by, my understanding, all of our neighboring towns as well. >> Yeah. Every municipality that has uh vacant land adjustment like Ridgewood does, which is most of Bergen County, uh are required to adopt this ordinance. we
were required to as part of our round three uh settlement and round three housing plan. We're continuing to to keep the ordinance in place and and quite honestly it's really a protection for the municipality to make sure that uh the worst case scenario doesn't
happen which is that a property gets reszoned subject to a redevelopment plan issued a use variance for let's say 10 housing units 10 multif family units and there's no affordable housing set aside associated with it but an affordable housing obligation will be generated by
virtue of that approval if we don't require the developer to build it, the village will be on the hook, so to speak, and we'll have to build or otherwise create those units. So, it's really a a protection ordinance for the municipality, and that is also required.
Thank you, Beth. And with that, the public hearing on this ordinance is now open. >> Hello, Natalyia Partic. Do you need my address? >> No. Um so good evening mayor and council council again. Um I'm speaking
specifically on the ordinance 405 uh 4075. Um as you said this is increasing the mandatory affordable housing unit set aides to 20%. At a first glance this sounds like a positive step right. We're
creating more affordable housing. Yay. But I want to be clear. Residents support affordable housing and fair compliance with the state law. But this ordinance cannot be evaluated in isolation. On practice, right, a higher
mandatory set aside when not paired with a firm and objective limit on the height, on the floor area ratio, the bulk uh and often and on the density. It often works against communities like Rwood.
Why so? uh affordable units generate less revenue than market rate units and when the affordable share increases to 20%. The logical thing for developers is not to comply to absorb that cost. Instead, they will seek to restore financial
feasibility by asking for more density, more height, um higher floor area ratio, the bulk reduce setbacks or buffers. If those requests are denied, the village would then face increased litigation pressure,
including claims that zoning is economically infeasible or exclusionary. Over time, this becomes a familiar pattern. Affordability requirements are used to justify larger and bulkier buildings than the community would
otherwise support. What makes ordinance 4 075 especially concerning is that it is being adopted alongside ordinances that are already increased density F and height particularly in the downtown and
B2 and B1 districts taken together these ordinances create a one-way ratchet density increases first affordability requirements increase next bulk concerns are demanded later in the name of feasibility
Once that cycle begins, it is very difficult for municipalities to hold the line. If the village wishes to retain 20% set aside or as we said, we are pushed by court to claim to uh retain that 20%.
Then you know it might it must be paired with the clear and non-negotiable caps on building height F or gross floor uh area lot coverage and setbacks and buffer near residential areas which I don't
think these ordinances are like very much addressing that. We see height increasing. We see it's like a vicious cycle. We increase the height, then we increase the 20 to 20% requirement and then we they come back to us. Oh, it's economically not feasible. You're preventing the uh affordable housing
build. Give us more height. Um so without those guards guard rails these ordinances this ordinances uh increase the likelihood of exactly what residents fear larger buildings greater bulk and escalating demands that permanently
alterwood's character. When ordinance 44075 is viewed together with the others that we're going to discuss today. Um the cumulative effect is clear. These changes set the stage for future rounds of affordability pressure with fewer
tools left to say no. Affordable housing compliance does not require sacrificing scale, safety or village character, which we all know we already spoke to as a community in 2022. Uh, I urge council to reconsider
ordinance 4075 as it is written right now and at a minimum adopt it only in conjunction with firm objective zoning limits that protect Rididgewood's long-term vision as a walkable human scale nature uh village. So just to
address some comments from the lawyer and some of the council members, courts do not force specific building height, massing or density numbers. They evaluate whether the municipality zoning taken as a whole provides a realistic
capacity to meet to meet obligation. So thank you. >> Thank you Natalia. [applause] Anyone else? Hi, Alisa Becker, Rididgewood resident. I just have a question. Maybe it was explained at a former meeting, but I
believe and I don't know talk about this now under Kensington that if there's a 20% requirement that Kensington is at a 10% and I don't understand exactly why and I partly I don't know, maybe they would have to increase the number of units then to make it affordable, but I'm not
sure why the 20% is not imposed on them. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alisa. Anybody else on this ordinance? >> Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak again. Bill McCandless, resident. Uh just on 47 4075, excuse me.
Um it is troubling the choices the village is engaging around height and density at those levels and the massing this will create downtown. That's my simple opposition.
I would say generally for this ordinance and others, I tire of the lectures from the volunteers and the paid staff. If you are unhappy with the information we have, then you need to fill the vacuum.
Recent emails from the village speak nothing of the key elements of these ordinances. Zero. If it's so important that the information be correct,
where are you? [applause] You have failed the very basic tenants of leadership. Explaining your position, making your case. Matt and Evan would
like us to know that our hands are tied. If that's true, then why are we doing it in a confined space? jammed full of other items on the menu. You've done a terrible job
communicating. You may have done a wonderful job legislating, but you have failed the simple binary test of the leadership that you are entrusted with. There has been zero communication
about the power that you hold and you don't hold. and the nuance that you claim you are embracing, it's not evident on the page. So when you point to this picture, whoops, you point to this picture and say it won't
look like that, the numbers on the page say it will. And if you're unhappy about how that's going on whatever thing you don't want to read, then do your job and speak. Not in
a committee in a basement, not randomly until 1 in the morning. Step up. You've been entrusted and you have failed that trust. Thank you. [applause and cheering]
>> Thank you, Bill. Who else would like to speak on this ordinance? Hello, I'm Christopher Walker, president of Ridgewood. >> If you could speak, you have to speak into the mic. Christopher. >> Hello. I am Christopher Walker,
addressing Ordinance 475. >> And Christopher, if you could just delineate if you're a resident or a non-resident. I am a resident. >> Thank you. >> I have grown up in Richwood all of my life and I'm still living here and now I'm in college studying data science and I want to make an argument for the
children of and grandchildren of Richwood and their future families. I'm going to be discussing the affordability of home ownership as the large majority of Ridgewood residents are home owners and the average cost of a house in Ridgewood is 1,142,000
up 7% over the last year. >> Christopher, if you could speak up just a tad. Thank you. >> And the average mort mortgage rate for a 30-year mortgage is 6.13 for 15 years 5.246% and for 5 years 6.078%.
The average mortgage rate of New Jersey 5.875 is within this range. And that statistic when with that statistic the first mortgage payments when buying a house would amount to around $67,92 for the first year fluctuating after.
According to the National Association of Homebuilders, 28% is the percentage of yearly income that is deemed an affordable amount to pay when it comes to housing, which brings the household income needed to stay within that range to at least $239,616
per year. The median household income in Ridgewood is $217,250 as of 2023. And when it comes to the children of Rididgewood and their future prospects of living here, according to the
Department of Education's college scorecard, masters graduates of computer science, one of the most popular and well- earning majors from prestigious universities such as NYU, Carnegie Melan, and Columbia University earn on average five years after their masters
is completed. from NYU $196,000 [clears throat] from Carnegie Melon $166,000 and from Colombia $143,000. If both members of a couple from these prestigious universities are both in a most lucrative job, it may be feasible
to buy a home in Richwood. But for some of the most popular colleges for Richard graduates such as Syracuse University and the University of South Carolina, it would be around 110 to 115,000. And excuse me, it's University of South
California, it would be $107,000 for a graduate. And the goal of around $239,000 per year is clearly unaffordable. And the ordinance itself doesn't seek to
change from a village into a hacken sack-l like town. As is said on this paper from the opposition, it seeks to make a small few centers of affordable housing. Hackinack is home to 21,45
units and Rwood is arguing for around 427 as mentioned on this paper units 1.995% of the units available in Hackinack not accounting for the density of businesses that also causes the density of building in places like
Hackinack. And I was saying if you love their and you if you love and care about your children and their futures and want them to be able to make families in the town that you love so much, making Ridgewood more affordable while making the population slightly more dense in
very selective areas isn't a terrible thing for the future. And like the council members have said, there are grave consequences to not passing this ordinance that would take the decision-making process out of Virgwood hands on keeping this village how you know it and love it.
Thank you, Christopher. [applause] Anybody else on this ordinance? >> Seeing no one, I move the public hearing be closed. >> I second. >> Yes. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Perin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes.
>> Wiggrad, [clears throat] >> yes. and vagas. >> Yes. >> Now we need a motion. >> There's nobody here. >> Nobody. >> Sorry. >> A question from the day. So I want to make sure I have uh the language set
here. So I'm going to move that ordinance 4075 be carried to February 11th. >> I think the proper wording I can >> Please do. I think the proper wording, if I can word the motion, is that I move that the
vote on ordinance 4075 be carried until February 11th of 2026. >> That would be the motion. >> I move that the vote on ordinance 4075 be carried to February 11th, 2026. >> She moves what he said. I second.
>> Sorry. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Vagian, >> yes. Okay. >> And so >> let's see if we can go ahead. >> Are we going to add all the ordinance questions or are we going to do >> I don't think we're going to address each each ordinance question
[clears throat] um at the end of each ordinance. So So let's so let's start let's start with that. Um and uh I'm going to give Matt and Beth first crack at the questions that were raised. Uh I know Natalya raised some questions.
Take a swing. >> Yeah. Uh let me take a a a try. I think the the first question uh the first comment was had had a variety of issues, but I think the uh the question was
essentially is or maybe the concern to to better state it but the concern is that the mandatory set aside ordinance by increasing the set aside where there are rental units proposed from 15% to 20% may result in increased density,
height, F, etc. essentially larger buildings and uh a concern that the ordinance doesn't contain a cap on bulk standards such as building height, f density, etc. And there's a concern that this ordinance will lead to uh to uh
increased intensities in the village generally where uh presumably where the ordinance is implemented uh or exercised by a developer. And I want to be really clear, this ordinance has no impact on any of the existing zoning standards in the village. So, if a developer uh
applies for uh an apartment building, whether it's in a single family district or a commercial district or an existing district that doesn't uh that doesn't allow a building of that size, they are still subject to the maximum building
height, the any density limitations that may inplay be in place, the front yard setback, the rear yard setback, etc. uh they'll need to request relief for any of those items just like uh they would have to request relief if it were
a conforming permitted use that didn't meet those requirements. And the ordinance has no impact on the zoning board's ability to evaluate the requests for variances, evaluate whether or not the developers application actually
meets the the legal criteria for those variances. and it has no this ordinance has no effect on the board's ability to deny the variances if it finds that the criteria the legal criteria can't be met. Um and so it's just because a
developer is obligated to now potentially if the council votes in favor now provide a 20% set aside rather than a 15% set aside. that is not an item of criteria that the zoning board uh will be able to use to say uh well
the the applicant does not need to meet the front yard setback or does not need to meet the building height etc. So it this ordinance simply increase the set the set aside where the developer is obligated to uh where they're seeking an approval for multif family housing or in
the case of a a resoning from the council. Thank you, Beth. And I'm going to ask you to address the question by Alisa Becker about the uh Kensington's 10% set aside. >> Sure. So, uh yes, the as we'll get to
when uh S1 ordinance comes up, uh that set aside is at 10% whereas this is at 20%. I think the the question is essentially what why the difference? uh assisted living, which is what the Kensington
ordinance and the the use is, operates in a a very different manner here in New Jersey compared to typical affordable housing or most any other use in the state. Uh by virtue of their licensing for the as an assisted living in the
state, they are obligated to reserve 10% of their beds for assisted living. And uh those uh excuse me, they're obligated to reserve 10% of those beds for Medicaid patients, excuse me, that are in the facility. So 10% are reserved for
these low-income residents that qualify for Medicaid. The affordable housing rules in New Jersey recognize that. They recognize and uh really through precedent, they recognize the lower set aside that's that is uh very commonly
provided in assisted living, this 10%. And it also recognizes that those beds that are reserved for Medicaid residents are specifically uh eligible for affordable housing credit. >> Thank you so much, Beth. >> Paul, if I may just two other things >> and just because it was the word wording
was used as a you know that there should be we should zone it with things such as non-negotiable height requirements. When it comes to zoning and the criteria that a municipality has the authority to zone, there is no zoning criteria that's non-negotiable. uh you can't say it's this height and
that's it because the law permits variance applications and particularly when it comes to affordable housing the law allows for certain justifications for exceeding or or minimizing those
requirements. So there is no thing as a non-negotiable height or non-negotiable zoning criteria. Um to a certain extent, yes. Each time there's a new round, you're asking to you're being required,
a municipality is being required to up the ante again. And you and basically it's a battle to try and make sure you maintain the control that you can possibly maintain over limitations on development and the way that development happens in your municipality. Each round
there's been an increase and each round probably after this there may be unless something is done to change that system but yes it is 20% now but that also means that the likelihood in a place like our downtown is I think in my
understanding and my my experience may be more limited because the the set aside is higher and the height requirements in that area are staying the same. So it it could go either way, but again, there's no non-negotiable
zoning criteria that we can use to say it goes this to this height and nothing more. That doesn't work. Um, and I certainly agree with Beth with regard to the comments that she made about the um,
20% and also with regard to the 10% set aside on uh, assisted living. >> Thank you, Matt. I know Evan, you wanted to address Bill's questions >> just briefly to Bill's question. And I think Bill you your the gist of your concern was that we were legislating I
think in a basement is how you called it and weren't airing some of these grievances. Um I do take exception to that. Um we've had numerous uh presentations and numerous discussions on this going back to this earlier this summer. Um Beth has presented to us several times in public as well as
several times in private. Um there was a special session with um residents in Kensington that was held here in uh in Village Hall. um I believe is Village Hall. Um there were again numbers of hearings, if you go to north jersey.com, look at the Bergen record, you'll see articles on affordable housing in
general and Richwood specifically, again going back the better part of the last six months. Um so while you may not like what it is that we're deciding on, the idea that somehow we're doing this in a funnel and we haven't actually been educating people, again, that's simply untrue and I think it's an it's a it's a mischaracterization of how we've
conducted this business. I would like to add that we have a wealth of information on our website and for for example our fair share housing plan uh tells you what we have um offered to
the state and that also shows you what we are our our negotiating tool is. uh and um this is not an easy area to understand. It's bang your head against
the wall difficult. So if people aren't paying attention, it's hard for us to communicate. Um with regard to the master plan, yes, many of us were involved in the master plan uh pro uh proceedings, the visioning
process, the cheretses uh and at the planning board uh people are very familiar with the uh with the master plan because it is their document and I would like to read to you since I have read the entire document all 400
plus pages um the uh excerpts from the principles, the goals, the um recommendations under principles. In the introduction, it says, "Work to keep a small town village feel while allowing
aspects of the village to evolve, adapt or change if necessary and beneficial to the village in ways that maintain or complement the h the small town village feel. This is field. This is on page 10. Um, [clears throat] so you can see it's
a balancing as we go forward. They're asking the leaders of the village to weigh and and aim for the small town feel and that's what we're doing here. That's what we
did before the planning board. um on the same page in terms of housing affordability. Uh principle number one is create new housing types that would be more affordable and practical for a
broader demographic. Under goals, I'm on page 15. Goal number one, keep a small town village feel but allow aspects of the village to evolve, adapt or change if necessary and and
beneficial to the village and to ensure that they do so in ways that maintain or complement the small town village feel. Many of the things that people are concerned about
uh the height, the the bulk, the setbacks, the balconies, the traffic, those will be dealt with when an application comes before the planning board. They are not for the point of
legislation. Um, goal number two, strive to be proactive in community planning matters. That's what we're doing right here. Goal number three, plan for the needs of long-term
residents, but also understand and address the needs and preferences of the future of future residents. That's what we're doing here tonight. Um, I'm just going to read a little bit from page 41, which talks about senior
housing options. Demographic trends show that the villages population is aging. In 2010, the American Community Survey estimated that the median age of village residents was 40.2 2 years and there were
approximately 2,725 residents aged 65 or older. 10 years later in 2020, the median age was 42.1, so two years older, and there were
approximately 3,575 residents aged 65 or older. We do have to plan for the future. Um, [clears throat] >> excuse me. We don't speak when you're speaking. We ask for the same courtesy.
>> In addition, in addition to ensuring that senior residents have access to types of housing that they need, it's important that people can safely and comfortably visit family and friends. Visitability is a movement that supports
the construction of new homes that allow that allow the home to be visited or accessed by those with disabilities. And the last thing I'll read is from the land used section in the h in the master
plan LU5 housing diversity. Number one, plan for senior housing options. The village should continue to explore options for providing housing types that are appropriate and
attractive to senior citizens. >> Thank you, Pam, Evan, Beth, and Matt for addressing those questions. And we will now >> Paul be before I want to just say something. So, >> so [snorts] I just I want to say a couple things because I'm torn. You
know, I didn't I want to hear mostly from the public, but I also um when I ran, I've been on the other side. As many of you know, I live in the historic district close to where all the last round of affordable massive development occurred. Um so, I've seen my
neighborhood change and I want to be empathetic to what the neighborhoods are going through. I also want to be empathetic to the point that you raised that Ridgewood is becoming increasingly expensive. Um I want to without sounding defensive I want to just remind the
public that we are local officials. Our largest investments mostly in the community like most of you are our homes. We are listening. We are listening. And it's not that our hands are tied but there is an obligation. And earlier this week I had somebody who reached out to me on the campaign who
was talking about housing while I was campaigning. And I said, "Look, I'm going to do the best I can because I feel rich's fairly built out. I do feel that. But it's becoming increasingly unaffordable, inaccessible for lower income and elderly people. And I'm going
to do what I can legally." And that's what's happening here tonight. I want to assure you, you know, whatever anybody wants to say is fine. It's free speech, but we are listening. We are trying. We are all invested. Um, but this is there's no one answer. So, we hear you
that you're built out. We hear you to the impact of neighborhoods, but this small change will make our contribution greater. So, if any future developments come and we've 20%, that's a bigger set aside. Um, we are trying. We are
listening. I don't want to be like, "Oh, look at us. We're working so hard." I want to be empathetic to you, but we have an obligation. And I just want to remind people, we all agree we're fairly built out and we're trying to do the best, but we can't pretend that the obligation doesn't exist. and we can't
pretend um that we're affordable at all anymore. So um I assure you we're listening. If anybody has any questions after this because we are now carrying it, we are all available. Um and that's all I want to say. >> Thank you, Siobhan. Everybody good?
Let's go. We are now going to go to ordinance 4072, which is the one that affects Gothal Road. So any comments on Gothal Road we'll address here. Beth will go into greater detail, but we will introduce it. I move the clerk read
ordinance 4072 by title on second reading and that the public hearing thereon be opened. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Haron, >> yes. Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Yes. Will the clerk please read the
title of ordinance 4072? an ordinance to amend chapter 190 land use and development of the code of the village of Ridgewood to modify zoning standards to create the to-1 townhouse overlay district.
>> Beth, will you explain what ordinance 4072 does? >> Sure. This ordinance creates a new zone district referred to as the TO1 or the townhouse overlay one district. It affects one piece of property shown on
the screen here, which is 299 Gothal Road. It's about 1.62 acres. So, first, this is an overlay zone, not a reszoning or a uh new district for this property. And let me just take one moment to explain what that means. So an overlay
zone, what this means is that the the new zone district, in this case the TO1 district, is an additional option in the form of a zone district that is applied to a property. So this site is this property is currently in the R2
district. That zoning will continue in place and to the extent that a developer or property owner wants to develop the site consistent with the R2 district, they'll be able to do so. uh tomorrow just like they could do so yesterday uh
or after the ordinance may be adopted. Uh what this ordinance does, it adds an additional option which is the standards of the to district that I'll explain. But I just want to be clear that it's uh it allows the existing zoning to remain in place and adds another layer or
another option in the form of this overlay district. And so this overlay district will permit a few different uh housing types. The first is uh town houses. It will also permit stacked town
houses. And it will also permit single family detached homes, a single family house. And then it also permits uh multif family buildings or excuse me, municipal buildings. Let me say that again. Municipal buildings, not multif family. Um and it permits community
residences. These are uh standard uh permitted uses in residential zone districts, but the the main event so to speak are the town houses, the stacked town houses and and the continued use of the single family detached homes as part of the the overlay zone. Uh it permits
these units or these homes to be developed at a maximum density of 15 units an acre and it provides a variety of bulk standards in uh in the zone district. It includes things uh such as a minimum front yard setback along
Gothal Road of uh that is consistent with the R2 district, but more specifically it's 40 feet or the mean prevailing setback. It has a sideyard setback of 15 feet, rear yard setback of 10 feet. Uh variety of other uh
complimentary standards to that. It has a maximum height of three stories, 40 feet. And there are uh some architectural standards, landscape design standards, and then parking and access standards set forth in there. And of course, it has an affordable housing
set aside of 20% that's required for any uh development in the district that's consistent with the overlay zone. >> So, this is a single piece of property that's owned by one person, correct? >> Yes. And this would allow building town
houses and single family homes there. >> Town houses, stack town houses, just a variation of a town home. And yes, uh single family homes, the the are they can develop single family homes with the existing district or under the uh the proposed district, the To district, although single family homes are limited
to 10% if they're utilizing the overlay zone. >> Great. Thank you so much, Beth. The public hearing is now open. Alicia Shabet for Lake Food Drive. Um, I was going to say a lot of stuff, but you covered it, but I'm curious why you would agree to expand the initial amount
of of 13 dwellings that were in the uh resolution per acre to now it is 15. I'm also curious how many phases are there? Because if we're on what phase four now and f um phase five is in 2034, like when does it end?
Um, and what are you expecting the end result of the communities um supposed to look like? >> And also these community development. >> I'm I'm Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to write down your questions. So um uh I I got to um uh when does the
affordable housing requirement end? >> When does it end? >> Yeah, go ahead. I'm just writing them down. >> All right. Um I know in other communities the uh developers come in, they put in all these units and all and they are then tax exempt for 10 years,
sometimes 30 years of having to pay any taxes for the burden that they're putting on the system. And I'm wondering if that is the same here, if there's going to be any tax amnesty for these developers in their buildings and then putting all the burden of the added people on the on the streets and
the schools and everything else on the our taxpayers. Now, um the reasonzoning of 299 Gothal Road is also a resoning really for all of Gothal Road as soon as a developer comes to you. I know people that live there that will be thinking of selling in the near future. their lots there are all
well over an acre and so this is just the start of the entire goal road in my opinion um your document with your lot width of 60 feet and a depth of a minimum of 60 feet and 100 ft and the minimum building
dimensions the word minimum I found I find very scary because that's the smallest it's going to be not the largest um according to the proposal there's supposed to be a 20ft planting barrier on the uh rear of the property that will
protect us on Lake View Drive from these um massive buildings that are going to go in and the train tracks have cleared out about 20 ft on either side that have to remain clear and I don't know why um
I think as for these developers to come in I'm wondering um has there been an engineering study to see if this new infrastructure that they're putting in is even feasible and I'm also um when we were originally zoned everything else
was sufficient. So when these developers come in and they want to just build things up because they want to, don't they have to justify that it will not decrease our property values? Because you can't tell me
that this view of Gothal Road now you might think they we don't see them. This is right from my neighbor's house. Okay? and also from our house and I've been along the entire train track. So if you're going to put a 35- foot building
and think you can architecturally make it an illusion that we won't know it's there, we're going to know it's there because we're going from this to this. >> And if you think that this is not going to decrease our property value,
[applause] you're gravely mistaken. And on top of that on Lake View Drive, you guys developed trying to make it more beautiful. And what you ended up doing was putting park benches and then planting trees in front of the benches and all this debris to block the lake
view. So you've taken the lake view out of Lake View Drive in the front of our house. And now you want to take out our rear view as well. So, there's got to be other ways to try to stop this development because they can't force us to change our zoning if it's going to
impede our tax city or the the value of our property and that is what it's going to do. >> Thank you, Alicia. [applause] >> I just want to ask the uh the speaker if she could if those are copies, can they leave us with us for the record?
I'll hang on to him. >> Oh, I forgot to address. May I address one more thing? >> Go ahead. >> You had a couple minutes. Had a couple. >> As part of your proposal, you also want to put a playground on Lake View Drive. And it sounds great on paper,
but okay, let me go to that part. So, all right. You want to put a playground here, which tells me you really don't have any idea what the community on Lake View Drive is. Is because we are a beacon for the Canada goose, a protected wildlife species that no longer migrates
and continually leaves behind excrement the size of a small dog's poop. And because of this, you can't even walk there. So, a playground would not only increase the traffic on our street, it would also create an unsanitary space
for the children to gather. And also, the biggest drug bust at the time and maybe even our even in our little village happened at the end of this street. And increasing the population of the area with this housing proposition is also increasing our risk for being
used as a drug dealers's paradise once again. So we are not a city, we are not a township, we are a village. >> Thank you. [applause] >> [clears throat] >> Hello, my name is Patrick Capiello. I live
directly behind 299 Gala Road with my wife and our baby. I don't believe this ordinance should be approved because of the major impact it would have on the existing neighborhood and community in the whole area. I understand that we are compelled to
provide more fair housing and that is a noble goal, but this project would be an irresponsible expression of that mandate. What will be delivered to the future residents and everyone else? overcrowding for the lot size,
security concerns with these lowincome and uh future affordable housing [clears throat] residents squeezed in between the train tracks and the busy commercial road. So, let's
council members and everyone else here, please keep this issue on our agenda so we could keep the pressure on our state legislators, legislators, and different branches of the state government for this problem that's now at our doorstep. Thanks for all the information about the ongoing
fight and we're going to continue to get involved at that aspect as well. But it just seems that every square foot of this property is being maximized for profit at the cost of the quality of life for the future residents and for
the present residents and where there should be some more controls placed on the height. What that picture doesn't show you is how Gothal Road is so much higher than the grade down towards the lake of Lake View Drive. It's already 20 or 30 feet
above. So the additional 40 feet high, it's going to be overbearing. I came my whole life from Hudson County to Edgewater below Fort Lee. This is going to be a Fort Lee development on the hill above our Lake View Drive,
overbearing, overshadowing behind our house. The development would be stark above the train tracks and it would the whole block would see it above all of our houses. So it would be drastic on our
blog there. So just wanted to point it out to you guys and what we can do to put pressure at state level. We want to do that and listen and how we can make this process better because it just appears like this is a failure to all these people here. Could I just have you talk into the microphone
because we're nice? [clears throat] >> If this goes through as what's possible, if it's maximized, I believe everybody all their concerns would come into fruition and we will see, you know, something negative from this.
What we have now is a very think great thing to we're trying to protect it. So, thank you for hearing me out. >> Thank you, Patrick. [applause] Good evening, Mayor Council. It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak. My name is Priscilla Monaco Maring. I am on the beautiful Lake View
Drive. Um, and live with my husband and our three children in our dream home. Um, so let me start off by saying I understand now I'm not uh attorney for the district, but I am an attorney and I
understand the mandates of Mount the Mount Laurel decision and I understand the constraints with which the village is operating. My request today is simply to understand the impact that the development that is
potential on this property could impose and really specifically the height is of greatest concern. Um my neighbor uh who I just met uh moments ago, three kids, it's hard to get out
get out and meet folks. Um he alluded to us being underneath the train tracks and that is a very accurate description of what it is like. I invite all of you to come to my backyard if you'd like um to
really get an understanding of what it's like. We are looking up above the hill. Um and while some folks might not enjoy the train, my children actually really love it. And I've come to grow fond of the train passing because
of the joy it brings my children. Um, but we look at the train from our bedrooms when it passes by. Um, and if a building is erect erected on the property at 40 feet, that would be eight
of me on top of one another, which also means that we would no longer be able to benefit from the sunshine that oversees our backyard. uh we would no longer see
the blue skies uh behind us. And to me that's quite sad. And I understand like I said I grew up in affordable housing. I believe in the necessity of the doctrine and I
understand the legal mandate. But what I am asking you to consider is if the proposal at this site at this height whether or not it goes beyond what is obligated and whether or not it starts
to really impose upon all of us that have invested. I can tell you that my husband and I, we weren't gifted our opportunity to live in Rididgewood. We fought like hell to live here.
>> We fought like hell. I'm a public interest lawyer and I moved to Ridgewood because I believe in this town and I'm asking you to really consider the way in which that will impact our property.
And if any of you have been on Gothal Road around Thanksgiving and don't think that this is not going to create a disaster, [laughter] I beg to to differ. Um, but jokes aside, that's my ask is I understand that the
the village is under um in a difficult predicament and I understand that all of you are also in a difficult predicament. I understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of angry people. I'm an
immigration lawyer, trust me. Um, I deal with angry people a lot. Um, but what I will say is that I think everyone in here, the anger comes from love. Love for this town, love for what it represents. And so,
please reconsider that if something is put on the property, and I will also say like my neighbor, this 299 is right behind us. Um, it will completely eliminate the sunshine from our property
completely. and it is our life savings. Um it is, you know, years of work in order to be able to access that which Ridgewood has to offer. And I'm asking please not to take
away our investment because it really does mean a lot to us. So, thank you for hearing me out. And >> thank you, Priscilla. Thank you so much. [applause] Good evening. My name is Stacy Clich. I'm a resident. I've been a resident of
Ridgewood since 1999. I also grew up in Fort Lee. My street and my home were taken away from my family to make a larger ammp. Our whole entire block uh was eliminated by the
town. And um I can totally relate to uh people in the neighborhoods that are going to be affected by these changes. Um I had the opportunity to invite the mayor to a meeting this fall. I am an architect and I am sympathetic to people
who are in a position that need to be making hard decisions that are unpopular. But I also realized that um it's very easy for written information to be misconstrued, confused, misinterpreted.
Um and even Councilman Whites brought up today that some of the graphics that are being shared uh through the public may not be properly representing the ordinances that we're talking about today. So, especially because we have
the opportunity by pushing off the votes today to a future meeting. Um, even though uh Councilman Peron brought up the fact that there is a lot of data on the website, I will uh remind all of the professionals and volunteers that are
before us today that you've been working on this for months and months and months and months and maybe longer. And some of you professionals know what's going on in other towns and um how those towns are dealing with those things. Let me assure you that the communication is
lacking and it would be in the interest of all of you to create correct graphics that represent worstcase scenarios. Even if they're horrible, even if they're things that you were embarrassed to have to be supporting,
be truthful. Let's see the graphics that show the worst case scenarios for each ordinance. Be honest and let people know because, you know, people can't interpret an ordinance the way that, you know, tonight we talked about um our
village engineer, how great he is at at at uh writing up these documents. People can't always interpret what information is being made available to them. So, it's very important to provide as much information as we can and especially
when we're talking about massing, heights, volume. Having a graphic representation is going to be very important. So people know that no one's trying to pull a fast one, but that you know these are the realities of what we're currently dealing with, what we're being asked to
deal with, and you know, if there's a middle ground that we're being able to propose so that we have correct information. I mean, Paul called me just a couple of days ago for me to, you know, to fact check something that I had posted on social media, and it would be
great to have accurate information that's readily available that we could share with everybody. So, [applause] uh, you know, I want to say I have friends and neighbors on both sides of
this problem and it sucks. Um, you know, being someone in this industry, I deal with these kinds of problems all the time. And it's it's terrible to be, you know, in the position that you have to make hard
decisions that are unpopular, but it's also very important to be as transparent as we possibly can. So, I I invite you to please take this opportunity in the next few weeks before this comes to a vote to come up with a new communication package that everybody knows what's
going on. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Stacy. Thank you so much. [applause] >> Hello. Hello everyone. Uh my name is George Dembi. I'm not a [clears throat] resident of the village, but I'm here with Nancy Cassidy, who is a resident. Um Nancy asked if I could speak for her.
Um essentially Nancy had written a letter to the village um week or two ago and asked that the village clerk do make it available to all the members and she did confirm that it was done. So it should be on your file but uh Nancy just wanted it right here goes on the record
of this council meeting. So I'm essentially going to read the letter then one or two additional comments that I'll throw in. So, the letters January 5th, 2026 to uh Miss Malander, the village clerk, regarding ordinance 4072. Dear Miss Malander, I'm writing to as a
resident of 273 Gel Road, Ridge Ridgwood to voice my opposition to ordinance 4072. And here are my reasons. Number one, town houses at a density of 15 units per acre would substantially change the character of our neighborhood in Rididgewood, which currently consists
exclusively of single family detached homes. Number two, the addition of 22 units on 1.5 acres will significantly increase the traffic on Gothal Road, which already has a relatively heavy traffic load. an additional comment that
Nancy came up with tonight. Thinking two to three cars per unit, we're talking about 44 to 66 cars plus some school buses that may be servicing it. And Golf Road does back up quite a bit dur during the rush hours. Back to the letter. Number three, lighting of the premises,
especially the parking lots will impose a nuisance on the adjacent properties. Number four, sighting of these multiple dwelling unit town houses in the single family labor neighborhood may lower the values of the current resident single family homes.
I don't believe there's good and sufficient reason to change the current zoning. Um here I do have a question for Mr. Whites. He did mention that none of these ordinance are increasing zoning, but NY's understanding was that it's currently zoned for single family detached homes. So maybe he can explain
his comment that none of these are increasing the building densities for for the premises. Um lastly, please be sure this letter is made part of your record that all decision makers get a copy of my letter. Thank you, Nancy Cassidy. So thank you for the time letting me read the letter.
>> Thank you, George. Thank you very much. [applause] Uh, good evening again, Mayor and Council Boyd, a loving Richard resident. Like the gentleman who just spoke, I'm a bit confused because I believe during his comments, Councilwoman Councilman Whites indicated that no multifamily
housing was going to be built on any zone that wasn't already zoned for multifamily housing. This has clearly been indicated that is R2. I just looked at the general code. The code does not permit multifamily housing in R2. So, if Councilman Whites could clarify his
comments with respect to what is being built here and how multif family housing is already permitted, I would appreciate it as would others. Thank you. >> Thank you, Boyd. [applause] >> Denise Lima, Ridgewood resident. I wasn't going to get up today, but
[clears throat] it came to me that the when I read the Gothal um ordinance that this was in some industrial area, I'm like, "Oh, they're just going to put a townhouse complex in some industrial area." But listening to the residents
and their expression of what's going to happen to their environment and their street and their quality of life, I had to stand up here. If you are not pushing back as council
on putting in some new overlay wording in the middle of an R2 residential, where will you let them stop? When will you push back? I mean, plopping this 2 acre, one and a half acre in the middle
of a residential area is absurd. I I I I don't understand how you can sit here and say this is not a big deal and we have to do it and fear-mongering the group. There's got to be some other place to put this than in the backyards of these poor people. I've been on Lake
View. I I don't like the native plants either because I can't see the lake. [laughter] I can I agree with you. Um, I've gone in those yards in Gothal looking for historical things and been in the back of those properties and looked up up to
the the the train tracks that are there. It it's going to just completely turn and I their their world around that they as you heard you know um you know saved for to get there. So my question back to
you is what what when when are you going to push back? What what are you going to do? When why why isn't it Heights Road? Why isn't it on Crescent? Why isn't it on some other street in somebody else's backyard? This is not zoned for this.
That's my question to the council. I have three minutes. I I just don't understand how we're going to allow that. And I thought we uh satisfied our four units in affordable. So I think we have to demonstrate that
we are going to allow affordable [clears throat] properties to exist in Rididgewood, but not in the middle of an R2, not some new terminology of overlaying. I feel bad for these people. I had two McMansions built in front of my house as
well. I know what it's like. It's a complete change of your environment and lifestyle. And I feel bad for these people. So I'm I'm asking you, you have to push back. You have to work harder at it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Denise. [applause] >> Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Aayub Nasiri. >> I'm sorry. Could you say your name a little more slowly? Yeah, my name is Aayub Nasiri. >> Aub got it. Yeah. Uh reg in fact uh living
next door to this property. Uh so my uh my first question is uh uh what is the rational what was the background to uh to come to that decision to to to select uh to uh to select this uh this location
for the overlay just to understand what was the uh among all all of the other places what are you know what were the factors that were considered uh and my uh my next question also is um I'm not familiar with the with the with the ordinance process and all that. So I
just wanted to understand if is this a a done deal? What happens? Um uh because I found out about this actually last week when receive a letter to that uh that uh this was happening. Uh so I just I'm still unclear if this is a done deal or
something actually that is being evaluated. Uh so if we can uh if we can uh clarify that and if it does go through uh is there going to be any any any consultation to the neighbors once there is application from developers on
what is going to be built uh is there I mean are we going to be informed it's going to be rentals going to be ownership if uh what actually because the uh this overlay seems uh I mean it provides a lot of options so it doesn't really clarify exactly you know what you
what what we're gonna end up with. Yeah. Thanks for thanks for >> Thank you so much. Au [applause] >> uh Shelley Rothstein again, Richwood resident. I wasn't going to stand up about this, but just piggybacking on what Denise said. Um my question is how
many other properties of this size are that now have single family homes on them are there in Ridgewood? Because to have that number is a prediction of the future because the precedent set by
this ordinance could then be applied elsewhere. So, if you told me there were only two more properties in Ridgewood of this size or perhaps larger, you know, okay, but there's a lot of properties in Ridgewood that are of this size or
larger. And by putting this overlay on this property, you lay the groundwork to put an overlay on any other property should that family decide to sell. And that's a really horrible precedent to
set. [applause] Thank you, Shellyley. >> Hi, Anna Mormino and I'm on Gothal Road and I just want to say you guys are doing like this affordable living. Most of these people that are on Gothal Road and on Lake, we worked hard to be to
send our kids to these >> and if you could speak into the mic, please. >> We worked hard to send our kids to these schools and everything and you're pushing us all out. Do you understand what you're doing by building this prop this uh huge building behind our homes? Do you understand what you guys are
like? Think about what you you're giving them the right to do to us. I'm Ann Sharing. I live right next door to Anna at uh 287 Gothal Road. So, I'm a resident and I've been a resident for 21
22 years on that road in that house. Um, as a single woman, I bought it. I have my own business and I've afforded to live there by hook or by cook um, all this time.
I invite all of you to come to my house. We can make a date and look at this piece of property that is going to be built on. I invite you. It's not big enough for what they're
talking about. >> It's totally landlocked by the railroad, which is a freight train railroad, which goes through at least once a day, if not many more. And
it just comes out where the gentleman that owns the property, it's it's another house. I mean, we're all houses in a row. We're a lovely little community. And I don't understand, I'm not a legal person, this overlay thing that got
shoved through the end of December when all of us were celebrating and having a wonderful holiday. And we were suddenly told that this was shoved through as some sort of weird overlay thing for a house
that's 1.6 that you're squeezing these weird buildings in behind us. There'll be lighting shining in all of our windows and on Lake View. >> There'll be parking.
>> There'll be parking. There'll be traffic. There'll be lot the next door to your neighbor. People coming in and out. I I I don't even understand it. >> We have enough problems with traffic. >> Excuse me. If you're going to speak just
just so that everyone can hear. >> I'm sorry. We're doing this together. >> I understand. It's a It's a tad neighbors. >> Yeah. We've we've got enough problems on Gaffa with traffic. We have small children. There's lots of small I don't have small children anymore. My boys and my daughter are grown. But there's a lot
of small children on Gothal Road. And it's bad enough. And I think that, you know, like you're doing affordable living, but most of these people that on Gothal Road and on Lake, we we worked hard. >> We're doing affordable living. Yes. Believe me. >> So, you know, like we're just trying to make sure.
>> Again, if you could speak into my doing affordable living. >> That's what we're doing. And [applause] >> so it's overlay. Does that mean that everybody on Gala Road can make two family houses, three family houses? Is that what that means?
>> We're going to we're going to hold we're going to answer your questions at the end of the >> It ruins all our values. The major thing is I don't think any of you have seen what this property is. >> Yeah. Have you got it? Have you walked it? Have you? >> No. Please.
>> Really? >> I'll give you my phone number. Everybody knows it anyway. 2011 264 >> Charlotte 2011 >> 2011264 61 03. They know it because of my business. So
that's it. Um, and call me and come and look. Walk out my backyard and look over. And this is a good time of year. There's no leaves. There's no greenery. There's no nothing. There's a bunch of deer back there.
A lot of deer. A lot of rabbits. A lot of foxes, coyotes. They all live back there. So, I'd appreciate you calling me and coming and having a look. You'll see how ridiculous how ridiculous it really is.
Thank you for your time. >> Thank you both. >> [applause] >> My name is Rosillio and I had a question. Um, I don't know if you know, but this property, it is online being sold already. And when you
read the description of the things that are going to be happening on the lot um is basically somebody knew that it was going to be approved and it says just wait for the resigning to accomplish the result. So they are
giving all these options of what can be done and even giving visuals about how the Lshape can it becomes an enclave for the new residents to have their privacy there. Um, but the question I have is
that I do real estate and Jersey City, the way that Jersey City has changed um from people call it now the beyond uh beyond town homes because they turned
down a beautiful house to build luxury condos. Right. So when you resone now here, you guys are saying that as an overlay, you're just expanding what can be done. So the current home in this
property on the front of the lot is a two family home that is actually currently occupied. And one of the things they're saying is that keep the current people living there so you can acrewue the money while you wait for the reszoning to happen and
you start your project. So if a good standing building and that was a farmhouse, so I I guess it looks pretty can be turned down without any reason. There's nothing wrong with it just to accommodate a new
development because whoever buys and needs to makes money. The same principle I'm applying to all the other ordinances with any future development. So, how are you going to avoid that? When the
developer starts building there, all the houses that are in the front, they go to each home, hey, I'm going to give you money. You're not going to have to go through the trouble of the construction that is going to be two years here, day in and day out. How are you going to
protect those neighbors for being pushed out of the area that they've been calling home from the for the longest time? How are you going to avoid that? Thank you. >> Thank you, Rosio. [applause] >> Natalia Provich,
>> just give me a moment because you spoke on this. I want to make sure you speak on this one. Forgive me. >> Forgive me. I just want to make sure everyone gets an opportunity. >> You're going to see a lot of me tonight. >> Yep. No, it's fine. Just want to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak before somebody gets a second opportunity. So, go ahead. >> So, again, good evening. I'm speaking
specifically on ordinance 4072 which creates the t1 townhouse overlay for 299 G road. Unlike ordinance 471 which is tied to a specific litigation
settlement. Ordinance 4072 is not resolving an immediate legal obligation. I see no pressure why we need to make the residents that currently live in the neighborhood miserable and especially I mean I didn't realize
the height and the views until I got here and I live close by. I live on Godwin. It's walkable. I walked there and I didn't realize this. So question on the record to each one of you who walked that property before you put this up for vote tonight. Um so um under this
ordinance the side would permit up to 15 units per acre town houses and stack town houses building heights up to three stories or 40 feet up to 75% site coverage and when we talk about site coverage it's probably not a
driveway it's a freaking building. Um it's outside of CBD just FYI. Oh, before I move on to that one, it's important to note that this is not just a change relative to this site. It represent change relative to residential zoning norm across Rididgewood outside the
central business district. To Shel's point about setting precedent, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand that, but some of you are. Uh outside of CBD, Rididgewood's residential zoning is primarily made up of R1, R2, and R3 districts where the general pattern
pattern is two to two to two and a half stories. Building heights typically 30 to 35 ft range, additional constraints from four roof form, lot coverage, floor area limits and side and your area setbacks in that context. And that's a
that's CBD outside of CBD. In that con context, the three-story four 40 foot residential buildings are not the norm norm and surely not in this location on the quiet residential street or facing a
quiet residential street and multifamily massing at that height is generally confined to downtown or special redevelopment area which I don't think one would think this is a redevelopment area suitable. [snorts] Um what makes
the height and the scales permitted by or scale permitted by ordinance 4072 is a material increase not just locally but v villagewide speaking to the president. Residents also and maybe not mentioned specifically but concerned about this
ordinance introduced stack townous development without quarter level planning traffic analysis for Gothal Road. You you heard the people talking about the traffic yet we adding another more traffic to it without even considering or walking that property.
Once the height density and housing form are increased by ordinance those impacts cannot be undone. You should know it better than anyone else here. And this matters beyond just this one par parcel. By approving the residential height and density that exceeds typical limits
elsewhere in the village, the council establishes a new reference points for future applications. And guess what? How many units do we have to fulfill still? 421. Get ready everyone. Um uh once when the
ordinance 4072 is viewed together with other zoning ordinances before you tonight, the direction becomes clear. incrementally higher, denser, more intensive development across multiple districts, not just downtown. The direction moves Rididgewood away from the quiet, walkable, scalable community
uh residents chose and towards more urban development pattern that was never envisioned in the master plan. Affordable housing compliance does not require this level of intensity. Once granted, these zoning allowances become new baseline. So I urge the council to reconsider this ordinance, actually
strike it, figure out a better place or at a minimum impose clear objective limits to prevent this overlay from becoming an escalation point. Thank you. >> Thank you, Natalyia. [applause] >> My name is Kevin Casey. I've been a resident here in Ridgewood for 26 years.
Uh my bride has decided that we're going to stay here. Uh and I'm one of those over 65 types. Yeah. My concern is I don't know I didn't I knew nothing about this project till I got here this
evening and I have I have some concerns. The first one is uh I don't know what the actual finished height of the building is going to be, but I'm concerned that my taxes are going to be raised if we have to put in a new firehouse or buy a new fire truck that has to reach to the top of this
building. That's item one. Um, I've seen developers build these things before and naturally their objective is to maximize the number of uh units to uh maximize their profit. But a lot of
times they don't leave enough room for parking for the uh individuals who will move in there. on account of years ago it was fine to have one parking space but these days if you have a two-bedroom apartment there's going to be two cars
maybe three you don't know uh another thing here that uh I'm concerned with that might raise my taxes is if there is no place to put the snow because they maximize the square footage of the
building in the parking spaces my tax is going to go up if the DPW has to go in there and physically remove snow. Uh my concern is it's basically for myself. I I'm there's been a lot of people here this evening that have some serious concerns, but I live on the
other side of town, but at the same time, if I'm going to stay here until the ultimate end comes, I don't want to see my taxes raised by some developer overdeveloping a site. Thank you. [applause]
>> Thank you, Devin. Would anybody else like to speak on this ordinance? >> Seeing no one, I move that the public hearing be closed. >> You have a second. >> Second. >> Mortimer.
>> Yes. >> Parent. >> Yes. >> Whites? >> Yes. >> Wiggrad? >> Yes. >> Vanos? >> Yes. Siobhan, you still have that language? >> Yeah. Um, I'm just Do you want me to move do that now or do you want to respond? Okay. So, I I move that
ordinance 4072 with the vote on ordinance 4072 be carried to February 11th, 2026. >> I second. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Windrad, >> yes. >> And Vianos,
>> yes. And so we had uh quite a number of speakers and I know um Beth and Matt wrote down all the questions. So Beth, you want to take the first swing at this? >> Sure. >> Okay. Um
let's see. There were a variety of questions. I I I don't think that these are necessarily in order of the the comments that we heard, but let me offer some information that I I hope will respond. >> Excuse me if we could just keep it down so that everyone can hear. Thank you. >> That I hope will respond to folks
questions and some of the concerns raised. Uh so uh perhaps most uh most basic. I want to be clear again that this zoning only applies to this property, 299 Gothal Road. It does not apply to any other uh any adjacent
property or any any disconnected property, any other lot along Gothal Road or uh another single family uh lot in the village. It's specific to this uh to this single property. To the extent that another property owner or developer
would want the same zoning, uh they can want as much as they like, but they'll have to apply to the board of adjustment for use variance to receive approval for density variance, uh use variance for the particular unit type and perhaps a variety of other bulk standard relief as
well if they sought to take this zoning and apply it to a different property. Um, >> and that is uh that is regardless of whether or not they're proposing affordable housing or not. They would still need to go through that use variance process. >> Uh, there was a question about tax
dollars that might be paid and whether or not this property is taxexempt. The the short answer is no, but I think what the question is really asking is whether or not this property is going to receive a pilot, a payment in lie of taxes. There is no proposal for that. And
furthermore, they're not permitted to receive a pilot uh because they're not in a redevelopment area and subject to a redevelopment plan. So that is simply not an option for this property owner or for the future developer. There was uh perhaps along the same lines, there was
a question about property values and uh whether or not the prop excuse me the developer is obligated to justify any change or presumes. they are not obligated to address that. But I think more importantly, the Mount
Laurel doctrine uh does not allow municipalities to uh decline to meet their obligation as a result of concerns regarding uh property values in a community. Um additionally, there were a handful of
questions or concern and concerns about the building height that's permitted in the district. And so this district permits uh up to three stories and 40 feet tall. Um and in terms of whether or not new fire apparatus might be
necessary for the village, I mean certainly that that is outside my area of expertise, but I will say there are buildings uh existing in the village that exceed 40 ft in height. So I don't see how that would be a concern. The concern to buy new fire apparatus does
not seem to be applicable here. Beth, um, just on that point, what is the current zoning maximum height before this >> for the existing district permits two and a half stories, this will go to three stories and it permits 30 feet, this will go to 40 ft. So, it's an
additional half story and 10 feet. >> Thank you. Um, in terms of uh similar to concerns about the the zoning as a whole being uh applied to other properties to the extent that another property owner or a
developer would want to have that same building height of three stories, 40 feet or something along those lines. Uh any application it needs to justify or uh satisfy the criteria for their relief on its own merits. It's simply not
acceptable. It's not consistent with the law for a developer to say, "Well, so and so at 299 Gothal Road received 40 ft. Therefore, I'd like to apply it to my property, perhaps on Gothal Road or perhaps elsewhere in the community. It's
it's simply not uh transferable in that way and it's not a valid argument for them to make before the zoning board or before the planning board." There were questions about parking. Uh the the ordinance specifies that the parking is
must be consistent with the residential site improvement standards and those are the state standards adopted that regulate a variety of things. But uh in this uh in this example, it regulates uh parking requirements for residential
land uses uh and design standards, some design standards as well. Uh so those those would continue to apply. There's no relief granted. There was another question about snow removal. Uh I will say fundamentally that is a site plan issue, but there's no scenario that I
have seen in other communities or that I could foresee here in Ridgewood where the village is called to remove snow from the private property. That's uh something that the uh the property owner will be responsible for. Uh there were uh there were a number of
questions or comments about Lake View Road. Some of these in regards to the playground. But I I've got to defer to others and that's just it's not specific to the affordable housing ordinance. But uh other concerns regarding Lake View were uh uh largely about the height but
but certainly about the use and and other standards as well. But in terms of the height, I wanted to highlight that the build the uh distance between the rear of the buildings along Lake View Road that directly uh that are closest
to this property and the property line range from about 110 to 125 ft depending on where you are along the the rear property line. And so the setback is uh is significant in this area. Um, and I
do want to note that it they're very they're small, but this property uh there is it's not shown on this map, but there's a sliver of land between this property and the rail line as well. Uh, but that's included within the setback I just cited. And then the last item I
wanted to comment on that I that I heard although I'm happy to to address other issues the council asked uh there was a concern about lighting and there's no relief for the lighting standards that the village has already adopted in this ordinance. So the existing requirement
that says lighting is limited to 0.1 foot candle which is a it's a very low lighting level is the maximum permitted at the property line of a residential lot. So, uh, in terms of lighting concerns, those village protections and village standards will continue to apply
on this property. >> Thanks, Beth. Matt, do you have anything? >> Excuse me. Excuse me. I look, we're we're we're doing the very best we can, but we can't go back and forth like this. So, that's why we're and and I'm
going to defer to Matt and I'm going to answer a few questions myself. So, please give us the best opportunity to do this. We're gonna we're trying to get to every question we can. We may or may not get to every single question, but we're we're trying as you can see. All right, Matt, do you have anything to add
to that? >> There's the only thing I I mean, I think Beth covered all the questions that many of the questions that I had. Um particularly with tax amnesty doesn't apply in this instance. They'll get taxed as a property that's been developed. Um um again impact on
property vales values is not a consideration that the court takes into account when deciding whether or not this is uh a detriment to the community. Um one of the things I wanted to add to is that this is people were worried about
this being a precedent for other development in the area or throughout the town. This is exactly why losing your immunity from developer suits is the problem. All right? Because if we did not comply and and the court remove
the immunity that we have and the inherent validity of our ordinances, properties like this would be developed to what a developer might want to do rather than what this has come down from. I can tell you that there was is an attorney or was an attorney involved
with this developer and the threat of joining the lawsuit and forcing something bigger was part of the consideration with regard to this. the um if if we if our zoning ordinances were not valid and we were subject to
developer suits, this property could be developed much more significantly and other ones that are of similar size throughout the town could be done the same way. So that's why it's important that this is limited. So for the purpose
of of this once if it gets adopted it limits further developments of these kinds of properties or these size properties to just this one for at least the fourth round. So nobody can say that
I'm going to come into another 1.6 6 acre property, put in three units of affordable units and get in get, you know, you know, as my 20% set aside and get something because we are not zoned for it. This is the only property and
and this is because there was push back with regard to the legal the legal threat and the joining of the lawsuit that we dealt with this u I didn't have [clears throat] any conversations, but we dealt with this particular developer. So that's that's why the immunity is such an important aspect
>> and and I'm going to address uh a couple of questions here. Um IU um you mentioned if this was a done deal and um to that end um some of the other questions that that are affected here.
Um Heather, can we bring up the um the map that Beth had put together? Um >> Dylan >> Dylan it's blue and yellow one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And um uh several people mentioned
this that that this is something that we are doing and I'm going to refer to Patrick Tapiola's comment to keep this issue on the agenda so we can keep pressure on the legislature.
As we've mentioned several times previously, and as Evan said very clearly tonight, we don't want to do this. We are being backed into a corner. And I'm waiting for that graphic to come up.
Um Shelley, you said, "How many properties could could this happen to?" And once we get that map, I'm going to show you how many properties that this can happen to. This is, as we've said several times, we don't want to do this.
This is the state legislature that has imposed this requirement on 570 municipalities in the state of New Jersey. >> There we go. >> Here we go. >> Back up. We lost it. There it is. See those properties? >> That's how many properties this can
happen to if we lose our zoning immunity. And I will tell you, I had a conversation with Matt Rogers. I had several conversations with him today despite the loss of phone usage with Verizon
that putting off the vote endangers our zoning immunity. We were supposed to vote tonight. We told the judge we were going to vote tonight.
And now we have to explain to the judge. And Denise, you call this fear-mongering. I'm disappointed. This is not fear-mongering. This is these are the facts. This is our situation. As we have explained many times, we don't want to
do this. Why was Gothal Road picked? It was a negotiation. And and I will tell you, we voted against this initially, and we were happy to do it. by voting against it initially.
The longer we drag this out, the more properties that'll be affected. I don't know that Gaffa Road would have been included in this initially. We were only talking about Kensington,
but we fought it because you asked us to fight it. And then the negotiation brought other properties in. The longer we fight this, the more those properties will be brought into this. Not might be brought
into this, will be brought into this. And believe me, we appreciate your frustration and we're here and we'll take it because that's what we're doing and that's what we signed up for. But we don't want to do this. We don't
want to build town houses on Gothal Road, but we don't want more of those properties affected by putting this off. We're taking a chance that this litigation,
I don't know if it's going to be successful, this federal litigation, but we know that if we vote on it all tonight, it's going to be and and the litigation overturns the Mount Laurel decision in some way, shape, or form,
it's going to be harder to unwind this. So, we're taking a chance because we don't want this to happen. There's a limit to how much of a chance we're going to take. And but for the fact that
we have some insight that that decision is coming in the next couple of weeks, we wouldn't have taken the chance. We're hoping that the court will allow us the opportunity to hear what is potentially
a precedent setting decision. >> Paul, can I clarify two of your points? >> By all means. This map is what would happen if we lose our builder's immunity. This is not what's happening now. We're trying to prevent this. So, to be real clear, this is what we're
trying to prevent where everything in yellow could if we lose our builder's immunity could potentially be um where a site like this could go up. Second, we didn't pick Gal Road, the owner and builder came to us and then as Matt said
then was bringing um trying was also going to sue us and join the suit. So, it's not like, you know, we're not sitting up here throwing darts at where these facilities should go. The people that own the property, the sellers are are trying to get it done. And that's
why when we talk about minimizing, we're trying to minimize that. >> Yeah. To be clear to to Frank and Paul's point, right now that's zoned for 30 feet. Um, this gives them an extra 10 ft. But if we did not come to an agreement, builder can come in, go to a court, and now at that point, we don't have the
ability to push on our zoning laws. And maybe that builder wants 50 feet. Maybe that builder wants 60 feet. And nobody up here, nobody at the village can push back on them because he's lost the immunity to to the suit, which is why we've had to make some really tough decisions. But to everybody's point here, Goth Road was picked because the
developer was looking at it. And again, we made the least worst deal possible. Um, I do just want to add to Boyd and I forgot the other gentleman's name who I met in the elevator. You are correct. I was in precise in my terminology. What I meant to say was that there's no higher
density housing coming to single family residents. So, in other words, here these are town houses, not apartments, but you were correct to call me out. And um and again, I I correct my my imprecise um my imprecise language. >> And um two last points, forgive me. Um Alicia, the picture that you displayed
of a of a fourstory building um going on Goff Road, that's not going there. It's nothing that looks like that is going there. It is one of the inaccurate pictures that we talk about. Excuse me. Excuse me. I didn't interrupt you when you speak. And now it's my turn to
speak. So that building is not going there. And if you want to talk about fear-mongering, that's fear-mongering because that is an inaccurate depiction. Uh Stacy, we're going to talk to our professionals to see what kind of drawings we might be
able to come up with. I don't know that we will, but we will. We will try. But we have, when you say we should push back, we're pushing back further than maybe we should at this moment tonight by not
voting because other properties have already been included because we pushed back. How many more properties do we want to include in this by pushing back? Lastly,
Ann Anne Shelling, I'm going to give you a call. I'm coming to your house. We're going to have a cup of coffee as I've >> I'm going to come visit here. You you get you coordinate with Ann because I've got her phone number as as I did in in
in [clears throat] in the neighborhood that is affected by Kensington. I came and spent the Sunday morning with some of the neighbors there. We talked. I saw I understood better >> and it's your responsibility to get him out of your house.
>> So, >> mayor, I'm sorry. >> Uh uh Denise, you were saying isn't there another industrial area in Rididgewood where we could put uh affordable housing? Uh >> coming up,
>> there is no zone for industrial in Rididgewood. It's all 90% and more of single family homes. So, we don't have good choices. But the property owner at 299 Goffel has been calling the council
for as long as I've been on the council trying to get us to buy his property, trying to get resoning. Um, and so [clears throat] in 2024 when we started considering round four and our obligations, we sat
down with Beth and she said, "Can you think of any properties?" And we said, "Well, there's this guy who keeps calling us." And that's how it came about. Somebody asked, "How did we come up with these properties?" um we were racking our brains to think
about some place where we could do this. Uh and we've act we actually started coming before the council in um December of 2024 when we had to file our first filing with the state in January of
2025. And in uh June of 2025, we filed our our fair share housing plan. So we've been working on this, sorry Evan, for a lot longer than the summer.
>> Mayor, just quickly, >> could I just say mine? So in response, I have walked the property. I've said this before with the Kensington. Whenever anything comes up like this, I'm a big fan of walking there, taking it in. Um sidebar, I did uh grow up in Ridgewood. I grew up on the upper part of Orchard,
so long time ago, I used to come from the King's Pond side, jump the dam, go down Lakewood, and hop up to there. So, I'm very familiar with it then and now. And I do understand your concerns about the elevation. I too would love to be there, but I've I've been on all the
roads many times. Um, and we're we are available for walkthroughs for that. So, um, all of again, invite us. We will come probably for the sake of time, we'll come in twos. We can all come together. I also just loosely wanted to address one other thing that keeps coming up on communication because
there's people here um when we do these ordinances the communication becomes incredibly um legal and formulaic. So for those who didn't get a notice about this, the actual notice that this hearing occurs goes to neighbors 200 feet out. That's how neighbors So
there's people watching this and when they're saying they didn't get any communication, I just want to make sure. We sent out hundreds of letters to individual residents and that is our process right now. So, >> how many did we send out, Heather? >> How many did you send out, Heather? >> 1,088 because they had to go out both
certified and um regular mail. >> Right. So, and and we are always open to better ways to communicate, but for those of you who have opinions, like I know Kevin doesn't live in the area, we did notice many of the neighbors and we can improve upon that process. But I didn't want people thinking we just put
this on the agenda and didn't go to people that have an individual interest, which is 200 feet from the property. And that's it. >> Mayor, I just have three more administrative comments to make. Um, first of I want to expressly say that there are no tax
abatements on any of these properties that are being discussed relative to these zoning ordinances. commonly referred to as a pilot, which is an acronym for payment in lie of taxes, where a municipality has the ability to negotiate with a developer um
to come up with a payment in lie of taxes. Traditionally, it cuts out a portion of the payment to the to the county and to the board of education. None of that exists on any of these properties that are being discussed for zone changes this evening. So, I just
want to put that it was inferred during one of the comments. I want to put it to rest that there are no pilots on any of these properties. Secondly, with regard to the playground, and this has nothing to do with the affordable housing issue, but I do want to address it because it came up. Um, we had a diversion that
existed with Green Acres that dates back to 1982. I'm not going to take you through the whole history of it, but before um I arrived here, there were already negotiations with the Green Acres program at the Department of Environmental Protection to identify a
location to develop a park in order to clear that diversion. Um essentially, a park on South Broad Street was eliminated for housing. uh the Green Acres program is was forcing the municipality back to the table um to rectify that issue that happened way
back when and that's what created the development of the park that's proposed at that's been approved now by the state house commission to be developed at King's Pond. So I can fill you in on more information on that, but I just want to expressly say that that's not directly related to the affordable
housing piece. And lastly on transparency um you know one thing I think that I have brought to the village um in my capacity as village manager is improved communication. Um as a matter of fact before I even went for the interview for this position I had already identified in my research about
Ridgewood uh that the communication coming out of this building was nowhere near satisfactory. Um, however, when it comes to this issue, it becomes a challenge and we have sat with our communications director talking about how we communicate information on this
specific topic to the public. But you have to understand that we were also guided by legal proceedings. Um, we were in negotiations with multiple developers. Um, some of which Beth was hand handling individually and reporting
back to the council. some where um folks who sit on this deis were in the room with the developers having discussions about what would be satisfactory and quite frankly what what the residents would be comfortable with. Um, but I just want to stress that it's very difficult for us to put out
communications um, when we are working I'm sorry, did someone say something? When we are working within a court mediation uh, process that is being overseen by a superior court judge. um
we are unable to just continue to put out sources of information um while the court is guiding that process similar to if we were in um active litigation um in a formal court proceeding. So I just wanted to clarify that. Mayor, >> everybody good? We're going to take a
fivem minute break and we're coming back in five. So go to the bathroom, stretch your legs. We'll be right back and we will be going to ordinance 4073 which is the one involving Chestnut Street.
>> Oh, thank you so much. Wait, and I'm going to give you this. >> No, we have we have as soon as I start. That's my son. >> Yeah, we'll we'll definitely hours.
Listen, I'll get it. Get it. Not to say again. Everybody knows. Wow. All right. Are you guys? >> Yeah, I do. Oh, yeah. I'm staying
hydrated. You know, >> it's all you can do. >> Am I muted? Thank you. They can dial in. Yeah. Yeah. You want this 14? Hey,
we're having fun, aren't we? >> Somebody want somebody stronger than me want to break this? Give it your muscles. >> You can break it. Can you our hotel. >> Yeah, apparently.
>> You have any issues with the process or what? >> There's no idea who's going to >> Oh, I don't care. I just feel like that's my um I actually like the way they do this. I I think it's a little better than the past or maybe I'm thinking of different talents where there's like no immediate people. It's
like a better deal. >> It's so much better. So, as long as that happens, I'm just directing. >> People are a lot more lot.
>> Yeah, I feel like that too. spend a lot of time. >> Yeah. >> Anything else you think about? >> Yeah. So, it's, you know, I like that, >> you know, I mean, nobody wants change
and so I um I thought it was stretching. Okay, let's find our seats. >> All right, we're going to get started once everybody settles down. >> Friends, we're going to kick it back off again.
So, if you'll all take your seats. >> Thank you so much. I want to begin. >> If I could just if I could just do a quick roll call. >> Yeah. >> Council member Mortimer. >> I'm still here. >> Deputy Mayor Ping. >> Yeah. Here. >> Council member Whites >> here. >> Council member Winterrad >> here. Mayor Vanos >> here.
>> Thank you. >> I want to begin by saying thank you to everyone that is helping us all have a civil discussion about this. It's not what we what any of us none of us want to be here tonight. None of us want to be here late. We're going to try
and get through all of this. But most importantly, we can do it if we have a civil discussion. I think you see we want to address as many questions as we possibly can. So, I greatly appreciate the entire council appreciates [clears throat]
being able to have a respectful conversation. And so with that, we are going to go to ordinance 4073 that involves Chestnut Street. I move the clerk read ordinance 4073 by
title on second reading and that the public hearing thereon be open. >> I second it. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Perin, >> yes. >> Lights, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. And Vajanas, >> yes. Will the clerk please read the title of ordinance 4073?
An ordinance to amend chapter 190, land use and development of the code of the village of Bridgewood to modify zoning standards to create the CR1 commercial residential district. >> The public Oh, excuse me. Um, before we
do, Beth, would you please explain the parameters of ordinance 4073? >> Excuse me, Dylan, just as a reminder, would you keep that map on one of these screens? It's all >> It's all or none. Okay, never mind.
>> Go ahead. >> This ordinance. >> Yeah, thank you. This ordinance uh number 4073. It would create a new zone district. This is not an overlay zone district and it is the CR1 or the
commercial residential zone district. You can see the area highlighted on the screens in here in yellow. And this is an area of approximately 4.18 acres. So 4.2 acres more or less. It is uh it consists of properties that are uh
generally from Robinson on the south. That's the the street that is the southern boundary and it continues north to the Cameron apartments uh at the northern boundary. It only includes those lots which have frontage along
Chestnut. So, it does not include, for example, the single family homes to the rear that have frontage on Oak. This district is going to permit uh uh let me back up one moment. The existing zone district is the C commercial district
and that permits a variety of commercial uses. this zone district, the CR1 district will allow for uh commercial uses uh to exist on the proper well to exist on the property and to be developed on the property. And
then it also allows for mixeduse buildings. So mixed use containing commercial uses on the uh on the first floor and upper story inclusionary apartments or condos. So, uh, multif family housing with a 20% set aside. And
it also allows for just simply, uh, multif family housing as a as a permitted use as well. So, commercial, multif family or a mix of those two. And the zoning is pretty similar to the CR district that is immediately south. It's
the Chestnut Village building that is on uh the west side or the the left side as shown on the map. uh immediately south of the yellow area. That's the proposed zoning. That's the Chestnut Village site. It is similar to that zoning,
albeit at a uh at a smaller uh smaller uh building height and uh or smaller F smaller uh density as well. Um it is intended to allow for redevelopment of these properties at a maximum density of
30 units an acre. It permits a maximum building height of up to 45 feet, but there are additional design standards or or uh architectural standards that are in place for buildings that exceed 40T
in height. Uh and these are standards that the village relies upon for other districts. And then there are additional standards to limit the setback of the of a building to its rear property line if
that rear property line abuts another single family home. So to the extent that let's say a property is redeveloped on Chestnut and it backs up to a single family residence that that has frontage along Oak there is uh a an additional
setback for the upper stories such that uh no building within 35 ft of the rear property line may exceed 30 feet in height. And so that is intended to provide a larger setback for taller
buildings. And I think it should be noted that the uh the existing setback in the C district uh this can be compared to the existing setback of of 10 ft. Uh and I will say also that
the maximum building height in the in the sea district is 45 feet today. Is that it? >> Sorry, I just lost my place in the ordinance. I wanted to make sure I didn't misite that. Yeah, the maximum uh building height in the C districts is 45
ft today with a rear yard setback of 10 ft. What this ordinance does, it requires a uh a larger setback for taller portions of the building and it uh increases the maximum height by 5T up to 45 ft. And there are a variety of
architectural standards, site design standards, parking and access standards as well. But one item that is uh that's in here is it provides [clears throat] for uh special standards to ensure that
given the small setbacks of the homes along Oak and the uh and the redevelopment that may exist on Chestnut Street over time, it limits where balconies can be located to try to to ensure additional privacy for the single family residences than might then might
otherwise exist without those standards. So it, for example, prohibits balconies overlooking the rear yards of homes. And there are a variety of other standards in here, but I think that highlights some of the more important ones. >> Two quick questions. This is this basically an industrial zone, industrial, commercial.
>> Yeah, I would say there are some light industrial uses. There are variety of commercial uses. There also includes some of the uh some of the village uh uh uses as well like the road department. >> Exactly. Uh but this also borders
um single family homes >> on the other side. Correct. >> Correct. This is really sort of a transition district in that respect because you've got the multif family to the rear or excuse me to the north. You've got the multif family to the south in Chestnut Village and you've got the single family homes immediately to the east.
>> Good. Thank you so much, Beth. >> And so now I move Excuse me. The public hearing is now open. >> Great. Hi, Rob Gante. >> I'm sorry. Could you say that again? >> Rob Gfante, village resident
1912, lot six to be specific. So my question is very specific and it's a hypothetical. I back into the EMS building which is is kind of strangely included in this. I don't know what's happening with that building. I thought it was going to be there forever, but
change happens. which lot line is considered a side or a front for that specific lot, lot eight. Because the way I read this document, there's several things that could happen. If I were a developer and I
bought lot A. I read this and I say, "Okay, well great. I could go up 45 ft. Oh, wait. No portion of a building within 35 feet of a rear lot line shared with a single family detached home shall exceed 30 feet." yada yada yada. Okay.
But if my side lot, I'm a developer, is facing Oak Street, I can go right up to the property line at 45 ft. >> That's the way I could interpret this. >> Do you understand the question? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> So, she'll answer it later. I just want to make sure. >> Okay. That's just my question is where is the front, side, and rear lot for block eight? And I know everybody it's it's very specific to me, but it's this is important because my backyard is going to be 45 ft up if this is wrong.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rob. [applause] >> Hi board. Um so I guess in a disclosure, Jason, sorry >> name and >> Yep, I'm getting there. Jason Carrer, 236 Oak Street, also address. >> We just need that you're a resident or
not a res. No, actually for the record it's important that I put 236 on this one for as for the eventual appeal. No, I have to because of the eventual appeal. I have to show the intensity of it for me. >> Um, so in full disclosure, I'm a member of the zoning board of adjustment, an
attorney, a real estate developer, and I also drafted the public officials insurance policy that ensures all of you for your Dino P uh liability. But I'm appearing here in my personal capacity. Um, I also have to put on the record that I'm making after talking to some
municipal attorneys a limited appearance because I did not receive the notices. Specifically, the ordinary mail order uh notice that was sent to me, it was empty. And then the certified one was sent to a neighbor, which is actually a frequent occurrence for me where the
mailman puts my mailings to somebody else. The only reason I'm aware of this meeting is because I was here for my board of adjustment meeting yesterday and it came up during ours. >> Wow. My comments are specifically as applied to block n I'm sorry, block 912 lot 8,
block 2001 lots 18 and 19, and they will be as applied uh concerning the pheasant bridge case law, the unique history of the specific lots, the unique topography of the land, the increase in the intensity by the ordinance language, a primmaaccia um error in the planning
board, and that has been incorporated by reference by some of the people for today, specifically on page 13 of the master plan. I'm going to start with the history. Um, using the sandborn maps which are frequently relied on in [music] the past by the village, uh, you can discern the
history that Beth has already alluded to on Chestnut Oak and Douglas. Chestnut historically was serving of the railroad and it was a light industrial area. Then it transitioned and started to go and serve the automotive uh, needs of the village. Over time as the mass uh when
the uh the Masten farm was sold, Oak Street was then expanded in the 1900s and then Douglas was created during the 1910s, which was the road that divided the residential that you see on Oak Street with the Delight Development that
you see on Chestnut. Um that's of a particular concern for these three lots because as two of them are corner lots and they go and face on Douglas and then they also face on Chestnut. The residential houses always both of the two residential houses that are impacted
by this have Oak Street addresses. Conversely, the commercial unicides have always had Douglas addresses for the last hundred years now. As I alluded to on the master plan, if you turn to page 13 of it with the map, you will see that there was the
marked note for mixeduse residential on Chestnut. However, you'll notice that the lot 192 lot 8, the EMT was not included in that. It was specifically noted as a government building and not did not use the same coloring as the
mixeduse ones. Why do I know that? because I was there in 20 2021 and 2022 to make sure that the EMT was not included in that yet the proposal here and now how these the map is being interpreted as the seed going for that
specific lot has now included it. Now where my main concern too here is as someone who has experience on the board of adjustment the lots themselves are undized for what's in the statute. So what's going to happen? It's going to come to me. I'm going to have to go get
the D variances and the C variances for it. I'm not going to be the case law that I have over there is going to tie my hands on the development specifically of the EMT one since it's owned by the village. You know, that property right now is probably worth like 1.5 to two.
But once you change the zoning for it and you put in this mixed use mixeduse residential, that's going to increase the value of the village's property tremendously and it give a great value to whoever wants to go and develop it. There's not much that the board of adjustment is going to do that can stop
that variance from coming. And then I wanted to also just bring in some specific items from the uh new statutory overlay. Um just some issues that I spotted. So >> Jason, I just have a quick question. We're talking about your residence or a
piece of property that you own. >> My Wait, I'm sorry. Which one? >> What? You're You're referring to property that you live in or that you own and don't live in. >> No, I'm talking about my primary residence. >> Your primary residence. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Just making it clear.
>> No, I I am a property developer as well, but this is for my personal one. Yeah. >> Which is why I had to put put it on the record so for the appeal I can go and show. >> Right. So on the statutory issues with the drafting um so this is what would become proposed
190 11 uh 118.5 um so paragraph B1 you put medical offices we run into this problem all the time on the board of adjustment right what does medical office mean as modern things have developed you have inpatient
outpatient you have people doing Botox you have people doing other items that are involved with the there and it's gets very confusing. That really screws us over that language. So, if you put that in over there, who knows what's going to happen. Number 17's really poorly drafted. It says parking lots and
structures. Now, I assume that the drafter meant to have the conjunctive and for the structure modified by the parking lot. It doesn't say that though, so you should probably have a word included on the structure section so that it makes it easier. Number 18 is child care
center in New Jersey. Childare centers have different specific statutory language that describes what's a preschool, what's a daycare center, etc. I'm sure some of you are aware of this. This doesn't say which ones are included, which ones aren't included. So, that'll be a problem for development
on uh on Chestnut >> number 20. I think it's just a drafting error, but I'll just read it into the record because I I can't figure out what it does. And I draft contracts for a living. club, fraternal, recreational, athletic, political, labor, civic, and social uses located above the floor.
>> Jason, except >> your time is up. If you could finish, >> I'm I'm going to go except the ground floor areas for access to such uses shall be permitted. >> The second part presupposes that that part is a negative, but since it's in the affirmative section, it doesn't make
sense. It put business services as 24. What is business services? Jason, I think the I think the issue is how does this affect your property? >> Oh, well, the statute is written very poorly. Right. So, under the the feeasant law case law, right? Part of the arbitrary and capaciousness that I'm
going to have to argue on the appeal of this particular lot is not taken back out is that one, the sizing, it doesn't make sense. It's going to have to go to the board of adjustment and then under that case law, there's not much we can do about it. And then two, the statue itself doesn't fit for this particular
use. So like the fact that there's these many drag drafting errors in it. You're just gonna go and adopt it. Susponte after this is all over. I've got to point those out now so me and my attorney can go and appeal it to win. So that's it. Thank you Jason.
[applause] >> Hi Patty Majio. I live on Oak Street and um I just want to say I am not opposed like many other people to the the um ordinances uh as regards to the um lowinccome
um mandates that we have to follow. My concern is when this goes up on Chestnut, if the if all of the if this entire area is filled or even half of it is filled, I'm really concerned about the traffic and the flooding.
There's a lot of flooding in that area. If it rains a tiny bit, Oak Street floods, my house floods, my property floods. Having all this extra I mean, I don't even know if our infrastructure can
handle it. What's there now is auto body shops. There's some, you know, little other shops, the a bakery and the the DPW. Um, so I just don't think our
infrastructure is ready for 30 units per acre. Um, I see the way the chestnut village was built, there is always some runoff. I don't know where it's coming from, crossing
over chestnut. In the winter, it freezes. I And it have It's not just from snow melt or anything. It's just a I don't And I don't think it was there before. I could be wrong, but I've noticed it ever since Chestnut Village went in. It's part of their like their
north end driveway. It seems to always come from there. Um, so I'm concerned that more housing, there's going to be more runoff and it's going to come right down the hill to my house and everyone else on Oak Street. Um, and the traffic and I
know you've said that you do traffic studies after ordinance are pa are passed, which I don't understand because if you do a study and then they say whatever, this is no good. I I don't know if you're going to listen. I hope
you would. But whoever did the traffic study when Chestnut Village and the Benjamin went in, I don't think they did a very good job because every time I go to work to the train station and come home, I feel like I'm taking my life in my hands. Driving too that every
intersection along Franklin Avenue is a disaster. Oaks actually Walnut Oak Street, Chestnut Broad. People are driving crazy out there because they're so impatient. There's so
much traffic. No one wants to wait for the light, so they go to Chestnut. And then no one can make a left off at Chestnut because there's so much traffic coming in the other directions. No one can go straight across Franklin from Chestnut. you put in those turning lanes, which in
theory was nice and it does help if you're turning, but when you're trying to cross over both of those lanes, you can't see cars coming in the other direction. It's very dangerous. And again, I don't know where any of you live, if any of
you walk through these areas, what time you walk through them, if you drive through town, it's a disaster and it's really, really frightening. And you know, and I have a son who likes to walk in town, and it makes my heart
pound thinking he he has to cross Maple to get to the high school. Frightening. Even though you put in the the walk signs, people come zooming off of Maple, they don't stop at this at the red light and wait to see if they can make a right on
red. No one stops at stop signs in this town. And I know I'm getting a little off because but there's a stop sign at Douglas. Very few people actually stop. They roll through it, look quickly, and go honking constantly because people are
going 40 miles an hour down Oak Street. It's become a major thoroughfare. Wow. I can't >> You have a minute. You have a minute. You have another minute. >> Um so yeah, it's I am really concerned about the traffic. Um and just one other thing about the traffic. If I leave my
house at eight o'clock in the morning, I'm waiting a good five minutes to get out of my driveway. So I And that's as it is now. Imagine putting 90 more units or more and that many more cars cuz like someone else
said, no one has one car anymore. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Patty. >> Amy McCambridge, Rididgewood resident. Um, I ask that you please not interrupt me like you did three times the last time I spoke because you guys keep
saying when people talk to you, but you interrupted me three times. So, I ask that you don't and let me have my very short time. Um, I want everyone in this room to listen very carefully to the language that you're hearing. Evans, you're
talked a lot tonight. Um, it's language being used not to reveal the truth, but to distort it. You've heard this council rep repeat the word truth again and again, but repetition doesn't make something true. And confidence does not equal honesty. What
you're witnessing is not transparency. It's gaslighting. The deliberate attempt to convince people that what they're seeing with their own eyes and experiencing in in our neighborhood is somehow not real. You're all here. the woman who just spoke before. These
concerns are real. We see them. They are literally destroying the village from we don't have clean drinking water. We have, you know, three turf fields that flood into the river. There's so many problems, but they're they are destroying it. Um
to this council, to be honest, the people in this room are not neighbors to be respected. We are a nuisance to be managed. As long as we stay isolated one speaker at a time, three minutes, five tonight, that nuisance is easy to ignore. And this goes to all the ordinances. And
and really I want to speak to you guys. Um, as long as we stay isolated, it's easy to ignore, but when gaslighting stops working, which it's it's stopping, people start comparing notes. Um, the information that's being shared on Facebook, all of you have done
your research because you care. You have children. you care about your neighbors. I I'm so sorry. I can't say the same for the day. I can't um they don't want us to to talk. Um Evan said all this misinformation. Well, they gave us more
information than we got from you guys. >> Amy, could you please address ordinance 4073? >> You're interrupting me again. >> Yeah. Point of order. This is this is an ordinance hearing, a a public comment section for an ordinance. you have to be
talking about the ordinance that's adjusting the zoning on just >> anyway. So when residents begin exposing patterns instead of accepting explanations as with this ordinance and the other ordinance, but this one in particular I can say but I can say about
everything you guys do in this town with this one with all the traffic that's already there. Um we the residents expose the patterns instead of accepting your explanations. Um this is when behavior escalates. the public deserves to understand that part
clearly because that's the part no one likes to say out loud when the exposure begins and they start talking and Jason was freaking amazing like I think we should all get together and have a meeting with Jason and we the people >> point of order this it's my understanding that interrupted twice now
>> about the ordinance only and I and I am asking the mayor to enforce the how this is >> of course you guys are you've threatened me you've come after my job my business >> Amy Amy um this You can talk as long as you want if you're talking about this ordinance. >> I am talking about this ordinance.
>> Please focus on the ordinance. >> You guys, I can't even look at you guys. I really can't. Um, >> you can save your comments to the public comment section at the end of the meeting, but this is about an ordinance, >> right? But the the point is you are lying to them about every ordinance. You
do not care. you're going to >> again we're talking about this particular ordinance. If you got comments on this ordinance, please give the comments. Otherwise, wait till the end of the meeting in the public comment section. >> At the end of the meeting, you can say you can make all the general comments you want. >> Okay, I'll do that. You guys are
>> Thank you. >> ridiculous. It's don't trust them and I'll speak at the end. >> Thank you, Amy. Anybody else want to speak on this ordinance? Uh Shelley Rothstein again, uh Ridgewood
resident. Um I'm speaking on this ordinance because it's highdensity housing. In 2016, I was living in Pamis when that mayor and council voted for major zoning changes that would allow for highdensity
housing to be built throughout the town. At the time, the concept was new. Nobody thought much of it. There was little push back from the residents. 10 years have passed and if you drive through Pamis today, you can't help but notice
the enormous amount of construction. Apartment buildings are being built throughout this zoning corridor with more scheduled to break grounds in the next few months. This didn't happen overnight. It didn't happen in a year or two, but it is happening now with no end
in sight. Ridgewood is right now living paramees 2016. Many of the ordinances that we are talking about tonight are not bound by the legal legislation
settlement. We have the opportunity to rethink these zoning changes, to put them on the back burner, to hit pause because if these ordinances pass, you will not see the changes right away.
But just give it time. The changes will come and when they do, there will be no way to stop them. Just like what's going on in Pamis today, our village will be forever changed. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Anybody else want to address this
ordinance? >> Um, Natalia, Natalia Pertovich, Ridgewood Ridgewood Resident. Um, speaking on specifically on ordinance 4073 that creates the CR1 commercial uh residential district affecting the
portion of Chestnut and adjacent downtown blocks. So just to put it in the plain English right what do we have before no by right m multifamily residential typical height 30 to 30 35
ft what do we have after density up to 30 units per acre height increased to 45 ft the f is up to 185% which you know higher is a bulkier for form and lot
coverage is up to 90%. That represents an in increase in downtown scale and intensity. Taken together with other ordinances, these standards allowed for substantially larger and we keep repeating it and I don't know how many
times we have to say it for you guys to hear us is the problem is not with a standalone ordinances is the problem the major problem and every single person that spoke at least one thing is in common height. Right? We live in the
village not in Hoboken not in Hackinack. We want to remain living in the village. Okay. So again taken together the se 4073 ordinance together with others allow standards substant to build
substantially larger bulkier and more continuous building that currently exists in much of the downtown and far beyond what is permitted in residential districts outside the central b business district. That is not incremental adjustment. F
height and lot coverage operate together. All when all three are increased at once, the result is a fundamental shift in building mass, a street wall continuity and not just additional housing units. Um again that [clears throat] direction
this direction that we're taking um is moving Ridgewood away from the walkable villagecale downtown residents uh and residents value and towards a more urban model that has never been contemplated in a master plan. Affordable housing
compliance does not require the level of intensity you are proposing. Once adopted, these standards do not sunset. They become the new permanent rule. And I urge the council to consider
reconsider the ordinance 4073 restore meaningful and I say meaningful limits on the height FIR and bulk and ensure that this is decision this decision is made with full transparency and appropriate recusals based on the
feedback you're getting from people. Right? We here are not just I mean I got an impression and I'm sure many of you guys got the same impression. We're here waiting for you to listen to our comments. They're not going to go anywhere and I'm just going to pick a stamp at the end. We heard you guys, but
we already decided. I mean, show us that you Okay, we took the resident's input. We're going to see how can we possibly decrease that height. How can we work with that density? You're not showing it. Any comment that you make does not address the main concerns that we've
told you guys today. every single resident. Um, and specifically want to address um want as it pertains to this resident uh um ordinance since I'm only allowed to talk about this ordinance right now, but I want to close by addressing the
repeated claim that the village is required to increase height, bulk, and density to satisfy Mount Laurel and avoid builder's remedy. That is not the legal standard. Mont Laurel requires realistic zoning, not maximized zoning.
It requires that affordable housing is feasible and not not that development intensity be increased beyond what is necessary to meet villages obligation. A municipality acting in good faith may choose appropriate sites, set reasonable
limits on height and bulk, and require consistency with its master plan so long as sufficient capacity exists. Invoking generalized cold court threats does not justify villagewide increases in scale without a clear nexus to unmet need.
Residents are not opposing affordable housing. We are asking for proportional sightspecific zoning that meets legal obligation without necess unnecessary overreach. Thank you. [applause] >> Thank you, Natalya.
>> I know I spelled great, but I just have a question about the people on Zoom. if you could and I've got two people on Zoom, but if you could speak into the into the mic. I've got them. >> Okay. Because I noticed like there were never there weren't any Zoom calls. >> There were no there were no other people on Zoom that I saw. >> Okay. All right. >> Because I I believe there are for this.
>> Nope. I've got two people. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for bringing it to my attention. >> Hello again. John Irving Street. So indeed, one of the things that I noticed a big difference between this particular ordinance and the other ones is this one seems to focus a little bit about
greenery going on. I one of the items here talks about outdoor spaces on the second story or above such as balconies prohibited to face single family detached dwellings. I wonder why that's not included in some of the other ordinances tonight. That seemed like
it's a hot issue on some of the other ones. solid fence and row of evergreen trees shall be provided by any lot line shared with a single family detached. I know the next one that we're going to be talking about says that there's no greenery required at all in the back
along the fence line. So why is it on this one and not on the others? I mean planting seems like a pretty simple thing. Sign regulations. This one seems to be falling under the strict sign regulations of the town. The next one
seems to have gotten a little pass on that. So, why are we changing the rules for some and not for others? That's all I have on this one at this point. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. [applause] >> Good evening again, Boyd Loving
Ridgewood. I noticed that there are two municipal properties in this zone. One is the emergency services building. The other is the municipal garage. I'm wondering why they were included in this zone. As Jason pointed out, if you reszone this, those property values are
going to skyrocket. Also, if there are luxury residences, and that's what everybody seems to be building rentals as now, luxury rentals, luxury residences that are directly across the street from the municipal uh garage where there is um garbage trucks
coming in. uh I won't say at all hours but probably at inconvenient hours for people who are living in in luxury housing. There is eventually going to be a push for the village to shut that down and move it to another location. So as a
taxpayer I'm concerned about the cost that would be involved in doing that. Certainly we would be getting some money for the property but in terms of where this would be relocated to and how much it would cost overall to relocate things such as fuel tanks. again wondering why
the municipal garage is included in that yellow print and why the emergency services building is included in that. And have you thought about the repercussions of having luxury housing right across the street from a municipal facility that is basically has not been
improved in years and people's balconies are going to have to look out onto this and the pressure that you're eventually going to come upon to have that moved out of that area and how much that is going to cost to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Boyd. [applause]
Anyone else in the room? We have a couple people on hybrid access. >> No one. Let's go to hybrid access. Alexandra, you're up. >> Can you hear me? >> We can. If you could speak a little louder would be better.
>> Louder. Okay. >> Apologies. >> Okay. Um my name is Alexander Feron. I am a resident and I am um neighboring the impacted um site for ordinance 4073. Um I'd just like to start uh I
appreciate the references that there could be better communication from the town. I agree. Um I think that the mailing of the 200 ft is insufficient in this instance. This isn't a stop sign. This is something that has a material impact on a significant number of people
well beyond the 200 ft. Um, so I would really explore alternative methods of communication. I mean, I can get a text message every 10 minutes when there's lightning. Certainly the town can figure out a different way to post this. Had I not spoken to one of my neighbors and been on a text chain, I would have had
no idea this was happening. Um, moving now to the actual ordinance itself. Um, I have a number of questions and concerns about it. Um, we need to determine the environmental impacts. The area that is proposed to be updated is at a higher
elevation. Our town has high water tables. Between those water tables and the fact that we slope downhill, our streets often floods. Many times my neighbors have essentially fjords coming from their basement after heavy rains. Modifications to that area without careful planning regarding flooding will
have a material impact on the safety and sanctity of our property. Further, the current usages have garages. There's going to be D involvement and the destruction of the sites could have environmental impacts on our neighboring properties during any remediation efforts. Have there been studies on the
exact nature of what these environmental impacts might be? Regarding traffic, the traffic in our neighborhood has been increasing regularly. Our street is inundated with workers, particularly the postal workers, parking on our street because they refuse to pay for town parking or
do a vehicle shuffle to get the vans out. And they block up our streets. people speed constantly up and down Lynwood and on Oak and the neighboring streets. Having apartment buildings line that street will simply just increase the traffic. It's not sustainable. Uh
I'm on the corner of Oak and I'm sorry on on North Walnut and Lynwood. There is an accident every single quarter. I know I've spoken to the town a number of times. Um it's only going to increase. It only gets worse. Um and then there's the issue of education. We are currently
zoned for Ridge. Our schools cannot support all these additional bodies entering into the education system. Uh applicants enter entering kindergarten this year. I got up at 5:45 on Saturday morning to ensure that I was registered on time because I was told by parents last year that people got redistricted
to other schools because there just wasn't enough and there we were at capacity. You add, you know, four buildings, that's, you know, a potential, let's say, 90 kids. Where are they going to go? Are we going to get redistricted? What about our school bus? We are one of the few locations that has
a school bus. Have we thought about what the financial impact or the education impact would be for that? And finally, the height. The proposal is that the height is at going to be 45 ft. I recognize based off of um and I apologize. I I don't recall who spoke,
but that currently we could be zoned for up to 45 ft based on current zoning, but nothing really is that high. If you up it to 45 ft, it's just too high. Um, and then, you know, not to go onto affordability, but you know, this goes part and parcel. There's going to be 20%
of reservation. You know, if you allow a 45 foot building, developers are going to go for the 45 ft because it increases their ROI. So, you know, I understand what the town is trying to do, but we're not here to appease developers. We're here to maintain the charm and keep the
needs of our village. And this ordinance has material flaws. There are too many questions. There's nothing that's vetted enough. it's going to materially impact our property values and the very nature of our building of our village and we just don't want it. So, I would really
um request that the town really think about this before we proceed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Alexandra. [applause] And last but not least is Jennifer.
Hi, this is Jen Williams. I reside at 301 Masten Place, which is just a block or two away from the area on Chestnut that's being discussed. And I really appreciate everything that Alexander said. I think she articulated very well a lot of the concerns that we have. And I think it boils down to having a
holistic approach to what the impact is of this beyond just adding the residentiality. There's a lot more that goes into this. Personally, I've been advocating for better traffic safety for that school bus that she mentioned since 2019 when my son started kindergarten. Uh I know that's a very complicated
measure. It's been really hard to get things as simple as crosswalks to be painted, much less stop signs, much less lights, much less anytime of other uh safety measures. All of this area comes in really crazy intersection of responsibility and accountability
between the BOE, the village, the county. some of those roads or county roads which makes all of that even more complicated. To add cars to that is frankly unfathomable to me. I cannot imagine trying to turn left or right from Oak onto Glenn if you add any
additional cars and consistent need for traffic. I also drive these roads regularly as well as walk them when I can. Much like some people, and Patty included, have expressed, I don't feel safe letting my fourth grader and my sixth grader walk in our neighborhood because there is such a likelihood that
they will get hit by a car. Uh there's insufficient lighting on the streets. That's one way that we could address this as additional measures are considered. But as I take my children to local businesses up there on Chestnut, uh I find that I regularly am on the
defensive of people walking home from the bus. If we truly want a walkable village, we have to make the roads travelable by pedestrians and cars alike. And I think that to add additional residences, additional cars to this space without proper vetting of all of
the ways that that impact rolls out across the entire neighborhood and community would be a a really tough undertaking. This a little more consideration needs to be made to the bigger picture. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jennifer.
Anybody [applause] else on this ordinance? Seeing no one, I move the public hearing be closed. >> Second someone >> second. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Vagianos,
>> yes. John. >> Um, I move that the vote of 4073 be carried to February 11th, 2026. >> I second. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Haron, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad,
>> yes. >> And Vanos, >> yes. And before we begin to respond to questions, we have blown through our curfew of 11 o'clock and and I propose that we continue, but we need a vote of the council. I'm confident we're going
to get it. So, um I'm going to say we that I'm going to propose that we extend to 1:00 a.m. and reconsider if we are close to finishing at that point. So, do I have a motion to extend this
hear this this evening's proceedings to 1:00 a.m.? I I move to extend the hearing till 1:00 am and also add an additional vote at 1:00 am to continue. >> Yes. >> Uh I move >> Frank. >> I second it.
>> Okay. Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> I very rarely vote in favor of it, but I think we have to tonight. So yes. >> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> And Vanos. >> Yes. And so let's respond to questions.
Beth, a lot of these are in your wheelhouse. Yes, they are. Okay. Um, >> be before you do, there's one that I want to respond to, and it's to Jason. Deepest apologies that of the,088
notices that were sent out. Yours were defective. There is no excuse for that. Human error. Again, deepest apologies. Obviously, it was not intended, but >> I I know, but but nonetheless, we all
winced when we heard that both didn't make it to you. So, again, appreciate your understanding, >> Beth. >> Okay. So, um, actually with I forget your last name, but with Jason's question, uh, one of the earlier comments was about how the this the
yards will work, the sideyard versus rear yard, and there was a reference to lot eight, uh, which I think is uh, well, it doesn't matter. It was a reference to lot eight. That's a corner property. And so in this example, the
yard which abuts the adjacent homes is the rear yard by virtue of how the village ordinance is how the village ordinance defines sideyard versus rear yard. Uh going through the definitions.
Um so that was uh that's one short answer to that issue. Um there were uh a couple of statements uh or concerns cited about building height and uh in lot covers two examples. But I I want to
be clear the the height is not 35 ft today. It's actually 45 feet today and the proposed building height continues at 45 feet. So there's no change to what is permitted in in this area. Uh and this it's actually the same for the
coverage. There was a a concern stated about the cover of the properties. The cover that is uh existing today or permitted today in the C district is 90%. And this proposed ordinance will continue that percentage with no change.
There were a lot of concerns uh raised about walkability and I think the walkability can be is really in two categories. One is an overall traffic concern about how does the walkability. How is that impacted as additional cars
are uh introduced to this area through through redevelopment? The other one the other concern I think is about the uh the physical walkability of the area. And right now I think Chestnut Street is not particularly walkable. They're inconsistent sidewalks. For example,
this ordinance will require redevelopment to provide the sidewalks and the street trees that the village code requires. And so the redevelopment will facilitate compliance with those items. Um in terms of traffic as a whole and walkability as a result of traffic,
uh that is uh it was alluded to by some of the comments, but it is it's accurate that that's going to be addressed at the time of site plan. As part of any site plan application, a developer is going to be obligated to submit a traffic study. And in there, we'll evaluate intersections, perhaps their on-site
parking as well. And if it's found that their development is going to cause the need for road improvements, for example, or intersection improvements, the developer will be obligated to either pay into a fund to contribute for those improvements or perhaps do the improvements. It's going to be uh a
sightspecific and a condition specific decision. uh there were uh also a number of questions in regard to the permitted uses in the district. So for example citing of medical office, child care, uh
the clubs and fraternal organizations and essentially asking what aspect of medical office or child care or club and fraternal is permitted, how are those uses defined? and the this ordinance mimics the permitted uses that exist
today in your C district and in the CR district. So I I can't dispute that maybe those those terms need to be defined in village code. Uh that may well be uh or amended that may well be a follow-up exercise that the village
wants to consider. But I think the scope of this ordinance is to bring these uses that were found to be appropriate for this area to bring them into this code into this new CR1 district so that they continue to be permitted.
There were uh additionally questions regarding uh why this ordinance I guess why the ordinance is required. Um, and I want to be clear that the ordinance is set forth in our housing plan. And so, as part of
being in our adopted housing plan, we're obligated to implement the housing plan through adoption of the ordinance. There's that. But perhaps more important, it's part of the mediation that we conducted with our judge with the uh through the affordable housing dispute resolution program. And it's
also as set forth in our mediation agreement uh that we will go ahead and adopt this ordinance and and variety of other mechanisms that we're talking about this evening. In terms of Mount Laurel compliance generally and what's required in order
to be compliant with adjustment of bulk standards, it is it is not true that Mount Laurel does not require a change to building height and all their bulk standards, density, etc. So to the extent that folks might think that
that's the case, it's it's just simply not true. And it's really fundamental to the Mount Laurel doctrine that in order to satisfy your obligation, municipalities have to adjust their zoning. You can't simply take your existing zoning that might permit town
houses or multif family or single family and say, "And now there's a 20% set aside required. It's simply prohibited uh for a number of reasons. in the case law, Fair Housing Act, COA's rules, but ultimately uh it it is it
requires that municipalities take affirmative actions to permit and incentivize the creation of affordable housing. And so that's that's exactly what Ridgewood's ordinances are intended to do, just like every other municipality in the state that wants to
be compliant and not be subjected to builder's remedy. And there's a lot of language set forth in COA's rules and in the Fair Housing Act about municipalities having to create what's referred to as a realistic opportunity for affordable units. And that means
that the development has to be permitted in essentially all ways uh based on the on the maximum density. So, for example, where we have a density of of 30 units an acre or 15 units an acre, it's not enough to simply say here's the density,
but we're going to constrain the ability to achieve that density through setbacks, building heights, etc. Your zoning as a whole must work together to allow for that density to be achieved on the property, the density that's set forth in the housing plan. So, I that's
not too much detail, but I hope it's a little bit of background for folks that feel that maybe these zoning changes are simply unnecessary. Um, and for better or worse, I can assure folks they really are necessary. Some of the other sight specific concerns that were uh or I
should say district specific concerns were about contamination. Any property that may have contamination in this area will have to be cleaned up as part of NJ standards and as part of any development application for uh a site with uh with
an existing formal certainly an industrial use and perhaps many of the commercial district commercial uses uh that exist there today. developer is going to go through that process to determine what were the historic uses, what is the likelihood of contamination uh and then go forth and clean up any of
the contamination that exists on the property and that's going to be required regardless of adoption of this ordinance. Uh there was also a few concerns cited about the schools and I'm sorry to say school capacity is simply
not permitted to be part of municipalities consideration in as to if they're going to meet their obligation. Municipalities are obligated to provide the affordable units consistent with their affordable housing obligation regardless of their school status. And I
would say that's really uh a very specific intention as part of the Mount Laurel doctrine. >> And I think those were all the questions, all the notes I had, but I'm happy. >> I just want to be clear. Nat said
affordable housing compliance does not require the density that we are proposing. Is that a fair statement? There's no specific density required in Mount Laurel. I mean, at least as it would relate to these districts.
>> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> So, there's no specific minimum density that says 30 units an acre. But what is required is that we be able to meet our obligation and we be able to do so in a way that creates a realistic opportunity or is realistic zoning depending on
what portion of the obligation the the development will meet. So while 30 units an acre is not specifically required in say the fair housing act uh this is part of the variety of mechanisms that we have put together that we've advanced
and we thought were compliant and they were pretty darn close to being compliant if you think about the small adjustments that we've had to make as a result of the mediation. So, uh, the village is using 30 units an acre because I think
it is the the minimum acceptable in this area from the perspective of compliance. And I say that because this area came forward, if you will, because we had a developer looking at a piece of property proposing more than 50 units an acre on
the site and and that was not acceptable to the village. Um, but he demonstrated that at least he was unable to develop at less than 50 units an acre. I should also note that as part of our our mediation with Fairshare Housing Center,
uh, we were required if we were going to enter into an agreement and be able to be certain that we would have our continued immunity, we were required to find places for some increased density. and and quite frankly this was an area that
had been suggested for for potentially significant more density that was and that is not what's set forth in the ordinance. It was found that that was really couldn't be accommodated in this area. So to the extent that is 30 units
an acre the minimum required there's no straight very unfortunately there's just no straightforward answer like that in in this world of affordable housing in New Jersey. But what can I but what I can say is that our plan that we set that we put forward was minimally
compliant or perhaps just not compliant if you think about some of the adjustments that we've made. And we've tried to identify a density that is not only achieves compliance with the the overall obligation but also meets our
realistic zoning requirement which unfortunately is not quantified in terms of minimum density or any any specific guidance from the Fair Housing Act, but it's very clear that it must be met with uh sites that are able to be redeveloped
and at densities that are thought to be high enough to actually induce redevelopment intention from property owners and from developers. >> And another statement was made that many of the ordinances that we are proposing tonight are not part of our legal
settlement. >> Is that a fair statement? >> No, I don't think so. Um, we have a So, it's a couple things. One, they're in they're all in our housing plan. And so while that's not a settlement, they are, as I said before, if once we adopt our
housing plan and seek approval of it, we're required to implement it. Adoption of the ordinances is part of that. But also uh each of these sites and the densities are set forth in uh in a mediation agreement with Fairshare
Housing Center and they're also consistent with the mediations that we had directly with the judge in what we had said that our housing plan does and how we're proposing to amend it to ensure compliance. >> So these are part of our settlement agreement. >> Yes. I Yes. I'm sorry. The short answer
is yes. They are part of our settlement. Thank you. Um, and John asked a question about why is greenery inclinery and some other things included in this ordinance and not in I I think he's going to refer to the Kensington ordinance. Well, so
this is a different scenario in the sense that the Kensington ordinance is uh is a mediated ordinance that is directly has a settlement agreement directly associated with it that that addresses the specific zoning
parameters. Uh and so we were specifically tasked by the judge to work with that property owner or with that developer to find zoning that was that that was acceptable to the court to the developer and I guess minimally
acceptable to the village. So it's uh so for that reason our ability to maneuver and to put forth uh perhaps ideal standards was very limited. here we don't have a developer that we're forced with med to mediate
with and so we have a bit more flexibility uh to to work with. >> Got it. Thank you very much Beth. >> Um Beth somebody had asked how long are we do we have to keep affordable housing?
>> Is this about the various rounds? So, this >> this ordinance, tell me if I'm reading it wrong, says that if it's um rental units, it's 40 years >> and then they'll be let off. Then they can go back to market value, right?
>> And maybe I'm wrong about that, but and then um for sale units, it's 30 years. >> Yes. So, those are the required affordability control affordability control periods. Essentially, a deed restriction will be applied to any of the properties that we're talking about
this evening. And it says for the next 40 years if the units for are for rent or for the next 30 years if the units are for sale, they shall be affordable. So, it can only be rented to somebody with an income that's income qualified or sold to somebody with income qualification. At the end of that time
period, the controls are essentially released. Uh I'll just leave it at that. It's sort of complicated, but essentially they are released. Anybody else from the deis? >> Matt, go ahead.
>> I just >> I wanted to ask Beth um I get to ask you a question. I wanted to ask you with regard to the Dayton and the Enclave, what's the density in those two projects? >> Is it 30 or 35? >> Yeah, I want to say approximately 35 units an acre. >> Yeah. So, I think I think in in that
second round and particularly on in Chestnut Village, I think that too was 35 units per acre. Correct. I believe so the yes the density for Chestnut Village which is just at the bottom of the screen is at 35 units an acre. >> Right. So we we basically and people
have always asked about push back. We basically pushed back on this one and we were asked to go higher than higher than 35. >> Yes. And I should say also the Chestnut Village is at 50 feet. So just for to the extent that folks wanted to do a comparison it's five units an acre and five feet higher.
>> Okay. So, we have pushed back and and tried to get this. One of the other questions that was brought up was regard to potential for flooding and things like that. Um, I know that those are site plan issues and they'll be handled if there's a site plan application. If the property owner on this particular
project or property ever decides to develop it and con consistent with the ordinance, the um every year it seems that the municipalities in the state of New Jersey are required to revisit their
uh storm water management ordinances and runoff ordinances and uh the village is up to date on that. uh zero these these are geared for zero runoff from any development that comes in and retaining it on the property. So they'd have to
meet that strict standard or as strict it's as strict as it is in the state of New Jersey. In fact, Ridgewoods was deemed to be probably more more on more conservative side than 90% or a greater percent than all the other ones that
have been passed by other towns. Um, let's see. And and I I said this before about a question about the D involvement. Um, unless there's some type of contamination on the property, the D doesn't get involved. When there's a transfer of property or a sale, um,
usually there's a phase one done. If it's commercial, there's usually a phase one environmental study done. Depending upon the results of that, there may be a phase two done, but the D gets involved. if there is contaminated soil or other issues with regard to groundwater that need to be addressed, they have
jurisdiction over that and um that's also something that probably comes around during site plan application, but that's applicable regardless of whatever this ordinance does. So, >> yeah, thank you. I forgot to note that and I just want to reemphasize that the coverage has not changed. It's 90% it's
permitted today. It'll continue to be so and all storm water management regulations will apply. >> Right. And Beth, did you, and forgive me if I missed it, did you address the question raised by Rob about his side lot? >> She did. Okay, good. Just want to make sure. Good. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. I might have messed up
who made that comment, so I apologize, but yes, I did. >> Good. Then >> okay, then we are done with 4073. We're about to move into 4071, which is of course Kensington. Um, I I have been
alerted that Swagot, which is our Zoom U supplier, shuts down at 11:59. >> They rectified that situation in the IT room. So, we're fine. We're fine. We're fine till 1:00 a.m. >> Till 1 a.m. Good job. >> Good. Great. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Good. Then, let's move on. I move the clerk read ordinance 4071 by title on second reading and that the public hearing thereon be opened. >> I second that. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Karen, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes.
>> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> And Vanos, >> yes. Will the clerk please read the title of ordinance 4071, >> an ordinance amending chapter 190, land use and development to create the S1 senior overlay zone district.
I think that everyone is familiar enough with this issue because we've discussed it that we don't need a um an explanation from Beth. So with that, the public hearing is now open. >> Thank you. My name is Rosillio. I'm a
resident. I submitted a letter for you uh with Miss Heather and I was told I needed to stay here. So, my testimony can be actually added to the record. So, everything I I'm saying tonight,
um, I'm requesting that it be entered into the official municipal record. And this is my formal and, uh, written and also oral objection to ordinance 4071. This objection is submitted to preserve
issues under the New Jersey municipal land use law and applicable Mount Laurel and settlement review case law including South Burlington County Knack versus Mount Laurel Township, Hills Development versus Bernard
Township and Fair Housing Center versus Cherry Hill Township. Point one, the New Jersey municipal land use law consistency requirement under NJSA455D-62A, zoning ordinances are required to be
substantially consistent with the land use plan element and housing plan elements of the master plan. Where a zoning ordinance is not substantially consistent, the government body is required to state the reasons for that inconsistency on the record. The reshoot
master plan adopted in 2022 is the village controlling land use policy document. While the plan acknowledges senior housing and housing diversity as general planning objectives, it does so only at a policy and conceptual level
calling for a study's evaluation of best practices and future ordinance updates of general applicability. The master plan does not identify any specific parcel for assisted living, recommend parcel specific overlay
zoning, or endors assisted living as an as of right principal use at the scale and intensity authorized by ordinance 4071. Point two, site specific overlay zoning.
Ordinance 4071 applies to only three specific lots and establishes a bespoke zoning district that supersedes the underlying suning standards, fixes use, density, height, coverage and setbacks
in advance and substantially limits planning board discretion. Courts have consistently treated such sight specific zoning with high net scrutinity particularly in the settlement context to ensure that it
reflects independent planning judgment rather than expediency. Paso Martin Group versus Township of Randolph. Point three man Laurel and settlement review standards. While municipalities are required to
provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing, the Supreme Court has made clear that Mount Laurel compliance does not suspend the municipal land use law or eliminate the requirement for sound planning. Mount
Laurel 292NJ 279-80 in Hills Development versus Bernard's Township. The court emphasized that compliance must be implemented through sound signing and planning techniques
not ad hoc or arbitrary zoning. Similarly, the division has held that settlement or ordinances remain subject to the land use law principles and must be grounded in legitimate planning considerations.
Fair housing versus cherry hill. Point four, bulk intensity and planning impact. Ordinance 4071 authorizes increase side coverage, significant building height, reduce setbacks, and elimination of rear yard buffers. These
provisions conflict with master plan goals emphasizing buffering scale neighborhood compatibility and transitional design and raise concerns under NJSA455D-2 including the purposes of providing adequate light, air, and open space and
to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities. Mount Laurel jurist prudence doesn't require municipalities to maximize development intensity beyond what sound planning supports.
Traffic and access master plan 2022 emphasizes minimizing congestion on major corridors, avoiding side designs that force traffic into surrounding neighborhoods, encourages traffic planning as part of a broader corridor
strategies. Ordinance 4071 prohibits driveway access from North Maple Avenue and encourages traffic flow through surrounding neighborhoods, pushes ingress aggress impacts onto side streets by default. And these decisions
are project specific, no corridor wide. >> Can I can I just do my conclusion? I've been waiting the whole night. I just need less than a minute. >> Go ahead. >> Require fundings and record preservation. That's the last point. If ordinance 4071 is deemed not
substantially consistent with the ritual master plan, the governing body is legally required under NJSA to state the reasons for that inconsistency on the record. Absent such findings, the ordinance risk being viewed as arbitrary
or inadequately grounded in planning notwithstanding it settlement context. In summary, ordinance 4071 implements an affordable housing settlement, but is not substantially consistent with the land use element of the 2022 master
plan. Establishes sight specific zoning not contemplated by the plan. It creates an as of right assisted living use not recommended in the plan. Permits bulk and intensity inconsistent with adopted planning policies. restricts planning
board discretion in a manner contrary to the municipal land use law purposes. Traffic study and decisions are project specific no corridor wide as recommended by the plan prioritizes settlement implementation over
comprehensive land use planning and lacks clear findings reconciling these departures with the master plan. I respectfully request that the governing body explicitly address whether ordinance 471 is substantially
consistent with the rich master plan and if inconsistencies exist clearly articulate the planning rationale for those departures as required by the municipal land use law and mount Laurel settlement review standards. Please
include this letter and the attached appendix A that I provided with all of the uh judice prudence that I I attach as part of this record. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rosio. [applause] >> Shelley Rothstein, Ridgewood resident.
It's midnight. Earlier I spoke about the fact that this should have been done as a special meeting. This is why [applause] we should have started on these five ordinances at 7 a.m. and we would all be home in bed. This is
incredibly inconsiderate to the people in this room, to the people on Zoom, and to the residents who are already sleeping and were not able to speak tonight because it's midnight. This is
the most controversial ordinance. And here I am standing up here at midnight after sitting here since 7:00. You should all be embarrassed. Embarrassed.
In any case, since August, concerned residents from all areas of the village have stood at this podium and stated repeatedly why Kensington's proposed assisted living facility does not belong at the
intersection of Franklin Marshall and North Maple Avenue. Yet, here we are tonight. We have listened to Beth McManis, who admittedly has spent less than one hour at the site and lives
hours away, tell us why we must allow for highdensity senior overlay spot zoning at this intersection, despite the fact that it goes directly against our village's own master plan
regarding pedestrian safety. Pam, you quoted earlier from the master plan. That plan also specifically mentions this intersection and labels it as an unsafe intersection.
Page 87. Residents have spoken repeatedly about the dangers of this intersection. the unsafe pedestrian crossings, the lack of basic safety features, the large amount of schoolage children who walk and bike
these streets daily. No plans have been brought to the table to make this intersection safer. Kensington admitted publicly that they have no plans to protect the residents of Ridgewood from the chaos that this project will bring.
None. zero. The traffic study that they presented at their public session did not even mention the word pedestrian once. If this ordinance passes, a medical facility that stretches for an entire
block and towering almost twice the height of the buildings that are on site now will be built. No other building in our entire downtown takes up an entire block at this height. Voting yes for
this ordinance will not only forever change the character and charm of the village, but it will leave a permanent scar on our community. This decision cannot be erased. There is no going back. You cannot say, "Oops, we made a
mistake." The zoning changes are permanent. How will construction trucks navigate the narrow streets? Where will they stage construction vehicles, equipment, and building materials? Where will the construction workers park?
Kensington has no plans. They have no plans for overflow parking once the facility is built. They have no plans because there is no space. The intersection and the residential area it borders cannot handle any more vehicles.
There is limited street parking and no municipal lot. North Maple Avenue is one lane in each direction without a shoulder. The disruption to residents quality of life and the future impact of
this project on our entire village is immeasurable. The surrounding residential area will be sacrificed all to gain a handful of beds labeled as affordable housing.
Mayor and council members, tonight you carve into stone your legacy and the future of Ridgewood. This is what you will be remembered for when the history of Rididgewood is written. Keith,
we all received your email in December as you proudly stated all the wonderful accomplishments that have been made under your leadership. None of that will be remembered. None of that matters now. What will be remembered is what happens
tonight or perhaps February 11th. The future of Ridgewood is in your hands. We, the people of this community, the community you represent and have been elected to protect, demand that you
vote no on this ordinance. >> Thank you, Shelley. [applause] Anybody else? [applause] Cynthia O'Keefe, Rididgewood, resident. Um, there's not much I can say uh that Shelley and Natalia Rosio and the other
people who spoke about Kensington, not just tonight, but on other occasions when this topic was brought up. Um, they've addressed very salient points. I wholeheartedly object to this ordinance and object to Kensington coming to
Rididgewood. It is a terrible location and you know honestly I feel like this is a page out of the Shedler playbook. Um all this work was done with this affordable housing plan. The plan was put together and you know maybe formally
or informally voted on. It went before the planning board. Everyone thought this was a great idea, but resident input was not taken, nothing was taken into consideration. You may have walked the properties, but just like Shedler, you came up with your plan and you're
going to cram it down the throats of Ridgewood residents to their detriment. It affects property values. You will all go home to your respective homes and put your head on the pillow, but look at what is happening to these people. They
are in fear for what is happening to their residential properties. Their biggest investment that any of us have made. You know, sure people can move or decide maybe, oh, we're not, you know, going to miss a tax payment here or there, whatever, you
know, happens to people when they're upset. And what I would recommend to you is, you know, Shelley brought up a good point. Don't stack the deck with a meeting that comingles different topics. This should have been a special hearing
two nights just on this topic. The only good news was you didn't limit the amount of speakers like you did with the Shedler vote when you voted on that plan. And um you know there are residents in that neighborhood that are still very upset. And the reason I came
forward tonight is because I feel like you're doing the same thing to these neighbors. Input should have been taken into consideration and not put a plan, you know, worked working in a vacuum and putting a plan together that you then submit to the court and the court's
going to say now you have to mediate. Now you have to settle because you've already promised to Kensington the camel's nose was under the tent. Okay. Now, what I find interesting is Kensington sent a letter to these neighbors saying, "We want to work with
you." And the next day they filed suit with Rididgewood. Does that seem like a genuine company that wants to come in and work with people and be appreciated and valued so that Ridgewood residents can go and live there and pay whatever
the you know I've heard it's $16,000 some crazy amount. Uh that I don't know who can afford that a month but that's you know beside the point. I just think that um it was handled very poorly and maybe feedback for f going forward is
not just do what you're legally responsible to do just email people or certified mail people within 200 ft. It's unconscionable that people have to be on a text chain finding these this information out about things that are happening in our village. It's very
disappointing and I might not agree with a lot of you on many things because I've been here for two and a half years objecting to you know a number of things that you're you're coming up with but I just I think it's having respect for people in your
own community. You know that you're not treating people respectfully and now the damage has been done and you're hoping that the court will decide something so that you can get a jail out of jail free card. I I just I find it just insulting
to people. We're all mature professionals who work very hard and, you know, we appreciate the homes that we live in and we'd like for you not to, you know, ruin our neighborhoods. And I think what you're doing is a shame. And one last point, that bell is just
ridiculous. We are adults here. We do not need a bell to tell us when we have one more minute. I mean, interrupting is bad enough. The bell is just insulting. So, that's really all I have to say. I object to this ordinance and I hope it gets shot down. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Cynthia. [applause] >> Janette Lorocco, a longtime resident. Just a couple of things. One is it's uh said to be commercially zoned already. I'm sorry. apartment building what they the apartments there and doctor's offices are not the same as assisted
living. Assisted living is not apartments. It's not like Christian living center which had a neighbor went to which has apartments the size of the first floor of your house that she left. Okay. It goes from 5,000 all the way up
to depending on your needs $16,000 per month. How is that affordable for residents? What residents want that? Every senior citizen I've ever spoken to over the years and heard at meetings want apartments. How does that serve Rididgewood? It doesn't. It serves other
towns. It serves uh Kensington's own financial needs. They don't give a damn about this town. They don't give a damn about where they're putting it. Don't tell me this was the only location. I cannot believe this was the only location they could build. It's the worst location. I've never seen any kind
of centers like these, any assisted livingings in this kind of location. Our roads are too narrow. It's a dangerous intersection. People don't follow the rules, the lights. It's insane. And all these ordinances are not beneficial to Ridgewood residents. They're only
beneficial to the developers, to those who will profit from it. We will lose if any of these are passed. And I beg of you to really consider us and do your best for us, not for them. Thank you. [applause]
>> Thanks, Janette. Who else? Kelly Morgan, Ridgewood resident. I live on Franklin Avenue. I am the first residential home um that will back up to Kensington on Franklin. Um I've stated
that over and over, so you're probably familiar. I also in the August meeting or July meeting, I can't remember at this point, had extended an invitation to all of you to join me on my front lawn. So, you can see what it looks like on a normal day at the end of a school
day when the buses are coming, cars are coming to pick up their their kids from the high school and I can't get in or out of my driveway. I have to drive on the wrong side of the road and force my way in or I have to go into Bank of America, park, get back to my home
office so I can keep working and then move my car once the traffic has moved. So, Miss McManis, respectfully, you said at a previous meeting that no traffic was going to be added to Franklin A if this facility was built. And I I play
that kind of note over and over in my head because I cannot wrap my head around how that is even possible if we're directing all traffic on Franklin and Marshall and you're saying it's not going to increase traffic there because that was those were the words that you used that
you did not believe there would be an increase in traffic to Franklin Avenue. Um which brings me to my next point. There hasn't been a formal traffic study that has been issued by the village. Um, I believe that's that has not happened yet. We met with Frank from Boswell
Engineering um back at um over here on this this floor somewhere in the the depths of the hallway here. Um we met with him and he was preparing a report. He stated in that meeting that it wasn't really a good time to do a traffic analysis because it was around the
holidays. It was, you know, leading up to Christmas and Hanukkah and New Year's and it was not ideal for a traffic study. He mentioned he was going to use some ad hoc information to take a look and see what he could find. He mentioned he was going to use several different information sources, but no live study
was was ever done or funded by the village. So, in my job, I can't make a decision on something until I have all the information that I need to do so. And I would think that you would operate in the same manner that you're not going to make a decision on this. I know you already said at the start of the
meeting, we're not voting tonight, but I prepared this speech before I heard that comment. So, if you were going to make a decision on this tonight without having all the information that you need, my question to you is, how can you look yourself in the mirror and do that and say, "Did I take everything that I needed to know about this site to make
that decision?" Because you don't have it. You don't have the traffic study. Um, the other thing I have a couple of other questions because I guess this is how we have to ask questions about the site. We can't have a dialogue. I have to ask it and then I have to sit down and then you're going to answer it. So,
you know, a a forum and to what John said, a town hall, some sort of discussion would be really beneficial. Um, instead, I'll just go back to my seat when you and wait for my answers to come up. But, um, how many units in Kensington will actually be affordable? We heard at the planning board meeting
that it was 115 units and, you know, 10% would be affordable, so maybe 10 to 12. Um, but I think earlier tonight it was disclosed that our fourth round was already satisfied because it was four. And I just want some clarity on that because I'm not a housing expert. I'm
becoming one very quickly through this process and I just would like clarity on how many units in Kensington will be deemed affordable and how many were required for the fourth fourth round and has that been satisfied. And then in terms of the 10% um number that's been
thrown around about Medicaid patients, that is what is required of a healthcare facility, which is what this is. This is not an apartment building. This is a healthc care facility that's going to operate 247 and a healthcare facility requires 10%. So let's just get that
straight because I think there's some confusion there. Um I also want to just confirm on the record, will these be deed restricted? Um Beth, thank you for clarifying the the um difference hate the bell between the uh 30 and 40 year
um duration of these affordable units. Um what's the backup what was the backup plan? I know you guys wrote this into the plan, but if Kensington backed out, what would we do then? like that that ju it just seems like we put a lot of our eggs in this basket without having all
of the information that we needed to make a an informed decision. Um the my last and final point has already been touched on, but I can't walk away from this podium without saying it. My kids were here tonight. Thank god they did not stay and that their home sleeping in
bed, but um having those terraces and overlook our property, having no buffer is completely inconsiderate. It is completely inconsiderate. And when you come to my property, I'm going to bring you to the backyard and you're going to see where my kids play basketball and you're going to look up and you're going
to see what what's going to be and you're going to hate it just like I will. [applause] >> Thank you, Kelly. Can I just ask that the correct image be put on instead of there flipping back and forth and leaving that ridiculous
yellow spotted thing, please? >> Do we have it? >> There you go. >> Ready to go. Andy Welch, resident. Can you put up the uh the fair map, the yellow map?
Yeah. Yellow spotted map. >> Sure. Dylan, put up the fear map. >> The fear m. Yeah. >> The fearmongering men. >> Yeah. The reason I ask for that is
I've been in Richwood for 40 years. And the 40 years that I put there is being sacrificed so we don't fight these other ones. We gave in. And we gave in. It started two years ago according to records that we were having discussions
with Kensington about this particular location and we know that Kensington is very predatory. They were coming after council members probably before you guys were here individually and privately. Um I know they're aggressive, but this really comes down to what's
right and what's wrong. I know I know nothing about your world. I think I don't want to either, but you can tell what's right and what's wrong when you start changing language
to obscure what's going on. This isn't affordable housing. This is a predatory builder that's going to give you a few. And nobody in our whole group has ever objected to affordable housing. So, I hate I hate hearing neighbors cast this
as affordable housing. It's not. This is the developer that let you off the hook for work that you haven't done for 10 years knowing this needed to be done. All right. Um, we [applause] talked uh Evan, I heard you talk about um multiple
uh family housing. Is this multiple family? >> It seemed like it was alluded to as multiple family. This isn't multiple family. You're going to put 115 people in this building and you're going to have 120 staff. That's not multiple
family. So, I think we need to be precise with the language otherwise it looks wrong. I think I can go on. You talked about this being an exaggeration. >> And if you could talk into the mic because people can't hear. >> Okay. Evan, you mentioned that that was
an exaggeration that that shouldn't even go with it. Have you been to uh White Plains Hospital, White Plains facility for these guys? >> We're not answering questions until the end. >> Has Has anyone here been to the only
regional facility of Kensington? Anyone? >> Andy, >> what? >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Um I'd like to hear that one though. Also, Evan, you said we
don't want this uh fair map to be settled by a single judge. Was our case settled by a single judge? And how well did we fight? And why aren't the transcripts available? I think we're all entitled to that. We've
got 50 homes, 25 homes at least, that are going to take a big hit financially. And lastly, the uh I've stood up here for the last six months, maybe not consistently, but
we've asked questions, important questions about traffic, about safety, about water runoff. We asked some of Kensington. Nobody here has answered those questions. We've had six months to have answers. Kensington blew us off.
Kensington stood there while John asked some questions and just locked their jaw without responding. These people are ridiculous and we pay some of the highest taxes in the nation
and I can't believe that we're stooping to deal with these people under the guise of affordable housing. Thank you, Andy. [applause] John Fry, North Irving Street.
Andy, you stole some of my lines there. So, indeed, Kensington has simply weaponized the Fair Share Housing Act is the way they approach the town and have manipulated things. Um, they're working the state rules to manipulate our community and to the end to I expect
that they're going to make a boatload of money on the whole deal if it all goes through. >> John, if you could just get a little closer to the mic. >> Okay, how's that for you? >> Better. >> Okay. The residents, we've all reached out to them for months to Kensington. Um, Evan, actually, when I knocked on
your door, you suggested that I I reach out to them back in July, I think it was, or early August, and we did. We had multiple emails and so on and they basically blew us off until a few weeks ago when we had our meeting over at the library and that was the first
communication. Of course, we had the lawsuit that got slipped in between. So, where is Kensington tonight? Um, where's the executive leadership from Kensington? Are they taking part? Are they out here in Zoomland someplace watching us, listening carefully? I
would hope they are because indeed they're hearing about how they're being welcomed to this town. Um, and we're not a really friendly crowd right now. Ridgewood's a great town, but we're not thinking too fondly of them. What a way to join the neighborhood. Um, I feel sad
for them. It's a bad statement. I expect our fellow residents, um, you guys have all mentioned a lot of key things here tonight. We talked about the traffic and the pedestrian safety continues on. We same conversation from July. Flooding
continues on. Privacy, oh my god, that's that's a real killer here for the people that live next door. I mean, the whole concept of having terraces being proposed and they were proud when they presented that they had a clean front
going down Maple Avenue and all access. When they discussed at the library, Pam, that's when they were very happy with us and said that we have this clean line going down Maple Avenue. Well, indeed, they've put everybody on the back looking out over
Kelly's house, Shel's place, the Donalan's house immediately behind. I can't imagine what I was looking this morning and I went in my backyard and I measured from my back door to my garage is about the distance it will be from
their property to these terraces and all I could think of was what would happen if a 45- ft building was where my garage is. It would be horrible. And then terraces looking down in my yard. The building facade going down on Maple
Avenue. Once again, they've presented it as a wonderful thing. But as I was with a developer this past weekend, he explained to me very carefully that that is a very urban environment creating a straight facade down a long stretch. Yes, they're doing
some two-foot setbacks about the width of this lect turn. That's really not much of a setback. that indeed in a suburban environment, which we live here in Ridgewood, at least I hope we still call it suburban, that indeed we should have more of the garden apartments and
so on. The Mayflower apartments that are behind my house, they're much more spread out and much more relaxed and they fit into the community. They look like they belong here, but this is just another massive structure.
The folks on Marshall and Franklin Streets, you know, we've talked about the traffic over there. Um, and I have great respect for the residents there. I also have great respect for all of our emergency services people, but I understand just back in November, one of
the fire trucks was backed into one of the residents cars and had significant amount of damage to it. It was an emergency call. It was an accident, but it shows you once again how narrow the streets are, how accidents happen. Now we're talking about emergency vehicles
because that's what happens in these medical facilities. They're going to show up on a regular basis. What's going to happen? We have the potential many more accidents like that. Thank you very much. The emergency vehicles
I know on Irving Street, we have a lot of the fire department and the ambulances going past on a regular basis serving the other part of town. You see the lights flashing. You hear the sirens. This is going to be in their backyard all the time for a medical facility like
this. Another really hard neighborhood situation. The closed door settlement was a high cost to our town. I we didn't really get to partake. You guys took care of it. Um we're all now seeing what the cost to us
as residents is. It's a it's a shame. Kensington is really going to profit off of us. Um, the settlement should be considered and worked out before approval as once it's approved, we must expect Kensington will continue to weaponize the village. I don't believe
anything they say anymore because they've lied to us as residents anytime through any communications. We need we need to be careful of what we do because once we put it down as an ordinance, they're going to push the line again just as they pushed it with
fair share housing. We've got to be careful. We got to hold that line. Um, Kensington is the new neighbor you never want to have and should be ashamed of their own approach to join trying to join our community. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, John. [applause] >> Who else? >> Um, so I know Natalyia, Ridgewood, resident. Um my neighbors already taken care of majority of the points. I mean this this topic has been discussed at
length. The only problem was that length wasn't happening with you guys. It was happening with us on the sidelines because we're not included in any conversations. There was no visibility whatsoever. No transparency that you you guys keep talking about. And if we had
that, we wouldn't be here today at the at like past midnight trying to get to the ordinance that is very important to all the neighbors. Um, and for the I guess on the on the record, this does feel and everyone I'm
sure agrees that was intentionally all these agenda items beyond what we already have with five ordinances that stand alone probably accumulate like five hours discussions. those extra agenda items were intentionally jammed
in to just wear us out, get people off and so we don't not everyone has a chance to voice their concerns. So that's my impression that's impression of many people here um that who I spoke to that we are just being our voice is
suppressed. Yes, you might hear or you might listen to us but you do not hear us. Um, so I mean we know that it's all these extra hype and we've been told that this is because of all the lawsuits, but I'm
I'm just wondering I have a couple questions and none of them I don't really we had an answer about this ordinance. Um, I would list them out. Um, I would like them to go into the record and would like to hear back what the answers on those to those questions
are. So what I I will start question number one. Which elements of the ordinance 4071 are legally required and which are discretionary choices made by the village? Um number two, how does the ordinance
limit bulk, height, and density to remain consistent with surrounding neighborhoods and the master plan? Consistent is the key word. Um number three, what caps on building mass,
height, F, lot coverage, continuous facade length um are included to prevent overdevelopment beyond what is strictly necessary. Um this is an an important one and uh that's been raised by many people. I
have not heard any answers. Nobody did. What traffic, pedestrian, emergency access and public safety studies support the scale of development enabled by this ordinance? Um, number five, if full studies were not
completed, what safety mitigation measures are required as conditions of approval? I'm I'm intentionally stopping so you're taking notes, but I I don't know if you're memorizing my questions or >> I'm writing everything down. >> Okay. >> And so are they.
>> Um six. How does the village ensure zoning concessions made to resolve one lawsuit? One lawsuit does does not set do not set a precedent for future developments. Question seven, what what guard lays
prevent this ordinance from being used to justify additional density or height elsewhere? And how do we as a village, you guys as elected officials ensure that cord-driven zoning minimizes impact and
protects public safety? Thank you. >> Thank you, Natalia. >> [applause] >> Good evening. Uh, Matthew Bandel, Bridgewood resident. Uh, I first just want to state for the record that I'm here solely as a resident, speaking only
for myself and not on behalf of any body or board that I may be affiliated with. I'm also a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey and have spent significant time with zoning and land use regulation. I mentioned that only to be clear. My concerns tonight are technical and rooted in established engineering and planning
principles. This is not an argument against senior housing and it's not an argument against affordable housing. It is an argument that ordinance 4071 is fundamentally inconsistent with Rididgewood's master plan and in direct conflict with the requirements and purposes of the m
municipal land use law. The MLUL states that zoning must promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Must securely um secure safety from fire, flood, panic, and other natural and man-made hazards. and that zoning ordinances shall be substantially
consistent with the land use plan element of the master plan. Those are not aspirational statements. They are legal standards. Rididgewood's master plan repeatedly calls for compatibility of development, meaningful transitions in scale and intensity between different land uses,
protections of established residential neighborhoods, and the reductions of traffic hazards. This ordinance authorizes a 50- foot tall building with 88% lot coverage directly against homes in the R2 zone that are limited to 30 feet with only a single 50 foot wide lot
transition. That's not a transition. It's a zoning cliff. More importantly, this ordinance does not implement a planning policy. It creates a tailored zoning district for a single site with a custom rule set that oversides the underlying zoning. That is
not how comprehensive planning works. That is the structural hallmark of spot zoning. The site makes this even more troubling. The MLUL requires zoning to promote safety. Yet, this ordinance intensifies intensifies development and
an intersection the village itself has already designated on page 82 of its own master plan as a high crash location and then deliberately channels traffic into surrounding residential streets. We are told this is necessary to satisfy settlement obligations and to avoid
something worse. But a settlement does not suspend planning law. This facility will generate staff traffic, shift changes, deliveries, visitors, and emergency access at precisely the wrong location. This is the wrong site. If
this ordinance is adopted, it is it it estab it establishes a deeply damaging precedent that the that master planning policies and zoning standards can be set aside for individual parcels when litigation pressure is applied that transforms zoning from a planning system
into a negotiation process and makes every neighborhood a potential bargaining chip. The municipal land use law does not permit that and Rididgewood's master plan does not envision it. Mount Laurel requires compliance. Not this site, not this
property, and not this developer. Thank you. [applause] Thank you, David. Who else? Any No, we have no one on public access. Anyone else?
>> Are we considering or are we done? Okay, with that then I move that the public hearing be closed. >> I second. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes.
>> Wiggrad, >> yes. >> Yes. >> I move that the vote for the vote related to 4071 be carried to September to sorry, February 11th, 2026. >> I second that. Mortimer,
>> yes. >> Harian, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. Vagos, >> yes. And now we're going to address questions. >> I'm going to start. Shelley, I apologize that we ran late. I
apologize that the village has a lot of business to attend to. We do. Could we have dedicated a single night for this? It's possible. There are a lot of things that we have to get done and so forgive us because we
also are here late tonight and many of us have to be up very early for work. Nonetheless, I sincerely do apologize for that. I wish we could have done it differently. We tried to do it differently. There were ordinances and
business and bills that needed to be paid and we did that tonight. As you saw, we moved through them as quickly as was humanly possible in the hopes that we could get to all of this. Blew through our 11:00 curfew. None of us
really want to be here. More importantly, I want to address something that you said. Beth McManis is not telling you what needs to be done here and what will be done. Judge Sap
Peterson is telling us all what has to be done here. Beth is here. She's got she's got a very long drive home tonight, but she's here to help us to un
she's here to help us all understand what the issues are and she answers every question as best as she possibly can. You want us to vote no for this again.
When we voted no the first time, which we did because you asked us to, the only property involved was the Kensington property. As a result of saying no,
Chestnut Street is now involved. Gothal Road is involved. And as we have explained many times, which I'm not quite sure, I guess you I I I know you're frustrated. I know you're tired. I know that you're you want to take this out on us and that's
fine. But as we've said many times, you want to take this out on somebody, it's the state legislature that has instructed Judge Sap Peterson on what to do. It is in the state constitution. She has no choice.
And Andy, the fear map, the fear, we're already getting into it. Gothal Road, Chestnut Street. The more we say no, if you really want us to say no tonight,
then what you're saying is, well, we don't care about the other neighborhoods. We're getting hammered here. And you are. You don't want it. We don't want it. But if we continuously say no,
we bring more neighborhoods into this. We may have already done it by putting the vote off tonight. I am hopeful that Kensington, who is watching tonight,
will hear what we are saying and not push for that. You all understand the enormity and the weight of the loss of zoning immunity and I understand your frustration. I really do. And if you want to vent at
us, by all means do. But we have said it unequivocally. We don't want this. And by saying no, we will get all the things that you don't want.
Beth, there were some other more substantive questions. If you would be kind enough to address them. >> Sure. Let's see. I heard there were a handful of comments in regards to master plan
consistency and ultimately I think this is a legal issue. I'm going to defer to Matt, but I want to be really clear that the planning board found that the ordinances, including this one, but all of them were consistent with the housing plan and the
and the land in the master plan. And so I'm not comfortable suggesting that the council can substitute the planning board's findings, but as for the with their own, but as I said, I'll defer to Matt for more commentary on that. Uh there's also a concern cited regarding
spot zoning and that is typically uh typically barred in New Jersey. Um but in affordable housing it's a very different scenario. Uh spot what people refer to as spot zoning is a very common technique for promoting affordable
housing in New Jersey. Uh it's it doesn't fall under the category of spot zoning that is prohibited for New Jersey municipalities, but it it certainly feels like spot zoning in the sense that you're applying zoning to a single site. But uh I just want to be clear that that is not uh that's not a concern for
Ridgewood or for any other community as they try to meet their housing obligation. I I also heard some concerns that I had said that there would be no traffic coming on to Franklin Avenue and I'm sorry to say there you are. Thank you. Um I I don't recall saying that. I I
don't think that I did, but I I can't tell you that I remember the specific quote. What I think I may have been referring to is about the level of or the extent of traffic volumes that may result on these side streets like Franklin Avenue that you had cited. Um I
recall at an earlier meeting I talked about uh traffic projections for the assisted living as compared to the existing buildings on the site and also for buildings that are permitted on the property today as a result of just being
in the B2 district. and the existing buildings generate uh significantly more traffic than the assisted living and many of the permitted uses would generate significantly more traffic than the assisted living. And so that may have
been the testimony that or the you know the testimony that the uh anticipated traffic is less than what would exist today with the existing buildings at occupancy or redevelopment with permitted uses. Um, in terms of the affordable housing
commentary, yes, the units will be deeed restricted. They will have to follow all of the applicable rules in the uh for assisted living for affordable housing credit which which does go beyond what is simply required for licensing at the state for assisted living. But they [clears throat] they
will file a deed restriction and provide 10% of those uh assisted living beds as affordable. And it's up to the development is now up to 15 excuse me 115 beds as opposed to had been anticipated up to 125 beds. So there's a
small reduction and that should result in approximately 11 uh 10 or 11 beds from from this development that will contribute towards our obligation. There was also a question about uh essentially if we've already satisfied our RDP, why is this site in our housing plan or why
are we uh required to adopt the ordinance for it? And so yes, the village has satisfied its RDP with other affordable housing developments. But we have this other component of our round four obligation which is unmet need and
a subcomponent of that is your or our realistic zoning requirement. And so we are required to meet our 25% realistic zoning requirement as part of a larger unmet need response. And and so this
site contributes to that component, that unmet need component and not the RDP. Um in terms of being a backup plan for this for this, I I suppose if Kensington walks away, no, there's no backup, but this is one of several components in our
plan. So, we're not obligated to have a backup for every every site that may go ary. Um, there was some continued commentary about what the developer has constructed in White Plains, and I I just want to be really clear, it's just not relevant uh
to what's being considered here. regardless of what they've built in New York or perhaps other states or elsewhere here in Jersey, they're going to be subject to the standards that we adopt uh in the future that sets forth what their building height, bulk standards are, etc., as opposed to what
White Plains may have permitted them to construct. Uh there was also some questions about uh what's occurred at court and trans uh transcripts for that and I don't think that they are available uh specifically because we're in a mediation setting as
opposed to a hearing setting but again that's another topic I'll defer to Matt on. Um and then there are uh there were a handful of comments regarding the bulk standards and and what it how the the site may be developed. And I I think it's worth
highlighting I think some introductory comments which were made was which are that the zoning is in terms of the bulk standards is almost entirely consistent with the B2 district, the existing zoning district. And so that includes things like uh building height. 50 feet
is permitted today and it continues to be permitted under this ordinance. The lot cover for example is permitted at 90% today. It'll be reduced a little bit down to 88%. Um the rear yard, the minimum rear yard will actually be increased as a result
of this ordinance. Uh today it's required to provide 10 feet. Uh but this ordinance requires 45 feet. Um and the uh the other setbacks are consistent or greater than what is uh
than what was previously proposed. Um in terms of uh traffic study etc. Uh while that has been discussed as part of putting together the ordinance, those those traffic studies and that discussion will occur at the planning board. the planning board will have its
ability to uh to make findings regarding their traffic study, whether it's adequate and if improvements are necessary as a result of the application just like they would for for any other applicant that came forward. And then there were questions regarding the
ordinance uh such as what elements of the ordinance are legally required which are discretionary choices made by the village. I I would say, you know, similar to some of the the commentary I had regarding the Chestnut Village area, it's it's not
that the Fair Housing Act requires this specific assisted living facility at this site with these bulk standards, but it is uh obligated as a result of being in our housing plan that must be implemented and obligated as a result of our mediation with the judge where we
committed to uh to facilitating and implementing this this ordinance. Um, in terms there were questions about how does the ordinance uh or in the resulting development, how does that remain consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and the master plan and
what caps on some of these intensity standards are included to prevent overdevelopment beyond what is strictly necessary. So, uh, as I'd said just a couple minutes ago, the ordinance is is almost entirely consistent with the
existing B2 district that exists on this property and in the surrounding lots to the uh to the uh to the west along uh Maple uh with some limited exceptions, but again, it's the for example, the building height is consistent with that.
And so, uh so that's that consistency. Um it it it's fair to say it's it's clearly not consistent with the the surrounding residential or the T districts. Instead, this ordinance reflects the existing zone district and the surrounding properties in in the
other direction. Um in terms of any mitigation measures that may be required, again, I would say that's uh that's going to be subject to the planning board hearing. to the extent that the planning board has uh safety concerns, they'll have the
ability to impose those as part of uh any conditions of approval, as part of that public hearing process. Um, and I think that's I I think that's it for I'm happy to answer any other questions, though. >> Okay, Matt, did you have anything to add?
>> Yeah, I do. Um first of all the first speaker mentioned a cited a few cases um and was reading from those cases those are older cases they were back from the 80s and um I'm familiar with them and
each one of those cases the one two she cited fair share versus Cherry Hill and Hills Development I think versus I forget whose Hills Development is against um both of them found that the municipalities
ordinances were in violation of the Fair Housing Act and they determined that the developer was able to build what it wanted to build. So both of those went the other way from what would be applicable, what if you want to vote against this ordinance, what would be
the decision. The courts found that the developers position was properly suited. One of them, I think, was spot zoning. The other one was what's called exclusionary zoning. Spot zoning is where you take a piece of property and say, "All right, we don't want that developed. We're going to zone it this
way so that it doesn't get only gets developed the way we want it. And if it's just a single piece of property that you're that you're zoning, the courts have said that you're not allowed to do that." However, when it comes to affordable housing, that rule is off. You're allowed to do it for
affordable housing. So, that's just one of many preferences that um that affordable housing gets. But both of those cases came down on a, you know, both of them came down from the Supreme Court of the state on the behalf of the developer and they formed the basis for
what all the courts look at these days and the precedent for the court's decisions on the cases that still come through. Um, somebody brought up construction. I think Shel brought up construction. What are you going to do about that and how that works? That's not part of the ordinance. that gets
dealt with at site plan and construction uh routes and things such as that timing that can be addressed by the planning board at site plan. Um people have asked about the traffic study and I think uh the traffic study issue was basically
answered by the person who who questioned it. They said that Frank Dazookuski, who was the traffic engineer that we brought in, said that he was going to wait for the better time than the Christmas holidays and the and the Hanaga holidays and these past couple of weeks to do his complete his study.
Well, that's what he's doing. So, we don't have the study completed yet, although he has given us indications of what his findings are with regard to that. So once the study is done, once the study is done and completed and written up, it'll be shared. So you'll
get a chance to see it, but he's going to get the information with regard to other aspects of his study that he has to complete su soon enough. I expect it by the end of the month. Um I have a quick question for Beth if she can answer it. What is our present unmet
need from this round? It is >> uh it is 423. >> So there our present unmet need is 423 units. Okay. And you'll know and recognize that every town just about has
an unmet need that is unapproachable. All right. So that's the issue. I was saying prospective before. I was talking about they make you look that you've got make a look ahead so that you can try and meet that unmet need. Obviously,
we're not going to meet it with 400 whatever number of units of affordable housing with these plans, but they want you to that's what you want to work for. That's what they that's the second component of compliance that we're talking about. Um, some people may not
feel that assisted living is affordable housing. Um, courts have them and they consider it affordable housing and they are the ones who make that decision. Um, settlement conferences and the
mediation. Um, we did ask that your citizens group be entitled to participate in that. That request was denied by the court. Also, the mediation sessions that we had, and there were three or four of them, they are confidential. They're they're on the
record, but they're confidential. No transcript is given for them, and we couldn't order it either. So, that is one of the one of the aspects of the process that we have to deal with. There are a number of of questions with regard
to traffic. Obviously, that's going to be an issue um not only with our report from the study, but also uh traffic on site at the time of the site plan application. Um the precedent issue again um
everybody's worried about if we do this here, it's going to be allowed elsewhere. However, nobody else is going to be given the same leeway and the same type of approach unless they're putting in affordable housing. And if the court maintains our immunity from developer
suits, we don't have to worry about a developer coming in and saying, "You did it here, so I can do it over there." our fourth round once we get compliance and get what they call a period of repose from the court which hasn't been issued yet but we hope will be we're going to
be safe from that we're not going to be able to there is no builder that's going to come in and say that I can do it on this other property because you're doing it here because we're put up our affordable housing our plan has been deemed complete and satisfies the
requirements and that's what this period of repose and the grant of immunity is again master plan's been dealt with. The planning board, if if you're familiar with the municipal land use law, the planning board is the body that not only
constructs and puts together the master plan, but they're the body that reviews zoning ordinances to determine whether or not they are consistent with the master plan. And in this case, the zoning board has mean the planning board has done that.
Um, I may be mistaken, but somebody brought up the transitional aspect of it. And I know in that area of the residences, and I'm not, this doesn't minimize the impact, but I think the transitional zone in that area does extend to a couple of the residential
properties. [snorts] I think that's all I have. >> Thank you, Matt. Anybody else? Um, Matt said something and I heard a remark that
affordable housing, some people believe uh uh affordable, excuse me, assisted living isn't affordable housing. And I know I explained this last month because I remember when Shelley asked the question
and think for just a moment if you are in your 70s or 80s or 90s and you are alone and you can no longer care for yourself and you don't have any money and you can't afford to have someone come in and
take care of you. That's why this is affordable housing. It is to assist older people and handicapped people who cannot afford to take care of themselves. So, you can snicker at it, you can
sneer, but I hope that no one in this room is ever in that situation. And with that, I still want to thank virtually everyone for being civil and being respectful in what is an
incredibly difficult situation. >> We we have one one more. >> Sorry, >> we have one more. >> I know. >> I know. However, I am, as I said, I am recusing myself. So, I'm going to stay, but Pam is going to take over for the
next public hearing. We we just need a motion and a second to continue. >> Well, I am that's going to be Pam. So, I'm done. Thank you all so much. I appreciate your time, your understanding. >> Thank you.
>> Um I'll take a motion to uh extend the curfew to 2:00 a.m. I hope we don't go that long, but >> we are nearing one o'clock. I'll make a motion to extend the remainder of the meeting till 2 am and reconsider again at 2 am.
>> I second it. >> Okay. Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Parin. >> No. >> Whites. >> No. >> Okay. Parin said yes. Yes. >> Uh Wiggrad. >> Wait.
>> Say yes. >> I didn't hear I didn't hear you. >> I'm gonna make my joke now. I think bad honest I think the mayor can vote as well. >> I'm out. >> What? >> No pizza. >> All right. Well, we have a majority
anyway, so we're going to extend it. >> Okay. So, I move the clerk read ordinance 4074 by title on second reading and that the public hearing thereon be opened. >> Second. >> Mortimer. >> Yes. >> Pin. >> Yes. >> Whites. >> Yes.
>> Wiggrad. >> Yes. Will the clerk please read the title of ordinance 4074? >> An ordinance to amend chapter 190, land use and development of the code of the village of Ridgewood to modify zoning standards for the B1 and B2 districts.
>> Um the public hearing is now open. >> No, Beth talk about it first. >> Oh, right. Okay. Beth, can you um describe this ordinance? >> Okay. Last but not least, we've got ordinance 4074. And what this ordinance
does it is it adjusts the B1B2 district. Um it's not technically standards in that zone district uh in terms of how it's organized in the code, but it is but it's a reference from those districts. Uh and what it does is it has
a couple of changes. So, first I should say for properties that are uh that include affordable units, those properties are permitted today to have a density of 18 units an acre. This ordinance increases that to 20 units an
acre. So, it goes up two units an acre for uh for the B1 and B2 district where you're providing affordable housing. During our mediation, excuse me, [clears throat] during our mediation with Fair Share Housing Center, their finding was that two units
an acre was uh not consequential and they sought more opportunity. uh that additional opportunity that uh was necessary to get through the process has been targeted to
an a an area of about 2.17 uh acres and that is on the uh and this is an exception to the permitted density lots with lot frontage on the west side of
South Broad Street and are not located within the historic district or are a historic preservation site, those properties may increase to a maximum density of 24 units an acre. Uh and so
uh there's a small area of like I said about 2 a little less than 2.2 acres that's permitted to go to 24 units an acre. The rest of the B1 B2 will be limited to 20 units an acre. Um, and I should say also the affordable housing
set aside has been increased in in all cases to be 20% rather than 15% for rent and 20% for sale. >> Thank you. >> Um, I move the hearing where am I? Um,
the public hearing is now open. Uh good morning mayor and council. Boy de loving again. Um there's been a lot of speculation, confusion regarding this ordinance, a lot of talk around the village about it.
I would just like to make this comment first. I appreciate the fact that the mayor has recused himself from uh voting on this ordinance tonight. However, I did not appreciate the fact that he voted to introduce the ordinance in December. At that time, I objected to it
and u I'm not sure whether my objection is what prompted him to recuse himself this time or whether it was something else. But uh I did believe at that time it was inappropriate for him to vote vote on it. And I still do believe that. Uh so back to my original uh comments,
the there seems to be a lot of speculation about this, a lot of misinformation. Perhaps somebody referred to it as misinformation, perhaps misunderstanding. So I heard what Beth McManis said, but I'm still
confused as to what this will entitle property owners in the B1 B2 district to do. Uh some have said that any building in the B1 B2 district that currently has one story will be permitted to add a
second story so long as that story the second story or third story has housing uh makes affordable housing. Others have said that no housing needs to be incorporated into the addition of the first into the second or third story that you could do anything you want with
it. So, if we could just have some clarification as to what might the CBD look like, particularly for those buildings are currently one story in the CBD, will this entitle somebody to add a second story onto their building and
provide housing on that second story? Or for those people who have a two-story building, will they be allowed to add a third story so long as there are housing units in that? Uh again, just a question as to what the CBD might look like in the future if these rumors are true that
second and third stories will be able to uh be added onto buildings. There is also some talk that the stop and shop and the entire what was the King Shopping Center, I don't know what it's called now, will be able to add a second story onto both of those buildings. and
those buildings and now those properties could be converted into housing because they are in the B1 or B2 districts. Um so there is speculation as to whether you know they always talk about closing unperforming supermarkets whether this
might give the stop and shop company an opportunity to sell the property and and turn it into housing. And the same thing with the uh King Shopping Center right across the street here. what could happen to that as a result of this ordinance being enacted. There has also been talk, particularly
in the CBD along East Rididgewood Avenue, that if additional housing is added to the buildings there, what does that do to parking? I believe I heard in this room several meetings ago that the parking, the current parking requirement
would not be rescended. In other words, if you added units to your building, you would have to have parking provided for the residents of those units. But then there was some talk about no, you wouldn't need to do that as long as you
contributed to some sort of fund where the monies would be used to build a new parking garage. So if we can have clarity to all these uh speculations, rumors that are going around is particularly in terms of how much housing can be added and what happens to
the that particularly in terms of parking. What will happen if you do add housing to your building? Where are the people going to park? Will you be required to provide parking on your property or will you be required to
contribute to a fund which would go to the village? monies will go to the village to increase um public parking someplace. That's it. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Boyd, for all the questions. Good thing that we
have transparency so we know all the answers. But uh anyway, Natalyia Pertovich, Richwood resident um on 4074. Obviously we have similar concerns um and you heard some of them about what
is exactly it the ordinance is not very specific as what height uh it adds to the existing landscape and the build. Um so if in case anyone calls this misinformation this is the direction where you guys are
taking us. We start with the round four and we add two or one or two stories. Then we move to the round five. Then we add couple more all on under the um I guess the scare off we going to get a
builder's remedy. But as everyone already cited and mentioned, and I know we uh we've mentioned that the planning board reviewed the master plan, which they obviously didn't because if they did, we wouldn't be talking here about adding height and bulk, it does
contradict the master plan. And if somebody says it is aligned with the master plan, then they have to go back to the elementary school to learn how to read. Okay. But anyways, um on the 4074,
as expected, we are increasing density here. Um and I mean 18 to 20 might sound not very significant, but it is pretty sizable change on a smaller lots, right? And
we're talking about downtown. Um and increasing it to 24 making it even more impactful. Um while um okay um so while the higher affordable housing set aside is commendable in principle raising density
without objective height caps caps on height F and bulk predictably leads to larger buildings variance requests litigation pressure and based on all the questions that we heard with there is no stated specific or at least mentioned
clear enough for everyone not to have these hundred questions of what exactly the height is, what exactly is required, why do we have to ask all these questions, why can't it be laid out in a way that is transparent and easy for
people to understand. Um so ordinance um okay here um so as in other ordinances this one also is moving Ridgewood away from the village center
downtown and towards a more urban development pattern that is against the master plan never contemplated there. Um, I would encourage council and again we are not here saying I know may mayor
the mayor mentioned that if you want us to reject it, if you want us to vote no, this is what's going to happen. We're asking you not to vote no. We're asking you to assess and add specific caps limits to maintain the feel of the
village that we we so much love. Right? I don't know why it's a yes or no. Maybe because you never considered resident input when we were considering all these magnitude and massive sweeping ordinances then we wouldn't be having a
discussion between a yes or no because now in during process maybe that's a procedural thing. We can only say yes or no we cannot amend. I don't understand why I can't amend. And if we knew we can't amend based on the resident's feedback why didn't we seek the feedback before those ordinances were introduced?
These are some of the questions I have. But um another question and another thing that I wanted to to address is um and it pertains to this ordinance too. I would like to have a rebuttal um to the
earlier statement that um uh the uh our planner said that my statement about Mount Lauren not requiring additional bulan height is incorrect. The claim that Montrol Monturals the realistic zoning requirement forces village to
increase building height, bulk and mass is misleading. What the law actually requires is that zoning make affordable housing realistically possible. It doesn't have to be five stories. It can be three stories. I don't know why can't affordable affordable housing can't be at this three stories [music] height.
Not that the buildings made taller or larger than necessary. The courts do not set specific height which Beth I think you confirmed and not they do not set height, bulk or density rules. The choices are men with the municipality. Height and bulk are tools the village
may choose to use or may choose not to use as we see here to um to regulate the height but they are not legally required unless the village can show that more modest zoning. I have a one and a half paragraph more modest zoning would make
affordable housing impossible. Simply using the phrase realistic zoning do not by itself does not by itself justify large increases in building scale. Villages required to act in good faith and provide good zoning capacity but still retain the ability to choose
appropriate sites, set reasonable limits and follow the master plan when height and bulk increases go beyond what is needed to meet the obligation that reflect policy ch change and policy choice not a legal mandate. Thank you.
>> Thank you Natalia. Any others? >> Kelly [snorts] Morgan, Rididgewood resident. Um, couple of questions just to help clarify with the exhibits that have been up tonight. Are these available publicly anywhere on the the Ridgewood website?
>> What >> because what's cir what's circulating like any of the maps that have been shared and I if I have to sit down for the answer, I'll sit down and that's fine. But I'd like to know are number one my question is are these all of these exhibits that have been shown the
maps the the fear map the aside from like screenshots that are circulating around in text chains like where can we direct our neighbors to get this information that it's clear and it's labeled and they can zoom in and see their streets and figure out where they
land on the map. So that would be my first question. Where can we find this repository of information? The second if you can clarify because it's very late in the evening and my eyes are not working that great right now. What what those two buildings are that are I think
one is the town garage I would or the former town garage site I would just like clarity on that. Um if that's what the the hole is in the center and then if the other one is the NMA um if you can clarify that. Okay. Um, and the
third question that I had, um, was this also includes the Kensington site, I believe. So, how does that work? Does this We're all here to learn, and I don't know this. Does the Kensington plan, it's zoned for B1B2. Does this
ordinance that's coming in take precedent and then the S1 overlay would just go over that? Is that how that works? I I'm not sure what is priority with those. So, if somebody can clarify that, that would be great.
Good evening again, Ann Loving. Um, I have a couple of questions myself. further downtown like let's say um in the block of the between the post office and Walgreens
up above there are some offices. What you're proposing here if an if a property owner wants to put on a second or a third floor it's only going to be for housing or can it also be for offices? That's one question. Another
question is if you own a if you own a property in this area and it's a single height with a store or a restaurant and you want to build up let's say one floor or two floors, you might only be able to
get one or two apartments. How does the 20% work there? I mean, if you're if you're only putting up two apartments up over, you know, let's say, you know, where it's Greek to me used to be, then how,
you know, how does the 20% work there? And the other thing I'd like to say is I'd I'd like to reiterate what Shelley said so clearly. This is really bogus that this is going so late. You could definitely have done this in a separate hearing. People suggested it repeatedly.
We're all exhausted. You're exhausted, but it's your fault. You could have this could have You didn't start till nine o'clock with this. So, you know, this could be much earlier than it is now, and you're responsible for that. I'm I'm
sorry. Thank you, Ann. Andy Welch, Rididgewood resident. So, I haven't seen that map, but does that mean Kensington will be able to build higher than currently proposed 45 ft?
>> Anyone else? >> Um, Shelley Rothstein, resident. just just looking at that map and once again looking at our at our what our master plan says is an unsafe intersection
is that now those buildings the other buildings so Mavis Tire and the realy that it's in like a little house I think it's a Caldwell Banker so those potentially can be rebuilt with housing
on top and add more problems to this intersection than we're already going to have from an assisted living, which despite what Beth Mcmanis says is not going to cause as
much traffic as what's there now, which is false because what's there now are vacant buildings with exits onto North Maple. There will be no more exits onto North
Maple. Every bit of traffic from that assisted living will be on Franklin and Marshall. And that's the end. And an assisted living that operates 24/7 will have more traffic than what is
there now. And this again shows the little amount of time that you spent on site. because you failed to realize the object >> point of order that this is about this ordinance only and I asked the deputy mayor >> it's related because it deals with the
traffic at that intersection and allowing more housing to be built at that intersection without repairing the intersection which we all know we've talked till we're blue in the face the intersection is not
being repaired is adding more fuel to this fire. >> Thank you, Shel. >> Anyone else? >> Okay. Uh we have no remote public
speakers. Uh so, um close. >> I'm going to close close the hearing. >> Make a motion. >> I move to close the public hearing. >> I second it. Vortimer, >> yes. >> Karen,
>> yes. Whites, >> yes. >> Wiggrad, >> yes. Um, I move that the vote for ordinance 4074 be carried to February 11th, 2026. >> I second that. >> Mortimer, >> yes. >> Parin, >> yes. >> Whites, >> yes.
>> Wiggrad. >> Yes. >> So, Pam, I'm just going to go quickly with some things. Um, we don't I don't believe these maps are posted on the website, but we do have them if and you want to write us. We unless you want the
them printed on engineering documents that would require an Oprah, we could we can just send them to you. No problem. Just email us. Um, we even have I love these maps because they, you know, I was determined to put them up because they show the location. So, just email us. We'll get them to you. Um, I'm just
going to keep going because it's late. Um I have not participated in or taken part in any discussion to have any type of public parking utility for any type of housing. Um and um I just want to say again I apologize for the late hour but I do
want to say that we held second many many meetings to buffer this and get this in. And while this is not ideal because we have the business and the important ordinances, I do just want to remind the public that we did have a timeline imposed by the court. So again,
apologies. It's late for everybody. We did do our best. We put a third meeting on in December and we're going to do this and we're trying to be as expeditious as possible, but when we have the order of business for the village, which has to occur, like we have to make sure things keep going and
this it's just a it's a timeline. And I do agree it's been rushed, which is why we're going to move it to the 11th. But just as a gentle reminder, we did have the court come in in December and assign us a timeline. Um, so I think those are my only comments. >> Beth, did you want to Oh, I'm sorry.
>> I believe that the center gray square on that drawing is uh the town garage and the villages lot. And that that is the redevelopment zone. Yeah.
>> And I think Matt, you were the only person who was here when that was determined when that was set. >> Right. >> I think that's the redevelopment zone. And then the NMA, I don't remember, but I think it has special zoning. I forget
why. Um >> yeah, we can I mean ETH can answer those questions. I can answer them. >> All right. So, just to follow up on that, the uh the town garage area that is in the North Walnut Street redevelopment area, and that's why it's carved out of the B1B2 district. And
then, yes, the NMA site is in the B3R district, the R3. No, it's the B3R district. Uh, and that is one of the villages, uh, round three affordable housing sites. And so, that's why it's subject to special zoning. Beth, just to
go back to the north walnut piece, that is from corner to corner, right? From walnut to oak, >> correct? >> Correct. And that was just for the public edification. That was previously established by a prior council as a
redevelopment zone, which is why it was carved out of the B2B B1 B2 changes for tonight. >> Yes. >> Okay. Just want to be clear. >> And Beth, what about the carve out that's on South Broad Street? Oh, for the AH2 district that is the
Dayton building and that's uh that has its own zone district for the same re reason as the Noma site. It's a third round affordable housing >> and the Benjamin's carved out of it too even though it's on the outs outskirts of the >> Yes. >> Right. So all the all the third round
developments are excluded and the previously existing redevelopment zone for North Walnut is excluded. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Yeah. So, >> um, there were a couple there's several questions I heard and I think, uh, I
think part of the concern and the questions I'm hearing is really a lack of understanding about what's permitted today and and really what's what is permitted in these zone districts uh, even before the I think before the round three even occurred. And so these zone
districts, they already permit multiple stories today. Uh and to the question about whether or not offices or non-residential uses can be located on the upper stories. Yes, that's that's permitted uh today and has been in place for quite some time. So the the
standards are such that uh if there's no inclusionary development proposed, the maximum building height is 45 ft. >> And when you say inclusionary, you mean >> it's a m yeah mix of market rate and affordable units. So essentially, if you're going to do upper story residences, if you if you include a uh
if you do not include affordable housing, you're limited to 45 ft. Um if you include affordable units, the maximum building height goes to 50 ft. And that's been in place now for perhaps seven years or so. Um it also this
ordinance has no impact. It does not change the permitted height, the permitted uses, the various bulk standards in the district. It has no impact, no change to those. The only thing it does is it changes the density
and it changes the set aside for rental developments in the sense that it goes from 18 to 20 units an acre except for South that small portion of South Broad Street which goes to 24. Um, and it allows for or requires a 20% set aside
whether the units are for rent or for sale. There are no other changes to the zoning district. And so with this uh with these density standard changes of uh 18 to 20 units an acre. If it's a halfacre lot just as an example this
means that today the lot can be developed with nine units. If this ordinance is adopted it would go to 10 units. So one additional unit. And oddly enough because of rounding if it's a quarter acre property today it can be developed with four units. If this ordinance is adopted it can go to five
units. So, still one additional unit and the uh 24 unit per acre portion of South Broad Street that permits a total of 11 additional units beyond the 20%. So, that's the the impact of that increase
set aside. Another uh aspect of this ordinance which does not change is the parking. So, parking is required to be provided for residential and non-residential uses. today. It would continue to do so or be required if this ordinance is adopted. Um,
in terms of the Kensington zoning, it's not a conflict. So, what we have is that the Kensington ordinance will be an overlay to the uh the existing B2 district. The B2 district will be amended if the council adopts this and it will allow for uh an increased uh
increased density, increased affordable housing set aside and that will just simply apply to the property. Uh and the S1 overlay ordinance would also apply to the property. So the developer would be able to uh if both ordinances are adopted would be able to construct the
assisted living consistent with the S1 overlay. if they chose not to, they would be able to construct commercial or mixeduse development consistent with the B2 district uh as may be adopted. Um,
somebody asked how how does the 20% set aside work with a really small project such as maybe two units. Well, if you're getting access to that increased density and uh increased height, you know, going to 20 units an acre, uh going up to the
50 feet that is permitted, then not less than 20% of your units need to be affordable. And what that means is that one out of two of those units will need to be affordable. And yes, that's a 50% set aside. But the alternative is that
none of the units are affordable. and that is a 0% set aside and that means they don't get access to the to the enhanced zoning. Um, and then I I just want to reiterate I really think it's a it's a it's a mischaracterization to s
to suggest that bulk standard changes whether it's height, density, uh, etc. are not necessary if Mount if it's for Mount Laurel and inclusionary housing. I think that's that's the allegation, but um it's really a mischaracter
misccharacterization. So yes, affordable housing can be in a three-story building, but it municipalities can only regulate and permit that three-story building if that building will create a realistic opportunity. If the zoning that exists today or the buildings that
exist today already permit let's say a three-story building municipality cannot simply add a 20% set aside or even a 10% set aside to the building. It it it simply doesn't work. It does not create a realistic opportunity. It does not provide the compensatory benefit. So,
you've got to be able to adjust the zoning uh in order to create an incentive for creation of the affordable housing units by the developer. It's just it is it is fundamental to this mount laurel process and KOA's rules and
the Fair Housing Act. Um and then I I think those were all the the notes I had, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Yeah, just for the record, I think these were issues that needed to be addressed by Beth. I don't there wasn't anything that I I could call, you know, add to
that and I think um certainly answered them all. >> Um there was a question about the King's Shopping Center, Matt, like could that become housing? >> Um I suppose with the developer eventually it might be able to become
housing. Yes. I mean, but the like, you know, the likelihood and when that might happen. There's no way of telling that. You need somebody who wants to buy the shopping center, buy that whole area. And um and we be doing something similar to what we're doing right now. So,
>> this ordinance really doesn't change that. They could go up a story, they could redevelop that. They could do it as it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And at this point, I think we go back to public comment. Thank you. Um, I'm Amy Richard
residence. Um, I just want to clarify because I there were comments that I only lived here. I I came from an orphanage in Colombia in 1979 to Ridgwood. The only time I left this town was to join the Marine Corps and and and
serve this country. And I came back to Rididgewood because I loved it. But I've lived here for 40 years. Um, I love this town and it's changed so much and I hate what I see, what's happening to the residents, to the people. In the Marine
Corps, I was surrounded by the best, the finest leaders. And then I come back and Mayor Veanos, the way you speak to the residents, a year in the Marine Corps would have done you really well. You you put them
down. You fear-monger them. It's it's it's disgusting. You literally blame them for all the other ordinances by saying that they forced you to vote no and now it's they're basically
gaslighting them. It's it's insane. Um military should be mandatory for these reasons. Uh, I wanted to speak about transparency because if you want a clear example of how it breaks down in this town, you can look at Shedler, which is where I was involved and still involved.
It's not just a project. It's a pattern. Um, a pattern of information released in fragments instead of full context. A pattern of reinsuranceing disclosure, a pattern of residents being told not to worry while fundamental questions still remain unanswered.
questions about soil conditions condition on uh questions about environmental review long-term impacts. Currently, still to this day, there has been no publicly presented comprehensive storm water management plan for Shedler. There has been no completed publicly vetted environmental impact study
presented to this community that evaluates the full scope of the environmental consequences before division uh decisions were advanced. There's been no traffic study. Those are not opinions. Those are absences by you. When a project of this scale moves forward without a transparent storm
water plan and without an environmental impact study and traffic study um disclosed to the public, it's not oversight. That's a choice that you made as our so-called leaders. And when residents dared to ask about those gaps, they were not answered with documents.
They were answered with assurances or they were gaslit. That's not transparency. That's control. When residents got close to stopping each other, when scrutiny increased and people began connecting the dots, your behavior changed. Positions stopped being used to inform. Instead, you
weaponized your positions, which is the ultimate betrayal. This matters beyond Shedler because the same lack of transparency now shows up in discussions about Kensington. Residents are told projects are necessary. They're told there's no alternatives. As I said, our mayor uses fear and blame tactics,
gaslighting the public by saying because you asked us to vote no, all the other issues arrived. It's our fault. You're told that impacts are minimal, but again, details arrive late and the context is narrow. But to the public, I am so proud of you all um to to be
united and step up and be here at 1:30 a.m. You could have done better, but mayor, again, it's it's it's you have there's always an excuse. I'd love to see like real leadership from you. We really would. Um, but I don't think we're going to. Um,
good faith welcomes scrutiny. Good faith answers questions. Good faith does not require the public to fight for basic information. As for Shedler, right now, believe it's inevitable, but it's not. The momentum is already decided. That belief is what failed this council before
>> when we stay engaged. So, just stay engaged. Keep showing up. They will do everything to try and stop you. But I'm so proud of you all. >> Thank you, Amy. Hi, John. >> Good morning. This is John Fry, North Irving Street.
So, indeed, I think we all know at this point that whatever change is made here, it's a very pivotal change here for the town. It's really going to affect us in the long term. Um, the fair share housing experience, nobody seems to like the idea. um except
for we're happy to support the people that need it as far as the lowincome housing, but the whole concept that the developers are pushing out on us, that really sucks and the fact that the state is behind this really. I guess our votes
really matter in the Trenton department here. I do wonder who's going to be responsible though for all the actions that all the new development over the next years, however long this takes to actually for all these homes to be built. You know, it might be a 10-year
program before they're actually all in place, but how that's going to affect all of our infrastructure that we have now. Um, you know, if we talk about the 115 residents here at Kensington and maybe another 100 or 200 families moving into the these other apartments, it's
going to have a huge that becomes significant numbers in our town. And one of the very simple ones to me is every spring or every summer we're all underwater restrictions. Well, we know that the Ridgewood Water Department, I mean, they work hard pumping that water out and they're filtering it and doing
their thing and we appreciate that and we obviously keep investing in their operation. But with our our growing town, Glen Rock's growing town, Waldwick's growing town, Midland Parks, or whatever other towns that they're supplying water to
and that whole whole relationship and how we work with the other towns who have reservoirs. Are we going to be short on water? You know, that's just one example of gez, what's going to happen here as we start to add all these additional people in or are we going to be like Arizona and we just can't water
our lawns at all during the summer? Um, I don't know. I don't know how that plays. Yeah, the voting here, um, it definitely is going to forever change the community. In a lot of meetings, I hear instead of
the word change, I hear destroy. And I think that that's the sentiment that's coming from the gut of people that were really having a a hard time with it. So, we've got to figure out a way to make it so this community can all work and do
things. That's why I encourage if we can figure out a way to uh create more direct input, direct conversation. >> John, could you wrap it up? >> Excuse me. >> Could you wrap it up? Oh, it's one more minute. I'm sorry, my mistake. >> Okay. I want to go home, too.
I expect every u one of the comments that was made to me earlier was they expect everyone on the council has felt a little bit of a sigh of relief that their home is nowhere near the Kensington site. I know some of you have been near some other sites that things have happened you might not have been
happy with but that's a real you know that's a sentiment there. Good night. Good morning. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Ridgewood resident. Um I know before I
made to my move to my main conclusion point I wanted to address um on some of the uh um comments that were with regards to I believe specifically Kensington site maybe other um sites as
well is that a lot of those instances where we change the zoning we actually don't really change the height don't really change the lot coverage ratio But we are changing the the character of
the building and what we are not taking into consideration is certain other things that maybe we didn't implement in the zoning like continuous facade limit. If we are forced to add stories,
how do we make it that the village remains a village, not a hoboken or hackin sack, right? Continuous facade limit if we don't have it now. That's maybe the the time what we can better spend preventing things from being
forced on us the way they are because we would already have that ordinance regulating that, right? the same for the I don't know if we have that floor area ratio for the Kensington site. Is that the same? Because right now majority of
that uh lot coverage ratio is a parking lot. It's not going to be after this ordinance is passed. But um so that's that's kind of like these small main point uh points before. But uh to
conclude um I just wanted to step back and look at the full picture right residents are not here tonight to oppose uh to oppose affordable housing or specific ordinance. I mean except for the Kensington because it's so massive but we are looking to restrict any kind
of massive feel that these ordinance bring to to the village. Um we see across these ordinances increased building heights ex that exceed typical residential norms, higher density F in downtown and commercial districts,
villagewide baseline changes that will apply to future projects and afford affordability requirements that without firm caps will be used to justify even more scale in the name of feasibility and in the name of future rounds for the
Mount Laurel. But um one thing and I I think I've already mentioned that but I do you know in the other speech I think opening one but I do want a clear on there response from the uh village
council or attorney is with this clarifying question the specific aspect of four fourth round affordable housing compliance. What what specific round or what specific a aspect of affordable um
housing compliance for the fourth round requires village to increase the height, density and the bulk um beyond the existing standards rather than adoptive adopting objective controls that I mentioned already. And I want I want to um pass for the record the notes that
kind of summarize what I spoke to tonight. 30 seconds. Uh >> don't you think it would have been appropriate to announce the primary vendor here was conducting surveillance
at this meeting without participating? >> My only question. >> I don't know what that means. >> Oh. Oh >> public meetings. Anybody on Zoom? Okay. Um, we're gonna Is there anybody else in
the room who wants to speak? All right. We'll go now to remote uh speakers. Roric Halib, you're up. >> Uh, Roric Halib, 55 year village resident. Uh a couple of
comments uh to people who complain about the uh being forced to stay up late uh in in in the courtroom. Uh you do have something
called Zoom and I have been enjoying this meeting watching it on Zoom on my iPad which I mirror to my TV. So I'm in bed watching every word that's been said. So uh uh and Zoom is something
that the four of you, five of you are responsible for. It's a it's a great way of bringing in uh people from around the village and frankly uh all over the place. This is one. Uh the second thing
is one thing I admire about the five of you is that yes, you are transparent. Yes, you are honest. No, you do not lie. You are people of the highest integrity, but you do stand for what is good, what
needs to be done for Rididgewood long term. And it's it's ironic that eight years ago uh the first time I heard about Kensington was when they wanted to
build their facility at the at the uh on on Broad Street, but there's a split vote on the council because one member, the third vote, just couldn't stand the idea of the poor village residents who
had were facing so much change that they couldn't face any more change. So that person kicked the can down the road which to me is absolute cowardice. The third point I want to make and the
last point and Evan I apologize to you and the rest of you and this is a question for Matt Rogers. I wish there is a way we could change the designation of the town we live in from the village
of Rididgewood to the township of Rididgewood. There is nothing villagy about the village of Rididgewood. Out of 500 municipalities in New Jersey, the densest state in the union,
we are at at 26,000 people. We are the 100th largest [snorts] municipality in New Jersey. We have a budget between the school and and the municipality of 200 million. Nothing villagy about the
so-called village of Rididgewood. Yes, we have a lot of charm, but believe me, you have to do things to maintain the charm. And for instance, the the big battles that took place
way back when they wanted to build these apartments to replace boarded up uh car dealerships. Nothing charming about boarded up car dealerships. Anyway, to the five of you as a 56 year resident of
Ridgewood, I say thank you for doing the tough things that you do and thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. >> Thank you, Rick. Anybody on the deis feel to respond? Yeah, I'm going to close public comment
and does anybody on the day feel the need to respond? I >> think we've set it up tonight. >> I was just going to add one thing with just because to answer the question in terms of the B1B2 aesthetics um a significant portion of that is in the
historical district. So when you talk about facades um in that zone which is the historical district there there will be reviews on aesthetics there. motion. >> Okay, motion. >> Who wants to make a motion?
>> You need a motion. >> Do it. >> So move to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you.