How many children are in the existing Oak Street and Maple Avenue apartments? I have no idea, but I think that they would be a decent comparison to start with.

transit-oriented developments in towns like Montclair, South Orange, Cranford and Maplewood may also account for part of the reason why their crime rate is almost 3x that of Ridgewood.

All one needs to do is look at the RHS HSA phone book to see that many kids live in the apartments located throughout town (Oak, Franklin, Maple, E. Ridgewood Ave., Broad, Ridge Rd., etc). This project most certainly will attract families with children and the developers need to address how this will impact schools, budgets, etc.

Eastside Dad is right. We have other apartment complexes in town. The answer is simple to determine. We don't need an expert to tell us how many children or for that matter how many cars are going to stem from the project. How many children and cars per 50 units do the other apartment complexes in town produce? I am a trial attorney who has had a lot of experience with expert witnesses. You can I will find you an expert to say the moon is made of cheese. They are all for sale. Don't trust their expert.

The Bergen Record is reporting today that a very similar project is on the table in Ramsey. It's right next to the Rt 17/Ramsey train stop. The ratio of spots to tenants is much higher.

So, in addition to the 4 new projects in Ridgewood how many other high density living proposals are there in works along the train line?

We can't live in a bubble, these will impact what is happening here!

Stephen Madonna

If these apartments are going to be larger and more luxurious than existing rentals, I think there is a good chance the number of children who live there may be higher than a simple comparative analysis would suggest. With taxes so high, and still a lot of uncertainties over housing and the economy IMO, many families could see new apartments as a viable alternative.

However, lets be realistic. The Tiger team report is scary to say the least, and if this is a stable source of revenues, we need it.

You hire a consultant to sell your side of the argument. It's the nature of the game. A Town like Ridgewood, with it's reputation for quality schools, is going to attract a large number of families with school age children. Unless it is limited to an over 55 development, expect lots of kids

It seems that whenever some massive project comes before the Planning Board, its supporters profess that there will be no impact on traffic. Such claims fly in the face common sense and raise credibility issues with the rest of their plan.

So many concerns, hard to list here. One is the expert's findings. I know they are sworn in as "experts", but I agree with comments above, that one can hire experts that can intentionally support a perspective. Our Village Planner's answers on many concerns are vague, with little critical questioning and some Planning Board and Council members had already previously advocated for large-scale housing developments - risking the many possible downsides of four unprecedented, extremely large housing development in our congested CBD before the effects of one can be seen.

I am skeptical of the experts findings as they seem to defy common sense. How can these developments, creating so many housing units (2 at already dire intersections and the other 2 on busy streets that feed these intersections), cause negligible traffic -- fixed just by new traffic lights, e.g. with an entrance/exit at the train trestle? One expert says he predicts no traffic impact at the Ken Smith site based traffic in and out of the (little patronized) car dealership, at 7:30 a.m.

Other "experts" argue (and it seems our Planner accepts both these arguments) we should make these Master Plan changes based on a claim that the developments will only generate 3 to 9 schoolchildren, going by the experience of transit-area housing in towns with much less desirable school systems. And that pedestrian safety won't be impacted. To name a few.

So we should make Master plan changes to permit all four?

The article left out that these units were developed in towns like Montclair, East Orange , Maplewood and Cranford. Of course their statistics will be skewed.No one moves to these towns for their schools. People will move to these apartments solely for the reason of a child's education at a reduced rate. My son has multiple friends whose parents moved from other towns to the apartments on the West side just to go to the High School.
The traffic and tax burden will be tremendous , not to mention the Village Council chooses to raise our taxes every chance they get.

One aspect of the project not addressed here is the aesthetic impact. It is a massive building with a maximum height that soars to 70+ feet! What will these projects do to the "curb appeal" of our town.
This past weekend we hosted 6 families for dinner; 2 from Ridgwood, the rest from out of town. When discussing how and why people chose to move to Ridgewood the term "charming downtown" was used over and over. It influences buying decisions and the introduction of large, looming, urban-style builings will influence all of our future sales.

James:
My notes show that the lower section of the roof would be over 50 feet - - closer to 55 - - and the tower is about 75 feet. The testimony was coming fast, so my notes could be off, but I think both levels are higher than you report above.

What would happen if the developer went bankrupt or otherwise had financial problems? It's happened before. Would Ridgewood be left with a half finished project of an eyesore? What if the units were not rented out 100% would the developer then abandon the property if they were no longer able to afford to run it with 50% occupancy? How solid is their financing?

So, a lower-than-55 foot main building wouldn't be feasible (and thus a lower parapet above)? Could one less floor here create less traffic -- which so many of us worry about -- at the already difficult trestle intersection and on Franklin Ave; less pedestrian risk; and less possibility of potential parking deficiencies, school burdens, congestion, and aesthetic change in the village?

Taken together with the three other large proposed developments now considered as the basis of Master Plan revisions, wouldn't significant reductions in size still mean a load of new housing in Ridgewood? And wouldn't they still net a marked increase in shoppers (hoping some existing ones aren't driven away by traffic) as well as tax ratables -- a rationale for the developments advanced by some in the village?

Has the Planning Board or Planner conducted or commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of trade-offs here? I admit I focussed on all this only recently -- just grasping the scope and pace of change -- like many residents, and as many stil haven't. So I may have missed this. But, as part of such a cost-benefit, has our town done a financial analysis projecting net municipal budget resources (a common rationale for this rapid wide-scale development), weighing various total counts of new apartments in town? When there are so many risks, I'd assume such an analysis has naturally been conducted (James, do you know if it has?) and if so can residents see it at this time?

I think that the concerns about height and architectural impact are overblown. There are already tall buildings near the site of the proposed Maple Av project and the Ken Smith lot project would only be a little higher than nearby buildings and would replace a vacant car dealership, which seems like an aesthetic upgrade. To me, there are two real issues with all of these large projects: additional traffic and the impact on property taxes. How much additional traffic will they generate on a percentage basis (compared to what we already have at those intersections), and can this be mitigated by adding an extra entrance to each project? More important, what will be the cost of the additional children to the school budget compared to the incremental property taxes revenue from the projects. In my opinion, everything else is a sideshow. Those two questions are what really matter.

I think it costs about $15,000 per year per student in Ridgewood, and there are about 17 pedestrians hit in town each year. But hey, the expert hired by the developer said there will only be three to nine school children added and no traffic impact. On another note, I'm currently selling the Goethals Bridge. It's a little rickety and old, but a real money maker. And I'm letting to go dirt cheap. Hit me up if anybody is interested.

What concerns me is the pace at which this is moving. It seems that there are parties involved who want to rush it through before enough people are aware of it to question it. The variances they are asking for are quite significant, in terms of changing the ratio of square footage per acre and the height of the buildings. I believe downtown is currently zoned for 12 units per acre and these proposals for new apartment buildings are asking for it to be changed to something like 37 units per acre. All of us who live here no how bad the traffic and parking situation is downtown, and these proposed projects will only make it worse. This process needs to be slowed down and approached in a far more thoughtful manner with analysis done by independent parties so the information we receive allows us to make educated decisions.

More developing, more urbanization of Ridgewood. Any councilmember of the planning board voting to approve this expansion of ridgewood which will increase our taxes should be voted out of office. Some of us moved here and loved it went we had a small town feeling...

LOL... I LOVE IT!!! The builder hires a few "experts" to generate findings that supports their client's case. I wouldn't of never seen that coming!! (I don't fault them)..
As I was once told by a GREAT judge... "In every argument/debate there is no truth, there are no lies, just data to be manipulated and opinions to twisted". The ONLY thing funnier would be if they hired experts and they got up there and said that it WAS going to generate more children in our schools and more cars on our streets! LOL

Just a data point - according to the website schooldigger.com, out of 558 ranked school districts in New Jersey, Cranford is #116, S. Orange - Maplewood is #183 and Montclair is #219. Ridgewood is # 19. Based on these numbers, I'm pretty sure we'd see an increase of more than 10 kids.

If you want to make downtown Ridgewood look like downtown Newark or Hoboken, then sure go ahead.

It is weird that I have never heard of any singles or young couples just dying to move to Ridgewood but not being able to because of high costs. All forums are full of people with kids looking to move to Ridgewood for the school system.

But no. Apparently some singles will magically appear in downtown Ridgewood.

Matt Allen:
I, a single woman, have been wanting to move to Ridgewood for sometime. I finally did but I'm consistently dismayed by all the NOT IN MY BACK YARD comments I read on this site. It's disturbing, xenophobic, and downright inhospitable. Ridgewood is a great town. People- single and those with children- want to live in great towns such as this. And they, like you and me, will pay out the nose to live in towns such as this. Live and let live!

First, the entire town should vote on whether we want to become a city. No one wants 4 developments at once. Traffic and congestion will be a nightmare. The towns developers are citing, So Orange, Maplewood, Montclair and Cranford may all be great but they are all semi Urban,None of their schools rank with Ridgewood, have much higher crime and many are leaving for private schools. I did not move here for the urban flavor. I will return to NYC when I want that. Experts are paid to say anything.

This sounds like a traffic and pedestrian nightmare, if ingress and egress to the development are on or near the busy Franklin Avenue-Broad Street intersection. With some imagination and planning, can't the entrance and exit be placed elsewhere?

Make it a 55 plus age requirement complex.....it's a win for the developers and a win for taxpayers (increased revenue in the coffers).

Could the town please do a cost-benefit analysis with a projection of tax revenues (using a comparable value or comparable selling price or tax ratables (and/or rents if that affects it -- assuming various levels of occupancy) May our town leaders or Board members PLEASE do this, as long as they keep referencing these and the other developments and overlay zone as a main rationale for taking all these risks of traffic, congestion, pedestrian safety, and possible school budget costs (let's be honest, no one knows for sure about any of these things, and especially if the town "overlay zones" Ridgewood's Master Plan for four of these developments at once?

Unless this i known, It confounds me -- and many of the people I talk to around town -- how our Planner could make plans to accomodate all this, or the Planning Board could ever vote on it, or invite any informed public reaction at the hearings?

Or if the town somehow won't do it, an open-minded careful media person do their own investigation/projection on this? It is one of the two bases of doing all this (that and promoting more shopping in town, but that two is risked if traffic is affected and current shoppers deterred).

Finally, can anyone truly trust the projections of the developers' own optimistic projections on this (no traffic impact, no pedestrian safety impact, no school impact? Are the Planner and Board, even Council, getting all the facts that would drive such a huge, permanent change in town?)

Back in the late 80s, the Ridgewood school system had many more kids than they do now. In other words, don't blame your opposition to development on an increase in kids.

And as fas as pedestrians and traffic, bring it on. Anything that will slow down the speeders on Ridgewood Avenue and Franklin is to our good. And maybe even the cops will start to enforce the speed laws after a couple of more people are hit while trying to cross the street.

Drink up.

We had more kids then and it worked. Now we have more administrators and it doesn't work. And our taxes are higher.

Drink up.

And anything that slows down traffic on Franklin and diverts it elsewhere sounds good to me.

Drink up.

And watch out for those dogs.

Next planning board meeting regarding the developments in the CBD is Wednesday January 23rd at 7:30, 4th floor Village Hall. Everyone should go and find out for themselves how they feel.