News Alert
UPDATE: Massive Berkeley Brush Fire Nearly…

Developer Hopes Luxury Apartments Will Replace Brogan Cadillac Lot

Developer proposes 120-unit luxury complex to replace Brogan Cadillac lot; planning board has questions on a myriad of preliminary details

A real estate company says a could pay big dividends for the village, and it unveiled initial plans to the Ridgewood Planning Board on Tuesday night.

Professionals from Garden Homes, based out of Short Hills, NJ, offered up for consideration a 42,570 foot "reverse E"-shaped facility with 120 units and 180 parking spaces at the site of Brogan Cadillac on South Broad Street.

A proposed three and four story high project with parking enclosed on site, "The Dayton"–named in memory of one of Ridgewood's founding fathers, Samuel Dayton–would need to go through a battery of zoning processes, including a Master Plan amendment with planning board and council approval, before construction could potentially begin.

"This is a particularly exciting project," said applicant attorney Tom Wells. "I think it is a project that involves building a rampart building in Ridgewood."

Wells said the Tudor-style building would fit "right into the character of Ridgewood."

After Brogan Cadillac's Ridgewood site closed in 2008, Garden Homes singled the current commuter parking lot out for development, conducted numerous market and environmental studies and has an agreement to be a contract purchaser, according to Director of Development Scott Loventhal. The decommisioning process to remove lifts and underground tanks was completed in September, he said.

Applicant says there's a market for luxury, maintaining roots

While there are multi-family developments available in Ridgewood, there's nothing with "the level of service we can provide," Loventhal remarked, adding research tells Garden Homes that luxury units between $2,000 and $4,000 are desirable in the village. Garden Homes proposes 44 one-bedroom apartments, with 76 two-bedroom apartments and 12 affordable housing units.

Situated between the Columbia Bank to the north, a Brogan garage (which is not part of the development project) to the south and the railroad tracks to the north, Garden Homes representatives believe they came up with a sensible plan to mitigating the railroads impacts. Plan specs show the building spanning a wide spot on Broad Street with unit windows designed not to overlook the railroad, Loventhal said.

The units, complete with wood flooring, high-end appliances, granite countertops and laundry, would be between 900 and 1,600 square feet and would flank from a centralized lobby.

Many residents want to keep their Ridgewood ties, Loventhal said. "They may want a summer home, they may have a house elsewhere, they may simply want to downsize as their kids move on. And they want this type of housing."

Show your work?

Planning board members were curious as to the studies Loventhal cited. Member Constantino Suriano asked if those studies would be submitted to the board. Because they're "internal documents" they would not, Loventhal said though many of the points in the studies would be explored in an attempt to prove to the boards a zoning change is appropriate.

Member Jane Shinuzoka appeared suspicious that units so expensively priced would be as desirable as the applicants contended. Loventhal brushed aside concerns, saying they've been in the game for a while and remain convinced the market is strong.

Potential parking problems?

Parking appeared a concern as well. Plans show parking would be enclosed within the structure at grade; each unit would have a dedicated parking spot and there would be 60 remaining spots for spillover. Councilwoman Bernadette Walsh, also a planning board member, noted that it's possible the parking provided won't be enough and the Hudson lot would be flooded. The applicants rejected that theory. Loventhal said tenants are expected to understand the constraints of living in a one or two bedroom apartment mean fewer vehicles. Besides, given the train station nearby, he said he believed many tenants wouldn't even have cars.

Member Kevin Reilly asked if Garden Homes had considered making parking below grade, which would have the added effect of lowering the building height, which he noted might appear "a castle on a hill" at somewhere north of 60 feet. Economically, Loventhal said, it wasn't feasible given ground water analysis studies and other costs associated with such a move.

Leave the kids at home and go to the park?

Walsh also stated that the amount of green space is quite minimal. In response, Loventhal said the expectation is the residents would be utilizing the village's own parks for recreation. Though there was landscaping in the front of the space for visual effect, Loventhal also said the minimalist landscaping was a purposeful commitment – the proposal doesn't aim to encourage families with kids to move in under the theory of "if you build it they will come."

Residents often condemn multi-family building projects under the banner it would tax the school system. Oddly, there was little discussion on the potential impact on the school system Tuesday night.

Traffic improved with plan?

Although conventional wisdom might pre-suppose a minimum of 200 new residents in a densely compacted development might increase traffic, the applicants say just the contrary.

"Currently there are 76 commuters that are parking at this site on a daily basis," Loventhal said, much of which generates rush hour traffic. "You will see that traffic we are going to generate with our proposed use will not even exceed the current traffic that is currently generated at this site."

The traffic engineer did not testify on Tuesday.

Wells also conceded the density level was far greater than local ordinance stipulates (nearly double) and the height of the proposed building would be similarly several stories above allowed residential zoning code. He defended that the 'vibrancy' it would bring to the downtown businesses would be tremendous and also stated the village's original ordinance standards on bulk restrictions are "unrealistic" given the economic realities of building in today's economy.

Lack of 'flexibility' in plans?

Member Richard Joel remarked the plans were well-conceived but also noted that there didn't appear a lot of flexibility on the part of the developers. He asked if there had been any other "less intensive" design alternatives and in response, Loventhal stated the company would "rather come in with certainty rather than be wishy-washy." Loventhal rebuffed ideas to move the property further back from the street due to grading issues that would require retaining walls be built. He later added that Garden Homes understood there's a give-and-take process and plans were not set in stone.

It's not the first time the planning board has heard a proposal for an "anchor bookend." John Saraceno presented a mixed-use development on the other end of Ridgewood's downtown at the site of the Sealfons building. But this will be no mixed use space, the applicants contend.

The office market is already oversatured and mixed-use development, Loventhal said, would be a poor fit at this site. "From our perspective there are simply too many vacancies in much greater locations for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. To create more retail in what is the fringe of the downtown, there is no place for it."

The next hearing will be on November 15. Should the project eventually be green-lighted by the planning board and council, a developer's agreement would need to be approved for construction to commence.

Michael Sedon October 08, 2011 at 04:40 PM
Boyd's right. Ridgewood has a reputation for its school system, and young professional families might move in and start having kids, thus negating any gains from the additional property taxes. It costs about $14,000 a year to educate one child. Developers for these things always claim that people with kids will never move into their apartments, or their 120 proposed units will generate six additional kids in the school system. I always question that logic since anyone planning a family usually does some research into where they will move and where their future children will be educated.
Boyd A. Loving October 08, 2011 at 05:38 PM
Case in point; how many families with school aged children live in the rental apartments on Oak Street, and in the rental units on East Ridgewood Avenue between RHS and Maple Avenue?
emptynester October 08, 2011 at 06:30 PM
I agree bring in good ratables and reduce the tax burden
OHW October 08, 2011 at 06:58 PM
How can any one call an apartment "luxury" when it's ten feet from an active commuter railroad?
Lawrence October 08, 2011 at 07:44 PM
Families with kids will live here; at least while the kids are younger. It's highly unlikely that the taxes generated by these apartments would cover the costs of sending the kids to school. 85% of your tax bill is school taxes. Let's say each apartments pays $10K in taxes or $8,500 in school taxes. That's enough to send .5 chilren to RPS. The benefits will be far outweighed by the detriments. The ratables received will NEVER exceed the cost in terms of schooling these kids. We will be operating in the red.
Dan Johnson October 08, 2011 at 08:36 PM
Bring in the people. Even bring in the kids. Ridgewood is a vibrant community. Let's keep it that way. There will be ratables. There will be more people walking and shopping downtown. And there will be a very nice looking building that fits in.
John Hahn October 08, 2011 at 09:03 PM
OHW. Luxury can be achieved in many ways. I think being steps from a train to NYC is part of the draw.
James Kleimann October 08, 2011 at 09:10 PM
Correct; should have clarified, I meant the Ridgewood site went belly-up. Thanks. You're correct – the trend is certainly the highway.
James Kleimann October 08, 2011 at 09:12 PM
The layout shows windows would not be facing the railroad tracks. Sound might be an issue, though as John Hahn just pointed out, many would likely find the train being just a 45-second walk very appealing.
RdgwdGRock October 08, 2011 at 10:30 PM
build it baby, build it
Bernadette Walsh October 08, 2011 at 11:42 PM
@Boyd - Mayor Killion is VC Liaison to BOE. BOE was notified prior to meeting regarding application.
Boyd A. Loving October 09, 2011 at 12:39 AM
Councilwoman Walsh: Your comment seems to suggest that just notifying the BOE is good enough. I stand by my original comment above; that is, there is no formal process currently in place to ensure BOE analysis/review of major housing developments under consideration by the Planning Board. A project of this sort should not be voted on by Planning Board members until formal input is received from the BOE regarding impact to classroom capacities.
Gary J Negrycz October 09, 2011 at 02:08 PM
The project is too high it is inconsistent with the village scale two bedroom units generate 2 cars the requirements for low cost housing are still out there as is the existing deficit the valley hospital 68 unit deficit The Rte property deficit. Let's not let the lore of increased tax rateables cloud good judgement 120 units at the rents they want is 240 adults equals 240 cars Three million per year yields a 7 to 9 million project it will end up low cost housing with subsidies not what we need
AMAMOM October 09, 2011 at 07:09 PM
RWoodGuy, I would have agreed with you IF I hadn't seen the large amount of kids unloaded off school buses on Oak Street. Those 1 and 2 BR apartments are home to many, many, many families with young children. The trend seems to be, the elderly are moving out of the apartments and young families are moving in. Some folks don't care if 3 kids sleep in one room IF it means they get a good education AND live in a safe town.
nannyv October 09, 2011 at 08:54 PM
These are rentals. The renters will pay NO taxes!
John Hahn October 09, 2011 at 09:31 PM
NANNYV Trust me Renters pay taxes. Just not directly. What this project is is a highly ratable property. THe owners of the property will pay property taxes.
RdgwdGRock October 10, 2011 at 01:55 AM
correct, the property owner(s) will be paying taxes. build this right away!
GR350 October 10, 2011 at 09:08 AM
Apartments in a transit hub area are a very attractive idea....but seems much too tall for the area. And it's so wide that it doesn't fit into the developer's drawing....or at least as reproduced here.. A good idea but way too large.
John Hahn October 10, 2011 at 09:17 PM
This exchange is good. Remember this is a proposal. What comes of it will be determined by what the planning board says, how the economy is & more. The height & size will most likly change as the plan solidifies.
James Kleimann October 10, 2011 at 09:21 PM
To clarify, this is not something that would be built anytime soon. The proposal first must be vetted and approved by the planning board. It would then go to the council and finally, a developer's agreement would need to be signed (assuming both the council and planning board approve a zoning change). Nothing is absolute in this project, though as noted in the article, it's the only proposal currently on the table. The next hearing is on November 12. Thanks for the great discussion, folks.
Rob Harold October 11, 2011 at 04:15 PM
I am concerned that the developer is reluctant to disclose the studies they rely upon in making their application. A "just trust me" attitude isnt very persuasive. Furthermore, the claim that the traffic increase from the development would be entirely offset by the decrease in traffic from removing the present commuter parking seems to ignore that weekends, when the village center is most busy, has very little commuter parking on the Brogan lot. And the claim that many residents of the proposed development would not have a car because they could rely on the nearby train station is ludicrous. Does anybody shop for groceries and other necessities by foot or train? This plan is clearly a bad idea. Ridgewood needs to protect its long term interests in keeping this a livable village and not be suckered by a reckless development.
John Hahn October 11, 2011 at 06:16 PM
Rob Harold. Yes people do not shop by train. But there are 3 major grocery stores in RWD. I know at least one offers on line shopping. It sounds like you would rather not have a plan for the space rather than start with a plan and adjust to something that most will think works. I saw give it a look and see if it indeeds fits in the space and community. Perhaps too there can be a change in the way people procure goods. I for one will watch this plan with interest.
Gary J Negrycz October 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Ask the people who Live on Linwood Ave and the Streets adjacent to Valley if they think the Planning Board Works for the Village or as one of their experts repeatedly stated it's for the good of the region regretably promising a second or third bite at the apple is not a viable stategy for preserving the Quaity of the Village Tell the Developer the Scale is wrong and come back with a viable plan
Anonymous Guy October 12, 2011 at 03:34 PM
The question becomes where is the right place for development and how big a development. Is this project right or the Sealfons redevelopment right? Or is there another site that would be deemed more acceptable?
emptynester October 12, 2011 at 05:01 PM
When was the last good building project in Ridgewood? We need something Nice on the Brogan site. We need tax relief. We need people to support our business's. This proposal is better than a box store. It brings traffic less than the old Brogan building did. If not this what? And yes, it may have some kids however this type of building is not conducive to children.
Rob Harold October 13, 2011 at 02:50 PM
To Mr. Hahn. My objection to this proposed development does not imply opposition to any new use of the Brogan lot. I walk past the lot twice a day. I would like to see something other than an empty buiding and an empty expanse of asphalt. But this current proposal is out of scale and will greatly increase traffic. Traffic is already an issue on South Broad and the village center generally. We should expect that anyone moving into these new apartments will already have a car. Anybody with a car, will use that car. Online shopping from the supermarkets would be a negligible if non-existent reduction of traffic attributable to this new development. To imagine otherwise strains credibility.
John Hahn October 13, 2011 at 03:19 PM
Mr. Harold. I hear your objections. But it is easy to say NO. What solutions can you think of. I like that the old Chevy dealership on broad st is now a gym. Since you pass there more frequently than I what do you envision being there. With such a big open space & parking I thought some sort of dance club or funky catering space, but I do not think the village would support such a business. What are your ideas. I am interested. If it is good - let's get funding and build it ourselves.
Anonymous Guy October 13, 2011 at 08:04 PM
There was the Ridgewood Hotel/Bed and Breakfast/catering hall rumor that went around.... Is that a better fit for the former Brogan site?
Stephanie in GR February 06, 2013 at 11:07 PM
The height of this project seems out of scale, but I'm not sure if there are laws that prevent a building this big. Regarding the parking: there is never enough parking planned for any new project. RWD should demand at least 2 spots for every apartment, and then extra for visitors. There should be a parking garage that goes underground to accomodate all the space required. It is already so difficult to park at times there.
WTF May 09, 2013 at 12:01 AM
I am very hopeful that these apartments will be built. My family just sold our home. The home we were supposed to by fell through because the owner can't find a home. Now, we have no place to go except for an apartment while we keep looking. Except for the Winthrop Manor apartments, the other apartments are disgusting! It would be great for people to have a place to live while they're in transition. There are many families who are always looking for a year lease while they're looking for a home, renovating a home, or building a home. These people already live in town and their kids go to the schools. As for the people that can't afford a house and live in the apartments with many kids, that's fine with me. They live in the town and deserve a good education.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something