Ridgewood council defeats Kensington assisted‑living overlay after hours of public comment

Mayor Paul Bragianos moved the Kensington matter to the start of the Aug. 13 meeting and told residents the council intended to reject the current ordinance so the developer could return with a smaller proposal: “I have learned that we will defeat ordinance 4052 this evening,” he said. The council also asked Beth McManus, the village’s affordable‑housing consultant, to explain the legal and planning context before public comment.

McManus told the council the property at issue sits in the B‑2 district, which allows a range of commercial uses and upper‑story apartments, and that under current zoning the site could reasonably accommodate about 22 apartments and roughly 9,000 square feet of commercial space without variances. Asked about traffic, she said typical assisted‑living developments generate far fewer resident trips than many permitted commercial uses, but acknowledged that driveway‑level counts should be produced by a traffic engineer: “No traffic study has been done for this site,” she said when asked later by a resident.

McManus and municipal counsel also warned of legal risk if the village fails to implement elements of its housing plan. Explaining the court process sometimes called a builder’s‑remedy, McManus said courts can compel zoning changes to satisfy a municipality’s affordable‑housing obligations; later she told the council plainly, “Senior housing, including assisted living, can file builder’s‑remedy litigation.” Municipal counsel Matt said courts often require municipalities to adopt ordinances that implement their housing plans.

More than three dozen residents spoke during the public comment period. The prevailing concerns were traffic, pedestrian safety and neighborhood character at the Franklin/North Maple intersection near Ridgewood High School; many speakers asked for a pedestrian and traffic study conducted during the school year. Typical remarks included: “You cannot fulfill your obligations … without first seeing a traffic study,” one resident told the council, and others described repeated backups, ambulance access worries and pedestrians crossing without signals.

Residents also raised questions about transparency and what several called conflicting statements from officials. Multiple speakers recalled prior Kensington proposals in other neighborhoods and said the developer had previously sought a tax‑abatement pilot, which the mayor and council denied would be offered for this location. The mayor emphasized there would be “no pilot at this location.”

After the public hearing and follow‑up comments from council, the council voted to defeat Ordinance 4052. The roll call to defeat the ordinance was recorded as: Mortimer Yes; Perrin Yes; White Yes; Winograd Yes; Vadgianos Yes. Mayor Bragianos said the council expects Kensington to present a revised proposal at a Sept. 4 town‑hall preview where residents and staff (including McManus) will have a chance to ask questions.

What happens next: the council has signaled it will continue negotiations and has scheduled a September preview; a formal rezoning or overlay ordinance would require subsequent introductions, planning‑board review and another public hearing. McManus and counsel advised the council and public that failing to adopt reasonable implementing ordinances could expose the village to court‑ordered zoning changes, but that an amicable, negotiated solution can yield concessions that reduce development impacts.

Vote at the meeting: The council unanimously approved the motion to defeat Ordinance 4052. The hearing itself was preserved so all speakers could be heard before the vote.

Community reaction and next steps: Residents at the meeting pressed for a traffic and pedestrian study timed to the school year, renderings and site‑level engineering details before any revised ordinance is advanced. The council committed to public previews of any new proposal and encouraged residents to attend the Sept. 4 meeting to review the revised plan.

The Kensington developer and counsel were present in the audience; the council asked them to return with details and stressed it will weigh neighborhood safety, the master plan and the village’s legal obligations before acting further.