Press this link to Return to "Features"

Position Paper for the Concerned Residents of Ridgewood related to Valley Hospital’s proposed master plan changes and expansion.

1. Blank Check – The unprecedented development freedom that Valley has proposed would provide them with a “blank check” to develop the site as they see fit at any point in the future.  This should not be allowed for any landholder in the Village.
2. Size of the space deficiency – Valley estimates that 30 acres are needed to create a single campus for all its activities.  They are trying to add over 350,000 square feet of development to the existing 15.2 acre site.  The magnitude of the deficit is so great that this site cannot absorb Valley’s incremental needs without changing the character of the entire east side of Ridgewood.  
3. Utilization of the facility – Once approved Valley would be free to use the space as they see fit without getting Village approvals.  The nature of healthcare has evolved materially in the time since Valley’s last major expansion. Indeed, short stays, the frequent turnover of beds and the ensuring traffic have become the norm. Our neighborhoods have evolution and its impact upon quality of life issues without complaint, but there reaches a point when it becomes too much.
4. Parking – Consistent to the change in use, Valley acknowledges that there is a material parking deficit (400 spots?) at the site as it is used today, this is an indication of how differently the site is used today than what was previously reviewed in an approval process. 
5. Emergency Department – Since the Emergency Department expansion in 2001 emergency room visits are up over 25% from the projected volumes conveyed in that application.  NB: These volumes (62k vs 49k) are all prior to the Pascack Valley related volume increases. 
6. Density – The valley proposal is to add 67% more floor area which is against the precedent set in 1996. At that time Valley had to remove a 21,000 square foot building (Kraft building) to get the Zoning Board of Adjustment to approve the 1996 expansion due to the “bulk” that would be added to the site as part of that project.
7. Sympathetic Zoning – Planning professionals whom have been consulted, warned that if Valley is given leeway to develop to these standards in the H-zone, they will form a new standard of what’s acceptable in Ridgewood, and could undermine efforts to contain large developments in other zones of the Village.
8. Land Use Law – Valley has not presented any arguments based on land use to support its case to change Ridgewood’s zoning.  The towns cited by Valley as comparable were not equivalent to Ridgewood.  They are not adjacent to a middle school and one block from a grammar school.  Nor have those town’s residential and commercial standards been compared to Ridgewood’s to show that the Ridgewood hospital zone is more restrictive on a relative basis.
9. Healthcare – Valley is a great facility and we are grateful for their presence.  They are trying to use the societal benefits they provide as a tool to get corporate benefits no other land owner in Ridgewood would even consider possible.  What if Merck or J&J wanted to build a plant on that site that would produce life saving drugs with the same societal benefits and environmental impacts as the hospital?  Would we be having this conversation? 
10. It’s our money – The money that Valley is spending on this fight comes from us, the well-insured paying patients that utilize the facility.  We pay market rates to use their facilities and we are grateful for their quality and proximity, but they are well-compensated for the care they provide us.  What about the burden that their presence puts on the Village?  Are we adequately compensated for that? 
11. Dialogue – Valley has pursued this effort as an “all or nothing” battle and refuses to have a serious dialogue about the issues with the dissenting opinions.  This implies insensitivity, hubris or Village favoritism at a minimum.