Daly Field Hearing on Environmental Issues Postponed Until September
The Landmark hearing scheduled for Monday, Aug. 13, is still on, but will no longer address environmental issues, which have been pushed back until next month.
Monday night's Landmark hearing, originally intended to delve into environmental issues associated with the development, will instead address the grouping of its affordable housing units and attempt to conclude the unfinished sight distance debate involving a proposed crosswalk at the intersection of Plaza Road and Ramsey Terrace.
The change of discussion topics follows the recent submission of an environmental plan developed by Brinkerhoff Environmental Services and commissioned by a group of residents opposed to the development.
"About one week ago we submitted our environmental report to the board, immediately after which the board postponed the environmental hearing until September 10," explained Michael Roney, a leading member of the resident opposition group, "Neighbors to Save Daly Field." "At that meeting we will present the testimony of our environmental expert."
The group's report raises concerns about soil and groundwater contamination, as well as vapor intrusion at the build site. Roney said that Landmark had yet to submit an environmental report.
At Monday's meeting, Roney said members of his opposition group will speak out about Landmark's grouping of its affordable housing units together in the back of the development, along the railroad track.
"In our view this violates the intent of COAH regulations, which says that COAH units must be “fully integrated” with the development," he said.
The Landmark hearings, which look poised to run through the rest of the year, will continue until the entire plan has been presented and all residents wishing to ask questions have had the opportunity to do so.
Future hearings will center on pollution, waivers and variances, and the development's impact on the school system.
Landmark's planned 165-unit development of Daly Field and the adjacent Hayward property, located at the intersection of Plaza Road, Berdan Avenue and Route 208, has been a hot-button issue in Fair Lawn since the Radburn Association sold the field to the Woodbridge-based developer in February 2004.
--
Follow Fair Lawn Patch on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to receive our daily newsletter in your inbox each morning
Julia Enerson
5:45 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Oh, joy! I'm sure tonight's meeting will be filled with righteous indignation, a few smatherings of Democracy!, and other tax payer wasting actions. As if there's not enough hot air in August already...
The Most Interesting Man in the World
8:18 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
EPA says environment is not an issue. The intersection was already there, not an issue. It doesn't violate COAH regulations, not an issue. Just ask Board members what is on the block that they have control over and you will find out if there are any points you might want to argue, but the ones in this article have already been settled and have no bearing on whether this developement is going to be built. Just like Julia says, there is already too much hot air in August.
Jules Vernon
3:47 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
How do those of us who support development finally get this thing moving. What can we do since the naysayers just won't give up?
Barbara Parker
3:47 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I don't believe the purpose of the affordable housing legislation was to sequester lower-income people in ghettos and to provide them with lower-quality homes. But it has been my understanding based on a former conversation with a Landmark representative that those occupying the affordable units in the Landmark development in Radburn, Fair Lawn, would not have dedicated parking spaces. So I'm not sure that each unit would even claim a particular carport. I'm curious as to what other amenities of this townhouse development would be denied those in affordable units, e.g., what construction features would be short-changed in the units? It seems that Landmark is relegating those who cannot afford Bergen County's expensive real estate to being second-class citizens. How would they be viewed by the higher-income people in the development? I am also troubled by the fact that Landmark is planning a private park in addition to a small public park. Radburn is an open community, with lovely parks and walks available to all -- not just Radburn residents. In addition, since the residents of Landmark at Radburn would become Radburn citizens, with access to all Radburn's amenities, why would they merit or even need a private park? I suggest that Landmark should go back to the drawing board to resolve these issues and to confront the environmental issues to be discussed at the next Planning Board meeting. Plans for this development have been flawed from the very beginning.
Barbara Parker
Julia Enerson
6:01 am on Thursday, August 16, 2012
Technically, Radburn parks are private. The walks aren't, as those were funded with public dollars.
As to different housing based on different income levels, the argument could be that within Radburn, that very dynamic is what drove it: a range of housing for many income levels (apartments, two family houses, detached, and "the big houses") within the community. That said, I think segregating Mount Laurel housing (that is the correct term) from FMV housing within the same housing area is wrong and not within the spirit of the Radburn community.