Whether you put up a speed table or a concrete wall, that is the most unsafe place to be crossing a busy street without a traffic light to provide some protection. How many pedestrians get hit on other similar streets with perfect sight lines? It's an instant of being unfocused at the wheel, distracted, blinded by the sun or rain or concealed by fog between a safe crossing and death by auto. Far to dangerous to add even more traffic to the intersection by having 165 households dependent upon it.

Worst place ever for a crosswalk. I don't need a tape measure to tell you that.

Relax, there's ambulance station right there and Fair Lawn will make a fortune off the calls and maybe lower our taxes!

The original planners of Radburn went to the extreme to keep pedestrians safe and separate from vehicles in the motor age. How times have changed. The developers should have been required to build a pedestrian bridge over Plaza Rd.

Enter to the conversation children crossing twice a day. A pedestrian bridge is a great solution. The Radburn Association should pay for it. They selfishly started this mess.

Yes, how many lazy people will actually use a pedestrian bridge.....? Permanent speed bumps like the ones on Cornwall Rd in Glen Rock is at least a viable answer.Place them close to the crosswalk and move the crosswalk to Ramapo Rd.

and when happens on winter nights when people living in Landmark/Daley come home on commuter busses and try to cross the crosswalk on Ramsey: they'll get clobbered by cars, that's what!

And a speed bump is nonsensical. The project will already be causing major traffic gridlock - if you add in a speed bump you are making it that many many times worse.

Doesn't a town have any rights at all?

So it's gonna be built so we should not have concerns about people's safety of life and limb? the many people including children who walk to school.

Phil,i think its a lousy place for a crosswalk too.Evidently the town screwed up most of this. When you have a new manager every 2-3 years, nothing will ever be seen with continuity. As soon as Tom get this place in halfway decent shape, the Dems will be in charge and he will be gone. Run for council Phil. Make Fair Lawn better. And thats not a snide comment. I mean it.

This whole development is a complete disaster.

A 305 foot sight line at the curve is mind numbingly a figment of Mr. Keller's imagination ! It's also completely irresponsible with so many young lives in the balance, considering how his employer, Landmark, is planning for so many kids in their development ...the thing about Keller is he speaks as though his only concern was numbers, not actual humans...

Tells you a lot about the Radburn Association's cold blooded attitiude as well!

This planned development in such a nightmare. In a town populated so densely, it is a crime to add more building unit and more cars. I can't believe Radburn association is doing this to Fair Lawn. They apprantly care about their bottom line only.

Given the location relative to T.J. middle school, the volume of traffic, etc. I suspect it will not be too long before a crossing guard is put in place here in addition to the one already on Morlot Avenue...

Part 1. Indeed this development is a disaster, through and through, including roads so narrow and short that firetrucks have to have the "perfect storm" of conditions to be able to make their turns and use their ladder truck and other equipment properly. Not to be heard in a planning board meeting are common sense things like "we know lots of visitors bringing either a pizza or a toilet plunger are going to be double parking causing traffic problems inside these tiny roads and we really ought to build something safer" or "even though the speed limit is 35 miles per hour on Plaza Road and the stopping distance is x amount of feet we know that a distracted driver may need a bit more time to see a child lugging a backpack full of books".

part 2. This cross walk is going to ENCOURAGE people to walk across Plaza at a very busy apex and with no light because the developer or their engineer or their traffic study says that they don't need it. What we need, court order or not, is a planning board willing to put the developers feet to the fire (no pun intended) and make them build a safe, responsible project. To repeat myself from the posts of Daly Field past, I'd like to remind everyone that Landmark LLC has NOT yet closed on the land deal yet for Daly Field. They only own the Hayward tract. Not that long ago 8 people from Radburn RE-SIGNED the contract with Landmark and those are among some of the most guilty people in the community in regards to this project, in my opinion only of course. If they had just not caved into the pressures of a handful of Radburn's elite crew and their lawyer this would be a moot point. I will never forget who got us into this mess and I hope that none of you do either. As a Radburn resident I'd love to see the town make Radburn pay the bill for the damages to the community; Radburn is a terrible neighbor.

Shouldnt be a crosswalk there! These lazy people should walk to Berdan@Plaza i/section and cross

You could put up barriers or speed tables or landmines - nothing will change the FACT that it's a stupid, dangerous and nonsensical plan. I agree with Kathy, that the entire project is an attempt to shoehorn in as much development and housing as possible on a tract of land that is unsuitable for anything denser than single family homes. Calling alleys between buildings 'linear parks" and claiming them as greenspace, with buildings that are adjacent to railroad tracks with no sound buffer and on access roads that will make a firetruck have to fit and make turns with exacting precision...what if there is a derailment, or a chemical tanker leak or some other emergency? People are going to die. What if pedestrians are not in perfect weather conditions or handicaped or just slow walkers. Again, someone is going to die. And if that is the legacy that Landmark wants to give, or the fools that engineered this insane project, heaven help them. The blood will also be on their hands. A pedestrian bridge would be about the only answer that would fit the design standards of Radburn, but it is never going to happen. Imagine a truck or an SUV hitting a speed bump when the driver suddenly sees a child in the cross walk? Do brakes work in mid-air outside of cartoons?

The bottom line is how is the RA allowed to go against the original plan for this field which was single family homes?
Seeing how this appears to be not a humane project, in light of the dangerous conditions that the project can generate, if it is allowed to go through without any input from the people living in the area and not allowing any changes, does the state or Federal government have any recourse to get involved for the purpose of the safety of the residents? Is it strictly a municipal issue when lives are at stake?

The RA, which basically is made of up of former manager, Louise Orlando and attorney Michael Ferro with a few other handpicked folks who call themselves trustees made the deal with Ganz and company years ago. Landmark must have been promised that this was a done deal it seems and when they weren't getting what they wanted they sued the town forcing this awful development down our throats. If everyone who is benefiting monetarily from this project had ink on their hands I fear we'd see a bunch of folks through out the county with very dirty hands and always, this is in my opinion only.

can you fit any moore lies in the above statement.

The fact is that the current plan looks nothing like the plan originally proposed to the RA Board. The development is a good idea, but the internal park should be larger and the density lower. Concerns about traffic sight lines and the like (though an important issue) will not impact the heart of the problem which is that what is being proposed is too much housing for the space available.

Stu, what in Kathy's statement you consider "not true"? Details to back up your point of view, please, no plain observations and baseless opinions.

Worst place in Fair Lawn to put a crosswalk,even with a traffic light. You're talking OUR children.

Stu, you may disagree about whether development should be built, but I'm sure you'll agree the safety of the children ON BOTH SIDES OF RAMSEY TERRACE, (the west side at this point being only something on a piece of paper) must be primary...The RA board must take as much responsibility for this as the borough.

Igor, I find the following statement to be false"The RA, which basically is made of up of former manager, Louise Orlando and attorney Michael Ferro with a few other handpicked folks who call themselves trustees made the deal with Ganz and company years ago. Landmark must have been promised that this was a done deal it seems and when they weren't getting what they wanted they sued the town forcing this awful development down our throats." Which fact is she stating?
Walter, I agree the Ramsey Terrace is a bad place for a crosswalk. Said it in the thread early on.

the former bunch of democrat whores did this deal in a back room. rumor has it that someone has some damning info related to it.

Stu,
What is in the root of your dispute?
You do not agree with the statement that Louise Orlando is the former Manager?
That Michael Ferro is the RA attorney?
That the trustees are being nominated and elected through the handpicking process without democratic involvement of the ovwewhelming majority of Radburnites?
That Landmark sued the town to get their way even though they are not rushing to close the deal letting Radburn pay property taxes?
C'mon, man, what other facts do you need? A blind person who sees is better than a seeing person who is blind.

For one, Kathy is also in the Radburn Association while Ferro is not. Kathy states he is a member. False. There is thoroughly legal vote for trustees, whether or not you like it is your issue. Come on Igor, Ganz made a backroom deal? Where are any of Kathys facts? She calls it her opinion, but states it all as fact. Cheers.

While one may be "in" the Radburn Association, there is a significant distinction that depends on the definition of the word "in." Homeowners "in" Radburn have no automatic right to become "members." The only members of the Radburn Association are those former board trustees selected by prior members. The legality of this is due entirely to an omission in State law which requires the governing board to be selected by "membership of the association" , but fails to define exactly who is a member. Instead, that distinction is left to the association bylaws, any amenedments to which "members" have the final say. Catch-22.

works for me.

Let’s get the facts straight, Stu, shall we? I reread Kathy’s comments several times. She never mentioned Ferro being “RA member” – so, this is a false accusation, isn’t it? Also, Kathy never stated “backroom deal” as a fact and she is fully entitled to her opinions and observations. Or, do you think the RA members only are entitled to them?? Read her comments thoroughly and more accurately, Stu. Cheers back to ya!

"The RA, which basically is made of up of former manager, Louise Orlando and attorney Michael Ferro"- how am I misreading that Igor?
"handpicked folks who call themselves trustees made the deal with Ganz " again, sounds like back room conspiracy theory to me.

and for the record, at this point, i could care less if anything ever gets built there.

well, well, Stu...have we had a change of heart from the FL Speaks days? You were among the most militant in wanting Daly/Landmark developed...could you verify your new position and explain it?

Stu, we have some facts on the ground built without consensus within community. And that may very well lead everyone to believe in certain “backdoor” developments. Try to prove me otherwise.

Walter, I just don't care anymore.

Stuart, people who are affected by this increased traffic and have concerns about life and limb of the residents currently there, as well as any future residents should care. There is nothing wrong with caring about dangerous points of this project. You can be both in favor of this new developement as well as concerned about some points especially as this will impact the town, some feel negatively. If you live in Fair Lawn and have to travel in this area, this project will affect you. I continue to want to know, why this RA changed the original plan of single homes, without any vote from the residents. Why this fear of a democratic process, a vote for those in the area who would be adversely affected by this change?

Some folks around here have a very short memory, both Ms. Orland and Mr. Ferro at different times referred to this develpment as their legacy. Their words not mine, and certainly no MY LEGACY.

Phil: I suggest you ask your neighbor, Marshall Chandler, president of the Radburn Citizens Association and a member of the Radburn Board of Trustees, to fill you in on the history of the Landmark/Radburn negotiations that led to a contract with Radburn to build the development starting about 6 years ago...the contract has been renewed, I believe several times since...the plan for single family homes was changed quite a while before that, I think....

My opinion, that was never the plan given the similarity to the 1986 attempt, the master plan still reflecting high density development despite the rezoning and the new-and-improved Guidelines with an entire new chapter on redevelopment that predated the contract. No tinfoil hat required.

Haywood was zoned as either B-1 or B-2, but was grandfathered as a non-conforming use, since neither of those were industrial - the majority of the tract was used as offices, within conformity of the zoning. The majority of the land was zoned R-1,(as are almost every park in Fair Lawn, in the piss-poor master plan), so it's not the absence of a master plan, but the abscence of zoning to protect parkland, as if it's still 1940 and we have plenty of open space. The comment about the 1986 attempt reminds me of why Orlando was laying out her guns for a web article that mentioned it and referenced the NY Times articles about it. She wanted it to sink into oblivion while the dirty dead was being done for real. Well, all these years later, we still have no revised master plan, no accounting for parks and more and more zoning challenges seeking to turn what little plan there is on it's ass and fill every inch with converted brownfields deemed safe to live on on paper, and we all know how much paper safety is worth, as those people living on the DuPont site in Pompton Lakes, or who bought into the scenicly named Love Canal near Niagara...Now here's a plan to build a brownfield with nearly a century of industrial use, next to a site being remediated, with a known plume of carcinogens, next to the train tracks, where the only remaining park land will be, ironic enough, for little children presumably living over the brownfield. Mud pie, kiddies?

Well said D. The potential contamination issue has been buried for some time, 'oh it's fine, it's been checked out, approved, etc.'
It should be noted that there will be an increase in pedestrian traffic on Plaza road as well. This will also increase likelihood of accidents. People turning onto Plaza by car, have to wait longer when there are more pedestrians walking, using the same streeets. Due to increased cars and accessability, people waiting a very long time to access a road tend to get annoyed and take risks. Lot of children walk in this area to school.