Residents Voice Concerns About Landmark Plan
Traffic, pollution, and the manner in which Radburn approved the Daly Field development contract were among the arguments against the project made by attendees of Tuesday night's Borough Council worksession.
Photos
After Landmark L.L.C. presented its development plan for Daly Field and the adjacent Hayward Parcel to the Fair Lawn Borough Council on Tuesday night, residents in the audience got their chance to voice a variety of concerns about the project.
The Radburn Board of Trustees voted 8-1 in favor of a revised contract for the sale of Daly Field to Landmark on Monday night. Radburn residents were able to attend the vote, but Fair Lawn resident Craig Miller said the fact that everyone else from the borough could not attend "saddened and angered" him.
Before the Borough Council decides whether or not to appeal a Bergen County Superior Court ruling that granted Landmark permission to build 200 housing units on Daly and Hayward (the actual plan calls for 165 units), the borough should hold a meeting for the general public to speak for or against the project, Miller said.
Resident Maureen Moriarty said Landmark needs to take all necessary action to safeguard against groundwater pollution plumes flowing under Hayward. While the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection "basically can't stop anyone from building," Landmark should still take environmental precautions with its development, Moriarty said.
Felice Koplik, chair of the Fair Lawn Historic Preservation Commission, asked "Can this [development] really happen with one way in and one way out?" regarding an extension of Ramsey Terrace that will serve as the development's entrance and exit. Mayor Joseph Tedeschi responded that the Fair Lawn Fire Department will have to determine if that situation is adequately safe.
Jo Marie Sachinelli was most disturbed by the traffic she anticipates the development will create. Sachinelli lives on Ellington Road and called that the "other side of town," but said that with the development's projected addition of 360 cars to Radburn, many of those cars will take Plaza Road to her neighborhood and clog traffic. Landmark needs to take the other neighborhoods its development affects into account, Sachinelli said.
The "iconic" signs that spell out Radburn's name on both sides of Daly Field should remain intact when the area is developed, Larry Koplik said, because the signs are famous around the world and have come to define Radburn.
Kathy Moore was also concerned about groundwater pollution plumes, saying that people who live near the proposed development need to know what protection they will receive if the plumes spread.
While Landmark stated in its presentation that the design of its development falls in line with the architectural's concepts of the rest of Radburn, Moore said she feels that is not the case because while Radburn has six-unit per acre density, Landmark's development is twice as dense.
"It's a joke to call this a Radburn architectural project," Moore said.
Tiffony Kidd Schindler
10:48 am on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Did you get any comments from residents who support the project? Were there any positives? It would seem that this article only lists the negatives, no disputing that there are negative elements to the plan, and no potential benefits to Radburn residents or the Borough.
Jacob Kamaras
11:37 am on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tiffony,
As you will see on our site, I published one full story on Landmark's defense of its project, and another full story that you referenced on residents' concerns. Therefore, I gave equal space to both sides of the argument here: a chance for Landmark to say why it thinks it's project should be approved, and then a chance for people to express their reservations. The issue of balance and fair coverage was very much on my mind here. Here's the story with Landmark's take: http://patch.com/A-cdXC
Tiffony Kidd Schindler
12:35 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Jacob,
Thanks for the response. I read both articles. My comment/question was in regard to having an equal representation of Radburn residents who support the project (barring the Trustees who support it), of which I see none.
Carrie Stevens
11:18 am on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
It is interesting to me that the majority of statements made in this article are of those residents who have cost Radburn residents an excessive amount of money in their relentless lawsuits. I too would have liked to seen both sides of the "argument" with quotes from some of the many residents that truely like the Landmark design and are for the benefits that the development will bring. I have to wonder if these same residents were as up in arms when the large apartment development was built not so long ago off of Route 208 right by the Radburn train station and town center? The same development to my knowledge is all rentals with no parking garages. How many children did that complex add to the school system and how many cars did it bring in to town? How much tax revenue did that development bring the town of Fair Lawn? As a long time Radburn resident that lives in very close proximity to Daly Field, I look forward to not having to look at that big open field anymore. With the parks included in the Landmark design, the resident who walk their dogs at daly field now will have a nice park to do so after it is built. It would also be nice to see some major improvements and renovations done to the shopping center as well.
Jacob Kamaras
11:38 am on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Carrie,
See my comment to Tiffony. I did one full story on Landmark's arguments in favor of the project and another full story on residents' concerns, so I believe I gave both sides of the issue equal space. Here's the story with Landmark's take: http://patch.com/A-cdXC
Stuart Pace
11:46 am on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Imagine a small grocery store coming back to Radburn? And better stores? This would attract businesses that aren't a nail salon and bank.
David Rosenberg
1:43 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
To Stuart's point, a completely revitalized commercial district on Fair Lawn avenue, at the foot of a major transit hub will benefit all of Fair Lawn. This development is a positive step towards achieving that goal.
Carrie Stevens
12:02 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Jacob, I understand. I guess seeing a story from the residents pro development would have been nice and not just Landmark's comments. Thanks!
David Rosenberg
1:36 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
First and foremost, I'd like to comment Jacob and Fair Lawn Patch for their excellent and unbiased reporting on this issue to date.
The residents quoted as being passionately against this development are certainly entitled to their opinions. These are also the people who are more inclined to show up at public events, such as a council meeting, to voice their opinions and are then available to any reporters who happen to be covering the event.
While there are many parties who feel this development deal is a negative, there are a great many parties, including myself, who are enthused by the prospect of new development in Radburn and Fair Lawn. It's not often that Radburn residents, outside of the Board of Trustees, are quoted in print or online in support of this initiative. But to be clear, they are out there and in great numbers. Many showed up and spoke in support of the Board's overwhelming approval of the new Landmark contract this past Monday evening.
An important point needs to be stressed, that many people have tended to ignore: Radburn does not own the Hayward property, only Archery and Daly. By entering this agreement with Landmark, Radburn can execute control over what is built on both Hayward and Daly. Without this, Landmark or any developer for that matter could build on the site subject to its zoning restrictions without any impact from Radburn. This would dramatically impact the value and the nature of both the Daly and Archery parcels.
David Rosenberg
1:41 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
To sum up my comment above, there is widespread support for this new development and as we've seen from the few comments here already, it would be wonderful to have more of those voices heard in public forums and represented in places like Fair Lawn Patch. I am very much looking forward to the day when we can welcome new neighbors to the community and give more individuals the opportunity to live in the wonderful Borough of Fair Lawn and the community of Radburn.
Craig Lechner
4:46 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Hey David, When you say "widespread support" . What do you mean? Based on some comments on the internet? Based who shows up at meetings? Could you please explain "widespread support" in a little more scientific terms. Among who? How many people actually support in terms of numbers. It's a very valid question and would eliminate conjecture. There are ways to scientifically guage public support through having a poll of some sort ran by and independent third party. A public poll is the only way to find out for sure if this development is the desire of the community. Correct me if I am wrong. In all the years this has been going The Radburn Associations has never asked, one by one, the residents if the actually want this project?
Craig Lechner
2:24 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
I don’t understand the logic of those who claim that families will not be attracted to the new development and therefor, we shouldn't worry about problems associated with overpopulation. They state that that the project will be marketed to singles and young couples. Their argument is that for some magical reason families would not want to live in the New Radburn, , or that people will not reproduce once there and stay long term, I guess because of the "marketing".
My block is supposedly filled with modest units near the train. You’d think singles people would be dying to live there? Nope. How about young couples. Well as far as I know young couples buy when they are ready for a family.
Guess what? Within a year or two of moving to Radburn young couples start pushing out babies. And they don’t move away when they have two or three kids, they stay? Why? Because, with parks, family day, schools, etc RADBURN IS A GREAT PLACE TO RAISE KIDS!
I guess we will have to keep this fact a secret from people looking to buy in the new community, after all we wouldn't want them to buy for the wrong reason. The truth is single people and young couples looking for a quick commute live in places like Hoboken and Jersey City, not Radburn. I moved to Radburn to raise a family, period. And that’s why 99% percent of people move here.
So let me get this, one side of the street is pro-family and one is anti-family? I invite anyone to explain, but please use logic.
Tiffony Kidd Schindler
2:51 pm on Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Nicely said. So which is it? Do we want to encourage families to choose Radburn or do we want to worry that IF they choose Radburn, they will be using OUR facilities and decreasing our property values?