Daly Field Development Goes Before Planning Board

A series of Planning Board hearings on the proposed Landmark development at Daly Field begin Monday at 7:30 p.m.

The developer behind the controversial proposed development on Daly Field in Radburn will present its design to the at a series of public hearings beginning Monday.

Landmark Development's presentation to the Planning Board -- which has only limited powers over the development due to a 2009 court ruling that granted Landmark a builder's remedy -- commences at 7:30 p.m. in .

The builder's remedy, which compels the borough to permit the construction of state-mandated affordable housing units, limits the Planning Board's jurisdiction to issues of parking, road layouts and open area configurations, among other details.

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.

Ever since, local grassroots groups and the Fair Lawn borough council– in an attempt to preserve the 5.7-acre Daly Field as open space –have taken a stance against the developer's plans to build affordable housing on Daly Field and the adjacent Landmark-owned Hayward property. 

Anti-development activists, led by Radburn Citizens' Association president Marshall Chandler, have been encouraging residents to attend Monday's hearing to air their concerns, and a large crowd is expected.

"Monday begins a series of meetings that will be pivotal to the future of Radburn and Fair Lawn," a mailer being circulated around town by Chandler reads. "It is up to you and your neighbors to insist that we get the best project possible. You can help protect our quality of life and home values by attending the series of Fair Lawn Planning Board meetings that begin this Monday. Be prepared to ask the tough questions that Landmark has dodged so far."

Among the questions Chandler and the Citizens' Association want answered include how the development will impact street traffic, whether its allotment of parking spaces will be sufficient and various other resident safety-related issues.

Kathy Moore April 01, 2012 at 10:32 PM
maligning? I have done nothing more than state facts. if perhaps what I say sounds so horrible than maybe the truth is not so nice. I have not called the trustees evil, I just think they made a HUGE mistake, one that is costing all of us plenty. I have the guts to comment under my own name which speaks of genuine character. Why don't you tell us your name? As far as being volunteers, many of us Radburn homeowners would like to run for the board but we aren't allowed to because of our archaic nomination system. Those rules by way are not on Radburn's official website. I wonder why not? All you or anyone else need to read is found at yourneighbors.org.
Deleted because of harassment April 01, 2012 at 11:09 PM
RS: Ask anyone understanding how accounting works to explain to you - it is never assumed that human beings are infallible, perfect or even 100% honest and all-knowing. That's why every business has an auditor, an accountant, or someone else to oversee the books. As for my "vitriolic tounge", please explain how asking for accountibility and oversight fits that description. Unless you mean that I refuse to roll over and permit the self-anointed to destroy the entire northwestern part of this town with a slum in the making just so they could continue to spend other people's money, have reportability to no one, + sell off some of the assets of the association without giving anyone in it even a barel opportunity to express an opinion of the sale. I can admire Radburn as the historical artifact it is, without admiring the darker parts of that history: religious profiling, blackballing- and without the need to make excuses for the fostering of anti-democratic behaviors. As someone who has been a volunteer in this town (and in others), good for you, but it does not lend extra validity to your words, any more than it does mine. I have ethics to tell the truth and to cite my sources for information, whether or not someone likes the conclusion or wants it to be more favorable to their point of view. Some of the same characters tried to sell off RA land in the 1980's, but backed off when the NY Times reported on it. Didn't like coming out in public then, either.
Tommy P April 02, 2012 at 12:32 AM
The Radburn Association needs a law passed to have that fixed. It could be 1 line, All deed restricted associates are subject to all laws and regulations and shall be considered condo associations. The good news, all they can do is add 50% to your tax bill. Now if we could get the former mayor, Robert Gordon and his running mates in the assembly Wagner & Eustice to introduce that bill, we'd have a fighting chance. After all, Wagner alone has sponsored over 100 new bills! Or we could at least reduce what they collect with a council that didn't waste soo much money.
es April 02, 2012 at 01:45 AM
Now some will say that open nomination is no guarantee that another clique could form and result in the same form of cronyism. This is true of any organization if the majority become complacent and do not exersize their right to participate. But, at least we would only have ourselves to blame for inaction. Meanwhile, after 25 years the controlling interests got their wish: the development on Daly Field. We had again become too complacent and didn't see this coming, though the signs were around us.
es April 02, 2012 at 01:45 AM
9:44 pm on Sunday, April 1, 2012 On the face of it, if Radburn had worked as planned, there would be two new faces every year on the board and two more members. If there were as much longevity since 1960, there would be over a hundred active members today, representing a variety of opinions. But, the reality is there are probably less than half that many members. The past 30 years or so has seen a revolving series of names, and of the total a much smaller clique is truly in control, forwarding little or none of its plans to the other members. If you think Radburn wastes too much money, you're probably right. Fifteen miles east of Radburn lies Forest Hills Gardens, once the site of the tennis match, founded twenty years before Radburn by the Russell Sage Foundation. Almost identical in size as Radburn, that garden community maintains parks, roads, utilities, security and management with its own staff - on a budget nearly identical to Radburn. They also have a substantial reserve fund and have survived for over 100 years. All homeowners are members. Yes, a law could fix this easily without bringing that misinterpreted word "condo" into the picture or any other Sturm und Drang. Go ahead and ask Gordon why he does not offer any assistance. He once offered to help, but changed his mind quickly after discussion with certain people.
Tommy P April 02, 2012 at 02:52 AM
Wo are those "certain people"?
Kathy Moore April 02, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Senator Gordon harmed us in Trenton. I learned that while there speaking before a panel. After we gave him 400 signatures he refused to help us. Told his peers in Trenton it was just a handful of disgruntled homeowners. All we need is an ammendment to PREDFDA that says all unit owers are members. The folks that wrote that bill didn't think that they need to be so specific. We know this because we spoke to them. Radburn found the loophole in the law and worked it to their advantage. Now every common interest association in the state could treat their homeowners the same way unless it's fixed. I wonder why we are the only people that are treated so poorly by our own board. Again, I know this as I went to Trenton to speak and met other homeowners, board members and politicians. The abuse in Radburn is #1.
Phil Kestenbaum April 02, 2012 at 01:18 PM
What a disgrace, Kathy. So why didn't he ask for a residents vote on this issue, instead of speaking without knowing the real truth? Politicians probably smell votes in their favor, their bottom line. Damn the public at large. This entire law should be revoked maybe it is not too late. Or to leave a legacy to prevent other communities from suffereing from this disasterous over development that small brutal cliques and their political abettors love in New Jersey. You know we have in Fair Lawn more deveopments being added at River Road
Stuart Pace April 02, 2012 at 02:12 PM
"small brutal cliques" ?? How many "actual" sides to this story are you basing all this hostility on Phil???
Phil Kestenbaum April 02, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Well now we have heard about the political representatives, have you read Kathby's post? a representative giving impression that it's only a 'few disgrunteled' is that what you think? there is the rulers of Radburn, and of course the business interests. Why wouldn't they put this to a vote by the residents I wonder?
Stuart Pace April 02, 2012 at 03:00 PM
I barely take Kathys posts as gospel as I am sure you folks wouldn't take mine as gospel either. Exactly how many trustees, current or former have you met and or spoken to about this Phil.
Kathy Moore April 02, 2012 at 03:22 PM
The PREDFDA law has been in place for decades. No one in the state is not allowing it's homeowners to run for the board except for in Radburn. Do other associations have some problems? You bet. Are any of them as bad as Radburn's? Not that we heard. I'm sure somewhere in Trenton a record exists of our visit there and all the politicos that were there too. Perhaps someone would want to do an OPRA request on it??? You may not like what I say, but I don't lie.
Stuart Pace April 02, 2012 at 03:26 PM
Just re-read the Court findings in the Moore Vs Radburn case. Yup, still says nothing illegal about the way Radburn operates as a non profit. Why is that since the ruling on appropriately 4/1/2008 the plaintiff cannot accept this?
es April 02, 2012 at 03:36 PM
The logic used by the court was that the statute does not define "member" of the association, therefore, a subset of all homeowners, even if self-selected, does not violate the statutes as currently written. It offered no opinion on the wisdom of change vs. status quo. So, in this case "nothing illegal" is akin to "not guilty." Try this one: tell your second-grade kid that an election for class President is coming up. However, you can't just put your name on the ballot - you have to first be chosen by last year's President.
Stuart Pace April 02, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Is the school class a non profit?
Phil Kestenbaum April 02, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Stuart, they are affecting negatively thousands of people. That is what is causing this upset for people affected by their ruling. We are not questioning the legal loopholes and manuverings that they did to come up with this developement, they may be following whatever loopholes or legalities but we are upset that we have to shoulder the burden of this, and that it just so happens that his board, largely live in the B side where they are not affected by the traffic, noise, and damages to the infrastrucure. you can call this speculation if you want but I am just being realistic, there are going to be more cars poured into a very small road between lights with a behomoth of a train station in the middle of Fair Lawn ave.
Stuart Pace April 02, 2012 at 04:36 PM
I don't disagree that there will be more cars, more kids, etc. If you are upset, you should be involved.One thing that is overlooked is that the CCRF and a couple of council people tried to push an illegal referendum upon the town which, without the efforts of 9 other Radburnites including me, would have cost the town more money. Why isn't anyone screaming about the KEM property and the Kodal property. It would hold more weight with me if you cared about ALL the development, and not just one. I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot Phil.
Stuart Pace April 02, 2012 at 04:37 PM
and by Kodal, I mean Kodak. ZAK- editing option would be good. :)
Phil Kestenbaum April 03, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Which ballot are you referring to Stuart? THank you for acknowledging that there will be more cars, because in the past, the developer told us that there would be mostly seniors there, or that they are all going to be commuters to the city. When it is just as likely that there will be 3-4 cars per unit (there are 3 bedroom apartments). We do need a grass roots group in Fair Lawn to fight all of the over development. With people working 2+ jobs, the reality of organizing this is difficult. But several people have written about it. But there should be a committee organized about those developments and I would be in favor of reducing those because they will also degrade the quality of life in Fair Lawn with their traffic congestion additions, as will the Landmark dev. if unfortunately it does come to pass. THe unique problem is that Plaza becomes very narrow near Berdan at exactly where these cars are supposed to enter Plaza. You may know that many accidents occur when lanes merge into 1 less. As I see it, cars will be merging from Plaza/Fair Lawn Ave. and will have to slow down, as cars from Landmark enter Plaza, So you can see the gridlock conditions stretching back to FL ave. On both sides of Plaza. Many people are not satisfied with the toxic waste remedial efforts that were supposed to have been done. Many do not trust their elected officials anymore and I don't blame them.
Tommy P April 03, 2012 at 02:45 AM
We have the planning board, zoning board, environmental commission and the council. We don't need another committee, we need people who care about Fair Lawn instead of party politics. We need leaders who understand their role. This development is going to be rather dense because of the failure of the aboved named portions of the Fair Lawn government. Had Radburn been run like a PUD or condo association, the owners would have voted to develope the site.
Phil Kestenbaum April 03, 2012 at 02:46 PM
I hear you Thomas but as I see it, we live in the most over crowded state in the US, and in a very over crowded county. There is now several over development projects happening in Fair Lawn, an already very crowded and congested town. And they want to make it worse, and there seems to be no voice or reason to say hold all these developments we are already over crowded. None of the government officials seem to be able or willing or wanting to stop any of this, oh except for the Naugle house, one house that is all. The test can be built on and added more congestion. IN other states or even in other towns, there is more of a sentiment to conserve what is there for the common good of the residents rather than ruin the landscape even more, add more congestion, add more taxes and expenses to local government. I don't see any of the above committees you mentioned doing much about the over congestion that these developments will cause Fair Lawn. It's not even an issue. just let the developers build.
Good ? April 03, 2012 at 03:05 PM
i love when people complain about traffic, congestion, and having to wait by the train. i had that problem on my first day starting a new job. when i realized there was congestion and a train at that time i started leaving 15 minutes earlier. since that first day i have not been in traffic or waited by the train... problem solved. i didnt want to live next to an apartment building or in a business section of town. therefore when i bought i house in town i didnt look at any property located on or adjacent to morlot, fair lawn ave, river road, or saddle river road. guess what- i havent had a problem with large buildings being developed right by my house (except for a couple ugly mcmansions). buying a house in very close proximety to fair lawn ave or river road and acting suprised when a developer wants to place a large building there, is the same as buying a house in a flood area and then acting suprised when you get water in the house.
Good ? April 03, 2012 at 03:10 PM
in an ideal world developers wouldnt just care about the profit, they would develop the best building to fit that location and community. but thats not how it works. we live in one of the most populated counties in the most populated state- what do you really expect. if you want open space and responsible development new jersey is probably not the state for you
es April 03, 2012 at 04:12 PM
It's not only the developers, the town had to permit building alongside the river. Now taxpayer money has to buy them out so we can add to the greenway. Now comes more housing on polluted land. Doesn't anyone have a conscience?
Mei Won Sum April 03, 2012 at 05:41 PM
These aren't going to be like Paterson cheap are they?
Mei Won Sum April 03, 2012 at 05:44 PM
Just going by the voter rolls here, but, how does an area that is comprised of mostly tree hugging liberals get all pro development? And by tree hugging liberals I mean Democrats.
Kathy Moore April 04, 2012 at 12:51 PM
I did not move to the city, rather the city moved to me. Courtesy of Lyle Lovett
Deleted because of harassment April 07, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Actually, they didn't. The people that voted on it were not the "owners". They are a board of trustees with oversight for the original land owners and developers. The owners are the people that share in the Association and own homes on the land that is held in common. Funny, that I can't share in the disposition of unused land in the town, but nine trustees can decide to give it away or sell it, without any obligation to the other owners in common.
Harry April 07, 2012 at 11:19 PM
I want a low income apartment.Sign me up.
Phil Kestenbaum April 09, 2012 at 01:29 PM
That is what the upset is, that a small band of trustees forces this on the majority of the community who doesn't want this developement because of issues like being discussed. And can the town handle all this growth without turning into Times Sq.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something