Letter: Park Avenue Residents Address Council on Duplex Issue

Last Thursday we came to the Planning Board and listened carefully. And while the decision made came as a disappointment to our community, it also served to coalesce our understanding of a political process which seems astray.

The purpose of the Planning Board meeting was whether this ordinance conforms to the borough’s masterplan and the questions asked by both the Board members and the public, demonstrated many issues.

One neighbor held up the Land Use Map as bound into the masterplan and pointed out how the area is meant to be single family residential and read aloud from the masterplan:

“The residential land use plan proposed no new areas for single-family or multi-family development. All existing residential neighborhoods are to be maintained." 

Yet another neighbor wondered why the masterplan isn’t updated.

The masterplan itself outlines the proper method to update it. It extols the values of putting the necessary information into proper order and studying it to reach good decisions.

Drainage, Erosion, Parking, Sewage, Schools and Future Implications 

None of that effort has been undertaken for this ordinance in the proper way, as our masterplan requires.

Another neighbor was struck by two words he heard -- "rehabilitative" and "under-utilized". He didn’t know which word to worry about more. The first smacks of hubris & condescension. The second suggests jamming as many cubic feet of residential space onto a small lot as rewriting the zoning laws will allow. Where else might these criteria for re-zoning be applied? 

Would you mind answering just one question for us? 

Why is it you think this change is a good idea?

Because you have not done that yet.

You’ve disrupted our neighborhood with this threat to devalue of our homes -- yet have never even bothered to justify what greater good this change may accomplish.

The planning report itself, on its first page, warns the planning board that its duty includes the investigation of any inconsistency. And yet the planner's report does not include any criticism of the potential effects of the ordinance nor any suggestion that there is anything to balance.

The planner actually confirmed in the hearing she was NOT retained to study whether the proposed ordinance would have impacts on my neighborhood that are inconsistent with the masterplan. No, she said she was hired and instructed to find that the proposed ordinance “conforms”.  Mind you, the town’s tax dollars went to pay for a study hired to deliver the answer sought.

This is the only explanation of how she could prepare such a report and make no mention of the fact the ordinance excluded one house from the row of 22. By the end of the meeting that omission was determined as just a mistake. An oversight. But it reveals a process not intended to question the validity of the proposal but instead to deliver the result required.

Considering one side of one street to be a zone is extraordinary enough, but then omitting a single house? And yet the report made no reference to this peculiarity. 

There is much to be concerned about the process we see unfolding.

We present to you our petition, which has grown beyond what was given to the borough clerk a couple months back.

By now over one third (36%) of the people whose lots may be changed by the proposed ordinance, have signed a petition, asking you, the Mayor and Council of River Edge, NOT to proceed with this ordinance.

Half of the property owners within 200 feet of the proposed change have said: "NO, don't do this".

Across River Edge over one hundred and fifty people  (155 as of now -- a number which grows every day), have signed a petition that asks you NOT to pass the proposed ordinance.

Mr. Ed Mignone, who serves us both on the planning board and the council, is to be commended for his clear grasping of the facts. And for his vote AGAINST the planning board's endorsement. As a planner by trade he could see and clearly expressed the injustice of this proposal.

The People of River Edge who endorse this An Open Letter to the Mayor and Council of River Edge as read during their Regular Meeting 25 March 2013

Sheila Dubey, James Miller, David Bagenstoss, Melanie Koschmeder, Amory Hartman, Audrey Miller, Karl Hartman, Carol Kennedy, James Anastos, Mary Ellen Anastos, Brett Anastos, Steve Kennedy, Mike Krey, Deborah Anastos, Deborah Powell, Janette Guitierrez, Kevin Wright, Jose Saladin, Denise Thompson, Jo Anne Basile, David Hawthorne, Joanne Haggerty, Bing Hawthorne, Brian Haggerty, Amanda Hawthorne, Sean Haggerty, Andrew Hawthorne, James Haggerty, Heather McHale, Julia Haggerty, Terence McHale, Kim Watson, Davan McHale, Brian Watson, Lead McHale, Patty Boris and Mike Boris