Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bray Boulevard Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents pressure borough over Bray Boulevard wetland designation and Fair Share settlement
Summary
Residents told the council that a parcel at Bray Boulevard and Spring Valley Road has long been delineated as wetlands and questioned notices tied to the borough's Fair Share settlement; borough officials said the settlement calculates a realistic development potential of three units and that there are no current plans to develop the parcel.
Dean Havrella, 176 Spring Valley Road and a former 18‑year member of Park Ridge’s planning board, said he received a notice listing a parcel at Bray Boulevard and Spring Valley Road as a potential affordable‑housing site and urged the council to clarify the parcel’s status, citing prior wetlands delineations that found it unbuildable.
"Back in the early 1990s, while I was on the planning board, Park Ridge had that property designated as wetlands unbuildable," Havrella said during public comment and asked how the parcel could still be considered a viable site.
Council speakers and planning staff responded that the borough’s settlement with Fair Share Housing requires certain zoning changes but does not force immediate construction on that parcel. A borough speaker summarized the settlement’s local effect: the town’s realistic development potential for the parcel is three units and "we no longer have to build those 50 units at all anywhere," reducing the immediate pressure for large‑scale development.
Officials emphasized that, while zoning language was adjusted as part of the settlement, the borough does not have current plans to develop the parcel and that prior wetlands and steep slopes make large builds unlikely. The council repeated that it will continue to legally contest inappropriate development and protect the town’s character where possible.
Why it matters: Neighbors surrounding Bray Boulevard and Spring Valley Road expressed concerns about traffic, drainage and the loss of open or wetland areas if rezoning were followed by development. Council members and planning staff said the settlement narrows the immediate development obligation and that subsequent construction would depend on determinations of buildability and any applicable legal actions.
What remains unclear: The transcript includes residents’ references to prior wetlands delineations and a claimed $8,000–$10,000 cost to have that delineation recorded; council staff confirmed the settlement’s calculation of "realistic development potential" but did not provide a current engineering report in the meeting. The transcript also contains inconsistent spellings of local place names (e.g., "Park Ridge" appears as "Park Bridge" or "Parkridge" in places); those typographical errors were in the record and not new assertions about policy.
Next steps: Borough planning staff and the council said they will continue litigation defense where necessary and will post plan documents on the borough’s planning‑board webpage so residents can review zoning changes and the housing‑element history.
