Bernards Voices

Below is a letter that was published in the Bernardsville News on April 20.  It identifies an error in a news article on April 6 and outlines a plan for acquiring the land for Quarry Park.  It refers to a letter I submitted to the Planning Board on March 16 relating to the township master plan.  To see that letter click Letter to PB.

EDITOR:

An article on April 6 reported comments at the public hearing for the Bernards Township master plan on March 16.  Your reporter usually does an excellent job.  But he got a critical fact wrong when he wrote that I recommended that the township purchase the quarry land for a park. 

I produced a detailed concept plan entitled “Quarry Park and Lakeview Village” in 2004 and have promoted it many times.  It does not require purchase of any land with public funds.  

When I analyzed the rehabilitation plan submitted by MQI and Tilcon in 2003, I concluded that the best outcomes on the land would be townhouses on the buildable south slope and township ownership of the balance of the tract.  The latter would contain a lake and perimeter land with a few acres in a flat-bottomed canyon on the east side suitable for a park, bathing beach, and boat ramp. 

 I submitted the plan cited above to the Planning Board in 2004 and to the Township Committee in 2005.  Township officials have never engaged in any public discussion of this plan.  An updated version is on the website BernardsVoices.org.

The public hearing on March 16 wrapped up a process that began in 2008.  Planning Board members discussed the township master plan in great detail during many work sessions in 2009 and early this year.  On advice of their attorney and his concern for ongoing litigation, they skipped over the quarry land.

This was a mistake.  The quarry litigation deals with imported fill, not future land use.  There is no land in the township for which there is greater need for full review and discussion.  The master planning process was the right place for this.

I was blocked last September when I tried to submit a master plan proposal for the quarry land.  I was allowed on March 16 to submit a 2-page letter to the board and to read it into the record.  There was no comment from the board.

In my letter I argue:

• The most likely outcome for the quarry pit is a lake.
• Because people will live near the lake and some lake water will percolate to groundwater, township government has a responsibility to work to assure good water quality over the long term.
• This will be easiest if the township owns the lake and the perimeter land, and manages the property for the benefit of all.  

I have believed for many years that good-faith negotiation between township and quarry representatives can lead to a win-win-win outcome.  For the quarry owner, for the township, and for those who will live on what is now quarry land. 

If the owner receives a fair quantity of development rights that he can exercise on the south slopes, then he can transfer the rest of the land to the township at no loss.

The township will acquire land for a public park with a lake and bathing beach at no cost.   

The homeowners will be relieved of the burden of managing a large tract with a lake.   Because they will benefit from the lake over the long term, it will be fair to have them share in the costs of maintaining it.  

I believe this plan will produce good outcomes for all and I strongly recommend it.

Bill Allen

The letter with the heading above and the content below was published in the Bernardsville News on September 24, 2009.

Editor:
A letter in your paper on September 17 endorsed the Republican candidates for Bernards Township Committee and included comments related to the quarry. These prompt a response.

The writer commends township officials for repeatedly making it known that “they are committed to a prohibition on any further fill and complete testing of existing fill.”

Some relevant history follows. In February 2005 the Planning Board recommended that the steep quarry slopes be reshaped to satisfy the township ordinance. It advised against the importation of fill for this purpose.

In January 2006, with no warning or explanation, the Township Committee rejected the board’s advice and voted to open the door to uncontrolled importation of fill. Four of those who voted still serve on the committee, including John Malay who is running for reelection this year

In 2008 township officials moved to stop the importation of fill. They have managed this so badly that we are now in the 18th month of expensive and paralyzing litigation. There is nothing in this record to brag about.

The writer states that some are proposing “high-density housing” on the quarry property, and that this will bring more school children.

A detailed alternative to single-family houses is described on the website in the post entitled “Quarry Park and Lakeview Village”. The proposal is to substitute two townhouses for each single family house that is allowed under present zoning. An analysis on the same website explains why these townhouses will generate about the same total amount of property taxes, but will be home to only half the number of public school students.

The letter writer denigrates the proposal for a public park and suggests that the quarry pit will become “a sump absorbing all the run-off from surrounding yards, streets and parking lots.”

The most likely outcome for the pit is that it will fill from precipitation to the level of the water table. Because people will live near the resulting lake, and because some lake water will percolate to surrounding ground water, township government has a responsibility to work to assure that the lake water quality is good over the long term.

It must assure that any harmful substances, that are in the fill and near the future lake, are either removed or remediated. This in turn requires a comprehensive program for testing the fill now. The work is the responsibility of the quarry owner and operator.

Township officials must encourage a site design that will reduce the risks of pollution from human activities after the site is developed. The Quarry Park design will do this better than a conventional subdivision.

The lake must be monitored and managed over the long term to assure good water quality. It will be easier to do this if the lake and land immediately surrounding it are owned by a single entity. The Quarry Park plan provides for this.

The writer asserts that the park will be “a huge financial burden for the town taxpayers in perpetuity.”

The Quarry Park proposal addresses costs. There is no reason to conclude that those for taxpayers will be large. The townhouses will produce more school tax revenue than the costs for the public school students who will live in them.

Sonal Shah is the Democratic candidate for Bernards Township Committee. She has published no specific position on the quarry. However, one of her planks is: “Avoid costly, unnecessary litigation.” The quarry litigation is costly. And it could have been avoided.

Future problems of this kind can be avoided, if we elect township officials who will engage in respectful and rational discussion of important issues with each other and with the public. I believe Sonal will do this and I support her.

Vote for Sonal Shah on November 3!

Bill Allen, September 22, 2009

The article below was the basis for a letter published in the Bernardsville News on July 23, 2009.

To see the plan map and detailed description in separate windows click on map and description. Suggestion: Maximize each window and then toggle between them. The description contains six pages. For a table of contents click index.

It’s a balmy mid-summer day as I write this for residents of Bernards Township.  And I’m thinking that I would like to be in, or on, or just looking out over a nice lake. Today we have to drive many miles for this opportunity. But with imagination, and the will to achieve what we imagine, we can have a large lake for our use and enjoyment right here in Bernards Township.

The place is now the Tilcon Millington Quarry and the time–when the lake will be full and available for fishing, boating, swimming, and other things–will be about 2020. The lake will be inside what I call Quarry Park. The park will contain 100 plus acres and will have facilities for active and passive recreation, such as trails for walking and biking, a put-in ramp for non-motorized boats, and a slope for snow sports. Operations for a bathing beach will be financially self-supporting like Pleasant Valley Pool.

A detailed concept plan is described in a letter to the Planning Board dated July 17, 2009. This is a slightly revised version of a plan first submitted to the board on August 17, 2004.

The board is currently engaged in a review of the township master plan. I intend to present the park plan to the board during a period for public comment. The plan is presented here in two parts: a drawing of a map and a description of the map. To view them in separate windows click on map and description.

The map includes a private community of townhouses on the south slope that is surrounded on three sides by the public park. I call this Lakeview Village.

The wrapup for the letter to the Planning Board contains these comments:

• The park with lake and adjacent land will serve the general public and support many kinds of active and passive recreation.
• The lake will be part of the public park and be managed by the township. This will remove the uncertainties associated with management by a private association.
• The park will be a valuable amenity for the residents of Lakeview Village. The Village will probably become the premier townhouse community in the township.
• The fiscal impact of the substitution of townhouse units for single family units will be positive, because the property tax revenue for each public school student will be higher.
• This can be a case of win-win for the quarry owner and for township residents.

Bernards Residents: You can have this park if you tell your township officials you want it.  Start by attending and speaking at the Planning Board public hearings on the master plan.  Then speak to members of the Township Committee.

Bill Allen,    July 17, 2009

The Bernards Planning Board is currently engaged in a review [aka "reexamination"] of the township master plan.  This task is undertaken every six years and is mandated by state law.  Working meetings are held at Town Hall on the last Wednesday of each month.  Members of the public may observe and there is opportunity for public comment.

“Land Use” is the principal element in the master plan,  The review must include the goals, objectives, and recommendations for land use throughout the township, and this includes residential development.

Bernards currently has many kinds of houses that serve many kinds of households.  However, current regulations restrict new residential development to single family units.  Statewide data over decades has shown that single family units in the aggragate tend to produce fiscal losses, and multifamily units in the aggragate tend to produce fiscal profits.  Extensive data show that we have this condition in Bernards.

There is a simple explanation:  Single family units in Bernards are on average home to four times as many public school students as multifamily units.  The average tax revenue produced for each student from a single family unit is about half the revenue produced for each student from a multifamily unit.     

I propose that the township development regulations be revised to allow the substitution of two townhouse units for each single family unit that is allowed under current zoning, in those locations where there will be no adverse impact on nearby property owners.

In addition to the fiscal benefit, townhouses use and disturb less land.  This is particularly relevant for the future of the quarry land.  A townhouse development on the relatively unsteep south slope will allow the lake and surrounding land to be used for a public park.

I have submitted two letters to the Planning Board supporting this proposal and made a brief presentation to the board on June 24.  To read the letters click on June 17 letter and June 25 letter. 

Bill Allen,  July 10, 2009 and July 27, 2009