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 Bernards Township Planning Board is having a Master Plan review on Tuesday night, March 16th at 7:30pm in the courtroom of the Municipal Building.  Public comment is encouraged.

The Master Plan is relatively quiet on the quarry.  The content, quoted below, is basically lifted unchanged from the 2003 Master Plan.  In 2003 that brevity may have been appropriate.  But six years later, as quarry operations have basically stopped, we will soon be stuck with a big hole in the ground.

Most of us agree that there are health (eg. ground water, Passaic river watershed) and safety issues (eg. someone falling, drowning) that have to be dealt with.   My personal belief, although some may argue with this, is that the township is in the best position, ultimately, to properly manage those issues.  We can’t rely on a homeowner association or private landowner to take proper care for the long term.

The Master Plan states their goal, in relation to the quarry, is to “preserve open space,” but why not expand that a bit to say something like “preserve open space, protect citizens health and safety …”? We all know the risks, and we all feel this is a very important issue.  What is gained by ignoring the issue?  Lodging those concerns in the Master Plan will give weight and support to future arguments in regard to the eventual quarry rehab plan, etc.

Please come join me at the meeting. Or you could send me an email, or comment here, and then I can pass on your concerns to the PB.

Relevant sections in current master plan draft:

On page 7:

I. Goals and Objectives Element
Section: Non-Residential Development

6. Future uses for the quarry that can preserve open space and protect the Long Hill ridgeline should be explored.

On page 23:

II. Land Use Element
Section: Mining District

This district encompasses the existing Millington Quarry lands where an active Quarry operation continues. In recognition of the future conversion of this use to a residential end use after Quarry operations cease, low-density residential development is intended in this area, at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The Quarry District accounts for slightly over 1% of Bernards Township’s land area.

Dear Residents and Neighbors,

ICON Engineering, hired by Bernards Township to participate in the fill investigation at the Millington Quarry, submitted to the DEP its findings on the first phase of the investigation which began October 19 and ended December 4, 2009. During the investigation, ICON collected split samples for independent laboratory analysis. In its report, ICON states that Bernards Township “remains extremely concerned with the environmental conditions” at the site. Noting that the investigations are incomplete and much more is required to adequately characterize the quality of the fill, ICON advised that limited soil, surfacewater, and groundwater testing revealed samples with excessive levels of arsenic, lead, aldrin, chlordane and other contaminants.
Analytical results

Based on samples analyzed by ICON,

· 66% (21 of 32 boring locations) contained one or more contaminants exceeding the Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (RDCSRS)

· 100% of the samples at the 32 boring locations contained one or more contaminants exceeding the Impact to Groundwater Soil Screening Levels (IGWSSL)

· 84 of the 87 total samples analyzed by ICON contained one or more metals exceeding the IGWSSL

· in Fill Area A* (consisting of @ 3.14 million CY of fill) one or more contaminants exceeded the RDCSRS at 83% (20 of 24) of the boring locations

· 50% of the samples (33 out of 66) in Fill Area A contained various PAH compounds, including benzo(a)pyrene, and one or more other contaminants exceeding the RDCSRS

*The Quarry has designated Fill Areas A, B and C as the areas of imported soils for investigation with the DEP. The Township and CCSMQ have advised the DEP that the investigation must be broader.

View ICON’s full report and test results.

DEP response:

A DEP source advised us that it will wait for the report of JM Sorge (the Quarry’s hired engineer) to determine the requirements for testing in Phase 2, which the DEP expects the Quarry to begin in April. There is no date certain for the Sorge report. The DEP will make no determination on the need for remediation at this time.

Three monitoring wells were installed in December and two more are to be installed for the next round of sampling to obtain additional groundwater results. The DEP advises that we have a long way to go before the investigation is complete.

News articles on this subject:

The Basking Ridge Patch, Feb. 1, 2010 (High arsenic levels and soil contamination found in initial testing at Millington Quarry)

The Bernardsville News, Feb. 5, 2010 (Excess arsenic levels found in Millington quarry water)

–Citizens for a Clean and Safe Millington Quarry

Dear Residents and Neighbors,

Without notice to the Township Committee, the Quarry reportedly advised the DEP that it plans to go forward with its’ own testing plan this week without DEP approval. The Quarry presumably is hoping to gain the DEP’s post-imprimatur for any testing it conducts. The Township learned indirectly of the Quarry’s plans and took prompt steps to ensure that the Township’s specially retained engineer, ICON Engineering, would be on site and conduct testing on our behalf. Quarry attorneys reportedly presented hurdles for ICON to be on site, but undeterred, the Township Committee called an 8:30 a.m. emergency meeting on Saturday morning to discuss retaining ICON Engineering and the parameters for ICON’s testing. View the Township’s press release and decision to retain ICON.

CCSMQ representatives attended the Saturday morning meeting and spoke in support of retaining ICON and in proceeding with an action for a temporary restraining order if ICON were denied access to the site when the Quarry begins testing.

CCSMQ is an apolitical organization comprised of members affiliated with all parties, with its’ only goals to permanently end dumping in our town (recall that we are enjoying only a temporary suspension at this time) and to achieve reliable testing of the quarry site. However, this author is compelled to express disappointment that Bernards Township resident Chris Daggett, a former DEP Commissioner, is a principal in the environmental consulting firm JM Sorge hired by the Quarry to put forth a testing proposal which the DEP deemed insufficient and which CCSMQ and the Township determined, upon evaluation and consultation with experts, was designed to avoid any finding of contamination. We would have hoped that Mr. Daggett, as former DEP Commissioner, would have used his expertise to assist the residents, rather than to allow his firm to assist the Millington Quarry, which has been politely dubbed a “bad corporate citizen” by our Township Committee and earned the Great Swamp Watershed Association’s distinctive “Swampbuster” award in 2008 for risks of environmental contamination the Quarry has presented to the Great Swamp and surrounding environment.

We do not know whether Mr. Daggett has provided personal consultation to the Quarry. But we do know that Millington Quarry, with the assistance of Mr. Daggett’s firm, has cost our Township, i.e., all taxpayers, tremendous resources and continues to do so as the Quarry and their attorneys develop schemes, like using the pending mediation to stall and devise plans to undermine our efforts to achieve real testing. The Quarry’s proposed investigation plan consists of testing the Quarry’s own hand selected piles of dirt (which they designated as Fill Areas A, B and C), limited parameters for testing, no groundwater testing (despite the ability to do so with existing monitoring wells which they failed to disclose to the DEP), no surface water testing, misrepresentations as to the quality of fill and the history of dumping, and a description of the site as “non-residential”–although the Quarry’s Rehabilitation Plan proposes 40-50 homes on the site. This is the plan that Mr. Daggett’s consulting firm has promoted with the DEP.

It is this author’s opinion that Mr. Daggett, through his firm’s support of the Millington Quarry, is on the wrong side for Bernards Township on an issue which is critical to the future of Bernards Township, and determined to be the ‘number one issue facing our town” by Township Committee representatives. Mr. Daggett, as you aspire to lead our state, we welcome you to come over to our side and lead our Township in our battle with the Quarry.

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 letter below was submitted to the Bernardsville News on August 12, 2009.

EDITOR:

I read with great interest the recent letter by Bill Allen, “We can turn quarry into a premier public park.” Then I reviewed his plan and map at www.BernardsVoices.org. I started to get excited about how wonderful it would be to have a lake to swim in right here in Bernards Township.

When my boys were growing up we spent many a lovely summer afternoon at Stirling Lake, which was a great place for them to learn to swim. It was also very inexpensive for residents to purchase badges, which was a huge plus for our family. Society Hill, where I now live, has a pool, but I love lakes. There is nothing like sitting in the shade of a tree, watching your kids play in the sand or in the shallow water a few yards away.

I was dreaming of swimming in a lake with sand under my feet instead of concrete, but then I started getting depressed. Twice in my life I have lived where a lovely lake existed and there was a proposal to develop it into a township park. One was in Wall Township, many years ago, and the other was Clover Hill in Millington (Long Hill Township.) In both cases, the plan failed to materialize, or was voted down, and each lake is now only accessible to the few owners of the lots surrounding it. We in Bernards Township can refuse to make the same mistakes that were made in Wall Township and Long Hill Township.

Readers, please look at the plan and map at www.BernardsVoices.org. And you will see what a great plan it is. Bill Allen seems to have thought of everything – not only aesthetics and engineering questions, but also management and fiscal issues. As Bill says, we can have this park if we want it. We need to let the Planning Board and members of the Township Committee know that we want it.

Carol Jones

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