ARCHIVES
 




 		  
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Retail on a "Junkyard"
Posted by Ron Soussa at 4:43 PM
 
Someone wrote elsewhere: "what is this i hear that G.I owners now may be in the talks with Lowes or Walmart?"

Assuming that something will be built on the G.I. site, is retail a good use for it?


44 Comments    |    Post a comment
Home
 


 
44 Comments:

no matter what goes there, the TC needs to ensure that certain issues are handled correctly...1) access to/from the area. 2) improvements to Rt 46 to improve traffic flow. 3) that the site gets the proper remediation, meaning that all the toxins get cleaned up not hidden with a bogus cap of additional soil.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 27, 2007 8:43 PM
 
 
Better not put in a Burger King, McDonald's will be upset over the competition.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 28, 2007 1:00 PM
 
 
Do we know if there's any truth to the rumor at all? An anonymous post on a blog doesn't pass the "acid test" very well.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 30, 2007 6:58 PM
 
 
Yes it is true. The owner's representative confirmed that they are in discussions with Lowes.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on April 3, 2007 1:19 PM
 
 
Why another Home Improvement store? I think that we would all do so much better with a variety of stores in our area.

I would love a Borders and some type of music establishment.

Just hope that they clean up the site of all toxins first!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 3, 2007 3:21 PM
 
 
I wonder if they've gotten anywhere with the State in providing access directly from Rt.46. I had read previously that was denied and a dead issue.

I can't imagine access to the site from that existing bridge that used to be part of Bloomfield Ave. The locals think traffic is bad now? Ha, that ain't seen nothin' yet! They'll be wishing for the return of the "nice, quiet junkyard"!
Posted by Anonymous Brad on April 4, 2007 1:28 PM
 
 
seems to me Mr. G.I only is thinking of himself and how to get his pockets even fuller than they are now. Where is Mr Avila when all this is going on? enjoying his semi-retirement in Florida with all the money he has made from the junkyard! We need to get involved in making the right decisions, everyone needs to attend the town meetings and get rid of that eyesore and its owners once and for all!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 5, 2007 6:27 AM
 
 
Of course he's only thinking of himself, it's his land and business. How is that any different from any other land holder in town who has tried to maximize profit from putting monster houses on postage stamp size lots. Bottom line is they eventually did it and so will this guy.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 5, 2007 11:18 AM
 
 
Brad, You are right. Access from Route 46 will be the multi-million dollar question.

A state highway with only one lane is completely outdated. I imagine that if the State were able to get land to widen the road that a trade-off for access might happen.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on April 5, 2007 2:54 PM
 
 
Is it only one lane on Rt. 46 there? I thought it was two, no? Regardless, does the State actually have an interest in doing anything in that area Ron? Seems to me it would be a pretty big project, as it's an elevated roadway/bridge going over that swampy area there. It would have to be a huge amount of fill, but I guess that's sorta the plan any way.
Posted by Anonymous Brad on April 5, 2007 11:28 PM
 
 
I still say the existing junkyard is better than all of these alternatives.

Save the junkyard!!!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 9, 2007 2:06 PM
 
 
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone... put the Bd of Ed there in FEMA trailers?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 9, 2007 3:30 PM
 
 
Brad,

I haven't been able to get a answer to your question, but I suspect that the intersection of Bloomfield and 46 (it's one lane going west) would meet the DOT criteria for an upgrade.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on April 13, 2007 9:28 AM
 
 
Thanks Ron, I guess I hadn't really taken note of it necking down to one lane there. At the end of the day, I just see it being an economically and logistically challenged proposal, but I won't pretend to have a good handle on all the dynamics and motivating factors.

Let's face it, the primary reason the site has remained a junkyard all these years is because it wasn't economically viable to turn it into something else. We may be seeing right now that that condition still exists.
Posted by Anonymous Brad on April 13, 2007 11:41 AM
 
 
When explaining to my young son that they we probably going to clean out and build "something" at the "Junkyard" site - he asked the most natural and obvious question - "Where will they put all the "junk" and "toxins"? They have to go to some other place!

Anyone know where? How?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 13, 2007 1:42 PM
 
 
The cars will get crushed and hauled away for recycling, just as they do every day now. Obviously they just wouldn't replace them with "new" ones, as they do today.

Then you dump 4 feet or more of fill over the site and call it good. It's not rocket science.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 13, 2007 4:09 PM
 
 
Therein lies the problem; dumping 4 feet of fill doesn't clean-up the site, it just hides the problem for future generations to discover. TC needs to ensure this doesn't happen and in fact a true clean-up of the site takes place. I can see it now the future residents of Pine Brook are going to glow flourescent green and have 12 toes.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 13, 2007 4:18 PM
 
 
Some motor oil and coolant spilled on the ground pales by comparison to some of the other actual toxic hot sites around here.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 13, 2007 5:20 PM
 
 
What other sites?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 13, 2007 8:12 PM
 
 
Sharkey's Dump, an island in the middle of the Rockaway River, is/was a Superfund site.

You can see it on the south side of Rt. 46 between New Road and Chapin Road.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on April 16, 2007 10:34 PM
 
 
Ron

What about the "Pennick" site on Taylortown Road behind the Montville Fire House??
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on April 17, 2007 9:20 AM
 
 
Ron

What about Fairclough oil on RT 202 towards Lincoln Park??
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on April 17, 2007 9:22 AM
 
 
Ron

What about what was the Sunoco now a Gulf on Rt 202 towards Lincoln Park that is an unremediated DEP site pumping gas over our water source with single wall tanks?

This site has at least three contibutors to the EXISTING pollution and the DEP has not enforced anything for over 5 years.

These are just a few that I can remember.
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on April 17, 2007 9:25 AM
 
 
Thanks Art. I forgot about Pennick and didn't know about the other two.

I'm not 100% certain, but believe that gas stations may have some sort of special dispensation with DEP. Does anybody know?
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on April 17, 2007 9:34 AM
 
 
What's the water level at G.I.'s up to this week with all the flooding? Maybe all the "toxins" have been washed away now and the issue has self-remediated? :)
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 19, 2007 9:16 AM
 
 
Home Depot? Doubtful, since there's a brand new one on the old Pio Costa racetrack just up the street. 4 feet of fill?? (4/13 commenter) Not at all likely the whole site is in the floodplain. Any type of largescale development is suspect because of the access issue.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 27, 2007 8:52 AM
 
 
Who said anything about a Home Depot? Indeed that would be silly, as there is one across the street as you indicate. There's not a Lowe's or Walmart for 10's of miles however, so I'm sure they'd like to change that.

I'm curious, was anyone over that way when the Passaic peaked at flood stage? In the past, the GI property has gotten close to flooding, but I've never seen it under water. Raise it up 4 feet and there'd be virtually zero chance of flooding.

But again, access from Rt.46 is what makes or breaks any deal here. I say this assumming that access from the existing bridge that was once part of Bloomfield Ave is not an option.
Posted by Anonymous Brad on April 30, 2007 9:44 PM
 
 
Brad,
The whole GI site is in the floodplain and State law doesn't allow raising the land by filling. You can find the FEMA map here: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&categoryId=12001&langId=-1&userType=G&type=1
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 3, 2007 10:40 PM
 
 
Who listens to FEMA any more!?

They've been dumping fill in there for years now - some portions of the property have already been raised by at least 4 feet, probably more!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on May 8, 2007 1:45 PM
 
 
Instead on another ugly site as people's first impression upon driving into Montville, How about a GOLF course! or a Baseball field on the river with a restaurant?? Something Pretty. We don't need another "Mall" shopping facility!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on October 30, 2007 11:58 AM
 
 
A golf course? There's enough room for maybe 4 holes unless you're talking about miniature golf!

Save the junkyard!!!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on November 9, 2007 7:51 PM
 
 
Apparently, the planning board felt that retail was in keeping with the town's master plan, so they didn't have any objections. The TC listened to the voters who have come to recent meetings and passed an ordinance that over-rode the master plan. The trouble is, this developer spent a lot of money in reliance that the master plan would be adhered to. Now they'll have to go to the board of adjustment, and if they're not granted a variance they'll have a lawsuit. Nobody can predict the result of a lawsuit, but from what I've seen, it seems that they had the rug pulled out from under them.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on December 3, 2007 11:55 AM
 
 
The developer has no case.

Even if the master plan encourages retail on the GI site, the Lowes application doesn't comply with Montville's retail zoning. It would require tons of variances no matter which existing retail zone standards are applied.

He's free to go to the zoning board but he's got no legal basis to demand approval for a big box store.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on December 3, 2007 2:01 PM
 
 
To get the facts correct - BOTH the original ordinance as proposed and the one modified to delete big box were not in conformance with the Master Plan. The Master Plan needs to be reviewed and updated. We are undertaking that in 2008.
A few salient points -
- the developer originally pleaded to have age restricted housing on that site;
- age restricted housing will generate 2 times as much annual tax revenue as big box (per the developer's own figures), so lost taxes from a delay of say 3 years for age restricted housing will be paid back by year 6. Not that tax revenue should drive the decision, but the developer used the lost tax revenues from a delay as one of his points;
- whatever gets built will be adjacent to residential owners who should have a voice about their neighborhood. If it was your street you'd want that opportunity and would expect all the various 'boards' to at least listen and understand your concerns. That's what we're all doing.
Posted by Anonymous Jim Sandham on December 4, 2007 8:21 PM
 
 
Heres a radical idea, clean up the waste, utilizing town, county and state funds, as I am sure this qualifies as a superfund site, Federal money should be attainable; and leave it as open space. Wow, unused land, maybe with a few trees, some grass, I don't know a park bench if we feel crazy. Could you imagine? How irrational of me to suggest such a plan. Not to mention this site is relatively, and by relatively I mean next to, the Passaic River. Do we ever get tired of dumping needless waste into the waters which border our town? I am sure the town residents residing in the area would like a reduction in traffic as well. To clarify my lack of personal involvement, I live in the Towaco section of town, no where near the scrapsite. I know the Jay Street Park is down there, why not have another area of conservation. I appreciate the tax base argument, but considering the revenue our town generates is staggering, I would prefer to avoid using that as an excuse this time.
Posted by Blogger Matthew Gluck on December 7, 2007 5:17 PM
 
 
The GI property is indeed next to a river and about 1/2 is wetlands. Have you ever been to John St Park in the area? Tons of mosquitoes & not very appealing for outdoor park use. It is not realistic to expect 40 acres along a state highway be removed from the tax roles.$1-2 million from new development will help to offset tax increases. Purchase and toxic cleanup should be done by private developers. Its cheaper and quicker than government.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on December 8, 2007 8:04 AM
 
 
Matt G, Would you go for the tax increase necessary to buy the owner of GI out in order to create open space?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on December 8, 2007 7:56 PM
 
 
Hi Matt

First of all please register to vote if you haven’t already. Second many citizens in town can learn from your posts. Not that I completely agree with your positions but you put your name to them and offer them in a very professional manor. I will try to provide some background regarding the GI site and what will be next.

The GI site many years ago was a much smaller site than it is today. Much of the area that abuts the river had been filled in. The presumption here is it was done illegally. There are plenty of aerial photos showing the before and after over the last 30 years. When the DEP was first created the state and feds used taxpayer funds as well as corporate polluter fines and fees to clean up sites. The major sites were called super fund sites. Matt you want to use superfund monies to clean up GI. Well there is no superfund money and the owners of GI claim the property is clean. I know that sounds ludicrous but if the proper tests are performed and they get favorable Phase 1 and 2 environmental reports then the DEP would probably sign off. Twenty years ago if your family owned a business that unknowingly polluted during their operations DEP could close it down and essentially bankrupt the company and in many cases the individual owners as well. Over the years the major corporations such as oil companies have avoided many clean ups while the DEP, in my opinion, became a bloated and ineffective agency.

The state has now come up with a relatively new program to hide the fact that they can no longer pay for clean ups like they did in the past. The program is known as the “Brownfield’s Act”. Basically properties that no one wanted to own or purchase due to the environmental concerns in an instant became valuable properties. The Brownfield’s concept is to effectively cap the contamination by placing 40 inches of fill material over the contaminated property.

As far as what will happen with the GI tract Montville could still end up with a Lowes on the site, however now the applicant will have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to obtain Variances. As part of that process the applicant would need to provide environmental information as well as traffic and access studies among other items to members of the zoning board of adjustment for consideration.

In closing the town will not be cleaning up the GI tract. Some form of acceptable development will be the method used to improve the site and generate tax revenues.

If I may guess is it Redding Place?

Regards,
Art
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on December 10, 2007 9:23 AM
 
 
They wanted to put senior or other housing on site, but were knocked down because of access. You cant blame a person near retirement age for wanting to sell a business. Im sure property will be cleared an cleaned and Lowes will have full parking lots full of Montville residents
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 23, 2008 4:09 PM
 
 
Art wrote...

"There are plenty of aerial photos showing the before and after over the last 30 years."

Curious, are these photos on-line at all? I'm familiar with the GI property and curious as to what ares were filled in.

John
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 4, 2008 9:21 PM
 
 
Hi John

I don't believe they are online.

After Feb 24 if you want you can send me an email using the township contact email address and I'll see if I can borrow a set.

Regards,
Art
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on February 10, 2008 10:02 AM
 
 
Gi auto and Lowes have started the Zoneing board of adjustment process to go forward with the Lowes on this site.

While I'm at it the new traffic signal on RT 202 in Towaco is behind schedule at the County. Our mayor is looking into why this is occuring.

Regards,
Art
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on March 13, 2008 12:06 AM
 
 
the pictures referred to show initially a pond on the site, with subsequent pictures (taken over years)showing less and less of a pond until it is finally gone (filled in)
I guess if you wait long enough you can fill in illegally and benefit from the result.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 20, 2008 4:14 PM
 
 
Is it true that GI has applied for approval to build Loews? ALSO Carl Debacco the former police chief and verry good friend of GI owner is now running for the town council because Loews was not approved last year?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 16, 2008 4:19 PM
 
 
Post a comment    |    


 























OurMontville.com
Copyright © 2007 OurMontville.com