ARCHIVES
 




 		  
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Towaco Center Master Plan
Posted by Ron Soussa at 11:46 AM
 
The Township Committee has been receiving comments regarding the Towaco Center master plan from many residents.

Some are against any development near Montville's prime aquifer, while some felt that the "transit village" they embrace will never be achieved.

What do you think?

Labels:



121 Comments    |    Post a comment
Home
 


 
121 Comments:

This plan takes everything originally proposed to protect our water source and turns it on its head. The 1998 aquifer report states that the area should be left as is, with NO development in many of the proposed areas due to the threat of contaminating the water supply. This is our SOLE WATER SUPPLY. Once it's gone, there is no more. If you're still ambivalent, note that Ramsey residents recently received notice that they can no longer drink their tap water due to arsenic contamination. If something like that happens here, what will we do? The impervious coverage percentages shown in the master plan directly contradict the aquifer report, the master plan was not discussed with any of the pertinent committees prior to being "finalized", and there was little to no public input that was considered or accepted (eg, every meeting I went to, the residents wanted ZERO housing, not "reduced housing units", ZERO. Big difference). Something smells here.

Donna Ambriano
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 3, 2007 11:30 AM
 
 
When I was a member of the Township Committee, the Towaco Village Committee and the Planning Board I proposed that there be no(as in zero) residential componant to the Plan, That the zone be smaller to avoid current residential areas and that any proposed developement be submitted to our water Aquifer Expert to determine the effect on our water supply. In the middle of the creation of the appropriate zoning we were sued by a developer wanting what I would consider to be massive developement. The Judge in that case found that Montville Township's design standards were at variance with the zoning and sent it back to the Township. We could have corrected the zoning and opened the door to that developement or recind the design standards and go back to square one. On my motion, recinded the design standards as the safer route, and here we are 3 years later doing the same thing again.
The goal as far as I was concerned was to allow the improvement of the streetscape and improve the area of existing developement not to change the entire character of Towaco and certainly not to risk our water supply. The idea that Towaco center could be a Summit or Ridgewood is just plain silly, yet those comparisons are made. The whole project was mired down in a lot of political accusations at the time and now it seems that the only vote against this more intensive developement was the person most accused of working for the developers.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 5, 2007 8:11 AM
 
 
This thing has smelled since its inception! There is without a doubt individuals involved that have a hidden agenda, I for one feel that this should be put up for a vote by the community and overturn the vote by the board, because they are NOT doing what is in the best interest of the community!

NOTHING should take place until a COMPLETE Environmental Impact Study is done!

Plus, what on earth is causing the delay in the Wellhead Ordinance?

Recharge Stream X resides in the rear of this parcel of land, and as the previous posted has clearly indicated, this is the ENTIRE municipalities water supply! If this developed parcel has a negative impact on the water supply, will these Board Members be held personal accountable and liable? And of the developer who will be long gone counting their cash!

There is NO Traffic relief to an already horrific traffic congested area! Conrail is NOT going to spend a dime to realign the Railroad Trestle.

WAKE UP MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP!!!
This is not about shopping!
It’s not about a Commuter Village!

It is ALL about individuals with a hidden agenda, that could careless about this community, nor it environmental future, they care about one thing, and one thing only $$$$$$$$!
Posted by Anonymous Chris Schlomann on July 5, 2007 9:56 AM
 
 
chris

FYI wellhead protection ordinance was adopted by the planning board
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 5, 2007 1:11 PM
 
 
Dan, You also voted to put those fancy street lights and sidewalks in your neighborhood on Pine Brook Rd. Can I get some of that fancy stuff on my street if you get elected? I think the whole town would look better with that streetscape. Don't you think some areas of Pine Brook could use a facelift like the one you gave your neighbors?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 5, 2007 10:09 PM
 
 
"FYI wellhead protection ordinance was adopted by the planning board"

Guess I will have to head down to town hall and read up on it, to see how intact it remained from it's original submission. Thanks Anonymous!
Posted by Anonymous Chris Schlomann on July 6, 2007 7:16 AM
 
 
Actually those type of lights were required in the Development standards in Pine Brook along Rt 46 and 202 in Montville as well as some newer residential developement. Why, do you object to them? If the Planning Board doesn't carry through now then they have changed direction. If by my neighborhood you mean Towaco those lights have been added from the corner of Jacksonville through the train station and up Pine Brook Rd. Pine Brook Rd was a major reconstruction project with new drainage and a sidewalks. The plan was well publisized and had hearings with the residents. They are not on my street. They are also in the developement behind where I live (done by the developer) persumably by planning Board Request. I also worked on the plans for the redevelopement of the Rt 46 corridor and Manchester Park for which money was put aside (now taken for another project). Now I understand that project has been scrapped. With differant elected officials you get a differant vision. Your point is?
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 6, 2007 8:46 AM
 
 
What's wrong with a dozen new apartments across from the train station? It seems the owners of that run down shopping center where Landower cafe is just want to build on top of the stores and they will improve the whole shoping center.

You people oppose everything including improving yourown neighborhooods.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 6, 2007 5:38 PM
 
 
Building up and potentially adding to the school age population isn't necessarily improving our neighborhood. What's wrong with keeping things simple? Everything doesn't have to be overbuilt just to make developers richer.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 8, 2007 7:16 AM
 
 
"Anonymous said...
What's wrong with a dozen new apartments across from the train station? It seems the owners of that run down shopping center where Landower cafe is just want to build on top of the stores and they will improve the whole shoping center.

You people oppose everything including improving your own neighborhooods."

At least have the courage to post your name and not hide behind the keyboard and monitor. I don't think there is any objection to a face lift to the existing store fronts by anyone here in Towaco. But more specific to your statement lets see, there is no traffic relief for starters, so adding to the population via more residential and retail traffic without any enhancement to the infrastructure is helping to improve the community how Annoymous?
Posted by Anonymous chris schlomann on July 8, 2007 7:14 PM
 
 
My understanding is that the Township is considering adding Retail to the current Industrial zones, which has the potential of greatly increasing the density of use on a number of properties across Montville Township. It could alter the very nature of Montville Township. They have consistantly used the term "Underutilized". One person's under utilized is another's extreme over developement. This bears watching.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 9, 2007 11:33 AM
 
 
I agree with Donna and Chris.
The AQUIFER should be considered our most precious asset and be treated as such.

Every few years you have developers with a new fangled way of paving over the prime core aquifer. With a sraight face they say it will "help" save the drinking water. We are a bit smarter than that.

A MODEST FACELIFT....means to dress up the exterior of an existing building. Not to add square footage, apartments or add parking lots.

The addition of a planter boxes or streetscape is what is needed, and what is desired by residents in the area.

ARE YOU LISTENING YET??

ZERO housing and building in this area.

NO MORE, it has to stop!

The excuse of a transit village is laughable. Have you looked at the train or bus schedule latley?

If we want to shop, we'll go to existing venues. They need our dollars.

Shoving more in the small space available is just plain dumb.

There are plently of vacant properties to fix-up, that will not interfere with the aquifer.
Michele Caron
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 9, 2007 2:20 PM
 
 
The Planning Board recieved a report supporting big box retail for the GI Auto Salvage site. It looks like the Planning Board is supporting that position. A resident made the point that neighbors in the area were not noticed about this report and stormed out of the room, saying it was a stacked deck, as the Planning Board eliminated other uses on the Planners List. The important issue here is not so much what the Board accepts but rather the fact that apparently residents in the area were left out of the process. That can only cause trouble down the road.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 13, 2007 10:44 AM
 
 
Dan, If the Planning Board did not properly notice the residents then you should notify the appropriate authority. Otherwise, it seems like grandstanding in an election year. Simply put: Put up or shut up!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 15, 2007 10:22 PM
 
 
Anonymous, The proper authority is the Planning Board. I am just commenting on what I saw and heard at a public meeting my friend. Certainly you have no objection to informing the public do you?
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 16, 2007 12:25 PM
 
 
Michelle and Chris.....I listened intently to the public comments made at the public hearing on the Towaco Center....only 5 or 6 residents had anything to say for or against the Plan, and 2 or 3 of those had traffic questions unrelated to the plan. The Planning Board is and remains very interested in what all Montville residents have to say about the Center Plan.

But Chris, I don't get the part about the 'hidden agenda'....there are many new Planning Board members like me who are seeing this Plan for the first time, and it has been pared down considerably as a result of the Board's review. It has been discussed in open session by the Board on a number of occasions going back to last year. I know this sounds naive, but people have to realize that this Board exists to do what they conclude is best for the entire Township after considering all the issues pro and con. Nearly every resident I speak with about the Towaco Center Plan is very excited about it...let's face it, planter boxes are not the fix for that strip center.

If you were at the public hearing, you heard about the infrastructure improvements that are scheduled for 202 and Whitehall Road to alleviate the traffic concerns. Stormwater management is and ought to be of paramount concern...you should see firsthand what this Board makes applicants do to protect the aquifer.

I don't wish to get drawn in to a heated, blog debate, only because there are folks on this site whose only motivation is the upcoming election....that's not what I'm into. What I would like to do is meet for coffee at the Red Barn with anyone who feels as passionately as I do one way or the other about this project to be sure everyone's concerns get input.

I'm not a politician, just a resident who cares about Montville and, like all of you, truly wants what's best. Regards to all....and go U10 Lady Mustangs! The U12's won the state championship, but the U10 girls won the North Jersey District title and placed 2nd in their state age bracket....quite a feat as well!
Posted by Blogger Gary Lewis on July 17, 2007 8:36 AM
 
 
Gary said

"But Chris, I don't get the part about the 'hidden agenda'....there are many new Planning Board members like me who are seeing this Plan for the first time, and it has been pared down considerably as a result of the Board's review."

Gary as you point out this is the first time you are seeing the plan so you may not be aware that it is actually an expansion of a plan which had been pared down. Streets that had been eliminated are back in and a residential componant that I had been expressly against has been expanded. You can make reference to "political" motives but if people can't hear the arguments of people seeking election on what will they base their vote?
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 17, 2007 10:06 AM
 
 
Dan.....you're one of the ones I'd like to sit down with some time. I can't believe in my 9+ years here, we've never met or spoken.

I made a point of getting a good deal of the history of the Towaco case from JohnR and other longer-tenured Board members....love to hear your take on it as well some time. Let's do it face to face, though...on-line makes no sense. Fact is, there is no hidden agenda....period.

I'm usually home Friday mornings....pick one and let me know. Best of luck this fall....regards. GL
Posted by Blogger Gary Lewis on July 17, 2007 11:58 AM
 
 
DD (either Dear Dan or D--- Dan, take your pick)

Least the "new" planning board members and public not be aware YOU sat on the original Towaco masterplan committee and gave a royal thumbs up to development UNTIL many residents showed up to protest. That was democracy in action. Core values? You counted the votes and potential political damage then changed your mind.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 17, 2007 12:11 PM
 
 
Gary take note of anonymous July 17th, now that is a political statement for you. Go to it anonymous. The only problem you have is that there is a real record of my statements and votes.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 17, 2007 2:55 PM
 
 
Gary, Would love to have a cup of coffee with you. I have history from when this all began more than 18 years ago, until now.

Not sure who in Towaco you are speaking to, but we would love to invite you to a neighborhood informal gathering so you can hear what the "unpolitical", plain residents are saying.

I am sure you would be suprised.
Your thoughts are always welcome.
Michele Caron
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 17, 2007 4:12 PM
 
 
Gary, My Cell Phone number is easy to get through Townhall it is the same one I have had for years. Friday mornings are good for me. Give me a call when you want to.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 17, 2007 4:26 PM
 
 
Look at the development this way.

Like an ICE CREAM SUNDAE.

A MODEST serving would be one scoop in a nice dish.

Second - choice would be a two scoops in a nice BOWL.

Third choice would be the addition some hot fudge.

Fourth - would be some cherry syrup.

Fifth - would add some whip cream.

Six - add some nuts, candy and on and on and on.

Our developers are like little kids with great big eyes. They think they can put the entire sundae in their pie hole. With all the works...

Only to cause a MAJOR mess to all those around them when they find it DOESN'T WORK.

The planning board is like the responsible adult. They guide.

Let's stick with a single scoop.
We'll all feel better LATER.

Bromoszelter for everyone!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 17, 2007 4:28 PM
 
 
Things are sounding more civil already....that's what Montville needs probably more than anything - some civil discourse and less hysteria and exaggeration. Michelle, there are residents in Montville and Pine Brook as well as Towaco...you know that. We are one community, and each area has things the residents would like to see and not see by them. Nothing is served by innuendo or fear-mongering, though - nothing 'smells', there are no hidden agendas, arsenic does not come from transit villages, and so on. Reasonable people can have different opinions about the relative merits of the Towaco Center Plan, but some folks assert that the process is being carried out by people who don't care about what's best for the town - that is simply irresponsible and without class.

I've had the pleasure of serving on the Planning Board for 18 months now; granted it's not that long, but this is one of the most dedicated, caring bunch of volunteers I have ever had the fortune to work with.

Let me know if you're around town some Friday morning...I'll meet you at Bobby's Deli (my Saturday a.m. haunt! How's that for a segue!
GL
Posted by Blogger Gary Lewis on July 17, 2007 4:47 PM
 
 
Hi Gary, and thank you for taking the time to reply, I do appreciate it.

My reference to the “Hidden Agenda” was really going back to the inception of this project and I for one am grateful to hear that there are new members on the board. The hidden agenda really goes to the smoke and mirrors regarding how this entire project is and has been presented. There is no real benefit to the Towaco Community by developing this site as described by the developer.

Besides the encroachment on recharge stream X that resides on this site, which is the biggest concern, there is no traffic relief. How can the current infrastructure support added traffic to an area of town that is in a knot during morning and afternoon rush? Conrail has gone on record a few years back that they will not spend the money to replace the Rail Road Trestle in order to realign Route 202 and get rid of the traffic light snafu that exists today.

This is a quality of life issue that involves the environment in which this entire community depends upon for it’s water supply, and the added traffic to an area that is already inundated during peak times of day.

A face-lift to the strip mall would be great!

The addition of more people, traffic and especially the environmental impact, were no true long-term solution exists today that has been presented by the developers of this site simply makes no sense.

Again, I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to reply.
Posted by Anonymous chris schlomann on July 18, 2007 6:43 AM
 
 
Gary, You state, "and 2 or 3 of those had traffic questions unrelated to the plan.", I disagree, traffic questions are a big part of the plan. There are traffic issues today that can't be resolved, and by adding business and / or residential to the mix will just add to the problems. Bringing additional vehicals to the area needs to be managed also.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 18, 2007 8:57 AM
 
 
The traffic questions I referred to had to do with Barney Road. While the concerns are absolutely legitimate, they are not related to Towaco Center. Those concerns exist now and would not change regardless of development.

Further, you really have to read the Morris County Route 202 Traffic Study presented this past spring to understand the traffic improvements already scheduled for that area. The County has figured this development into their improvement plans in the event it is ever approved and built, and they concluded the improvements are satisfactory to handle traffic for the area. The traffic is being managed. It's a big issue, I agree! Someone suggested a no right turn on red from Whitehall Road onto Firehouse Road (into 202)...I'll pull what little hair I have left out. Ouch!
Posted by Blogger Gary Lewis on July 18, 2007 5:00 PM
 
 
Gary: Barney Road is absolutely directly related to Towaco Center. Yes the problems exist today and they will just get worse if more retail / residential is added to Towaco Center. I have not read the entire 202 traffic study, but if the high lights that were in the Star Ledger are any indication, the study is a waste as are the proposals to "fix" traffic. In my opinion, you can't rely on the county or state engineers to come up with a good plan because they never use common sense in their planning.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 19, 2007 8:00 AM
 
 
The Towaco Village Concept was developed to meet the criteria for a NJDOT Transit Village and to qualify for the funds involved that would benefit the developers—not the residents of Montville. It is a iniatiative developed by the McGreevy administration to revive depressed areas surrounding train stations. The rehabed Towaco station was the first step. Everything is clearly explained on the state's web site, including requirements for population density, mixed use housing, rental residential dwellings, retail, etc.: www.state.nj.us/transportation/cpmmunity/village. Everyone commenting on this topic should take a few minutes to check this site, then decide if a Transit Village—revised or otherwise—on the scale proposed is really in the best interest of Montville residential property owners. Oh, and Money Magazine did name Montville Township as the 13 best place to live in the U.S.—without a "town center."
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 19, 2007 9:38 AM
 
 
Bravo!! Cheer!!
Montville received the Money Magazine accolades without having to pave over and build on every square inch of the town.

Notice, we don't see Princeton or Montclair or Chatham on the list.

Montville...perfect just the way it is! Keep up the good work!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 19, 2007 1:00 PM
 
 
Anonymous said

"The Towaco Village Concept was developed to meet the criteria for a NJDOT Transit Village and to qualify for the funds involved that would benefit the developers—not the residents of Montville. It is a iniatiative developed by the McGreevy administration to revive depressed areas surrounding train stations. The rehabed Towaco station was the first step."

I would like to point out that the Towaco Train Station was completed about 3 years before McGreevy was elected and was the result of NJ Transit wanting to put a couple of new plastic shelters up, not part of any Transit Village concept.
At that time the Township worked with NJ Transit and the Historical Commission to try and replicate what had once been an active and extensive Train Station although of course on a much smaller scale. It was hoped at the time that the property owners along that section would see the value of improving their buildings and taking advantage of the restored train station.
I won't dispute that there are always developers seeking to take advantage of programs and zoning issues on either a state or local level. In this case a developer did try and failed and ultimately we went back to square one on the zoning. Now it is back.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 19, 2007 1:53 PM
 
 
Dan,

I understand where you are coming from, and actually remember being at meetings earlier on where you distinctly said there would be no housing put on this spot. The owners of the properties surrounding the refurbished train station absolutely DO see the value of improving their property and they most certainly ARE taking advantage--in fact, they're using the renovation of the train station as the foundation for their whole "transit village" proposal in order to ram housing through where housing ought not to be. And supplementing it with the logic that the grant (I believe its $50K) specifies "mixed use development." Personally, the purity of my water supply is worth more than $50K. Give the money back and protect the aquifer.
Posted by Anonymous D Ambriano on July 23, 2007 2:37 PM
 
 
Anonymous July 19, 2007 12:00 PM -

Before you hurt yourself patting yourself on the back, you should read the report. I don't believe that any of the municipalites that you mentioned were eligible for consideration.

Sure, it's great that the town was recognized, but it was recognized within a given context.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 25, 2007 12:48 PM
 
 
Donna,
It wasn't within my power to say there would be no residential housing componant. All I could do at the time was to oppose any residential use which I did then and still do. This will be a Planning Board and Township Committee action and I would hope that they see the wisdom of not allowing a residential use now.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 25, 2007 4:31 PM
 
 
I have no interest is any continued political activity in Montville Township so the following observations are as a member of the TCA and a life long resident of Towaco. My lack of political activity in no way diminishes my desire to see Towaco not be damaged by development that is too intense for the area and runs the risk of potential damage to the Aquifer. To that end I would appreciate it if you would forward my comments to the rest of the TCA membership as comments from a follow member but as one who also was involved it this effort from the beginning.

I thought Truscha did a great job of presenting the facts of the "new development plan" but I also think that some of the Comments made by others were inaccurate to say the least. I chose not to comment at the time because it would have become a he said, they said, political debate which I felt would have served no purpose and would have disrupted to generally factual presentation by Truscha.

When I left the various committees the plan was substantially smaller in scope to the new plan, which has a different Planner who is I am sure paid for by the Township. I worked to eliminate any residential component and also worked to eliminate Park Ave, Majorca and the Whitehall Rd portion from the development plan. That was the plan at that time.

This new plan has expanded back into those areas and added a residential area. This is in fact far different from the original and from the new Township Committee. My long experience tells me the statements that this is:

A. "Just a normal planning review"

B. : "That it only was part of an over all master review" and "this is just the maximum" are not accurate statements. Why is there a need for a maximum at this level which will only be pushed by future developers?

The fact is that there is no requirement to revisit this plan and if it is being done it is because someone is pushing it and trying to benefit at the expense of the residents of Towaco.

C. The alleged Council on affordable housing component has long been used by developers as a means of circumventing local zoning. The fact is that Montville Township has exceeded COAH required housing and has credits into the future which is how I was able to stop the COAH development a mile or so down the road.

D. This issue of the $50,000.00 Grant requiring Mixed Use was not a part of any discussion that I am aware of in the initial planning for the Towaco Redevelopment and if that is the case then the Township should give the money back and if it was, that fact was hidden from some of the Township Committee members and from both the TVC and the Planning Board. I would certainly like to see the documentation that requires it. If true then the prudent course would be to give it back as the additional residential housing would be much more damaging than the loss of the $50,000.

E. There was in fact no Taking by imminent domain. NJ Transit does have that capacity but the record reflects a buy and sell agreement and in fact some of you will remember a "For Sale" sign on the property. I can easily understand the dissatisfaction on the part of the property owner but NJ Transit had two choices either the property opposite Pine Brook Rd or where they ultimately wound up.

F. The Rathburn Rd. disaster is really a three part problem. At the original hearing it was a generally conforming subdivision with one existing home and two additional lots. At the time the residents were most concerned about the widening of Rathburn but the real failure here is that the DEP required additional detention in the form of a detention tank which altered the plan and should have been stopped then and there and returned to the planning board and the minute the road was damaged it is contrary to the Township Soil Movement Ordinance and should have been stopped cold in November when it was brought to the attention of the Township. No development that I have seen over the last 15 years was allowed to operate in this manner. That is an enforcement issue. I fully admit that the Planning Board may well have not properly assessed the impact of this development however the change in plan caused by the DEP and the horrendous conditions caused by soil movement are both enforcement issues on the part of the Township.

In closing I want to say that in the last two years requests for rezoning have increased dramatically and it should be remembered that there are either plans or concepts ( including this one) include a concept for 93-150 multi-housing units opposite the Senior Center and 150 units on the Border of Towaco but in Lincoln Park. That would be a potential of almost 300 residential units in about a 3 mile length of 202. The State Planning guide estimates 10 traffic trips per residential unit per day, so do the math. Call me a cynic but the Township's desire to have the County realign 202 has more to do with development than it does with what is good for the Towaco Residents


Dan Grant
973-723-0403
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on January 12, 2008 4:04 PM
 
 
Let's get out the voting booths and see how many Towaco residents are FOR or AGAINST the destruction...or sorry meant development of Towaco.

Everyone should come out on Jan.24for the planning board meeting.

Hopefully they won't postpone the subject like they have in the past.

Open mike, let the people speak their mind. This is still the USA?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 14, 2008 10:51 AM
 
 
This is stupid looking, hodgepodge redevelopment, probably due, in part, to clueless political opportunism - trying to appear to be for preservation and development, at election time, and a township that does not give a hoot about quality of life or property values in this part of town, as long as their cronies make money.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 24, 2008 10:22 AM
 
 
If there is any chance of stopping this once and for all a united and determined groundswell must occur based on the negative impact to ALL residents of Montville.

These include-
Increased taxes for all. There is no example in NJ where residential development has done anything but cause tax increases. Since a major portion of this plan is residential, I guarantee the new taxes generated will not be sufficient to cover the increased cost of services.

This location is a few hundred feet from two of the worst intersections in the township. Putting more traffic on this stretch of 202 will make the situation worse both in terms of rush hour traffic and safety (making parallel parking still has cars backing into oncoming traffic). It is proposed that after this project is completed, a solution to the traffic problem could be explored. Given the fact that the problem is getting traffic across the RR tracks, what are you going to do, dig a tunnel, build an ovepass? Since there are no realistic solutions to an already bad situation, the prudent thing to do is not make the situation worse which this development will do.

And of course there is the water issue. Development has already caused myself and many of my neighbors to drill new wells (of course the township couldn't run new lines to help us out, but new development doesn't seem to have a problem accessing public supplies). People are rightfully focused on the supply issued without realizing the problem doesn't stop there. The demand is being increased as well, the old double whammy.

What I found particularly disturbing at last nights meeting was when one of the owners of the property threatened the board that if "nothing was done right now" he was going to pull out of this plan, not one board member put him in his place for making this threat. Who is calling the shots here? It sure as heck shouldn't be the people trying to make a buck at everyone else's expense.

If I understand the process, this is now going to the Township Committee for review. They may be our only chance for killing this beast, since the planning board is in lock step with development. Unfortunately it appears people are going to have to get fired up and make a stink if we want to stop this plan.

Doing nothing IS an option. The appearance of the buildings there hasn't stopped anyone from moving here up until now and I know it won't in the future. Increases in taxes and more traffic will.

Let's turn up the heat and try to get the Township Committee to do the right thing.

Frank Lechleiter
Posted by Anonymous Frank Lechleiter on January 25, 2008 11:38 AM
 
 
Frank,
Great point! NO development is a choice. We will have no water if this development door is opened, or we will pay a vast premium $$$ if we must BUY it from outside sources that are already stressed. Crappy water & higher taxes to pay for it...oh JOY!

The hissy fit of Mr. Scelba last night was uneccesary and unprofessional. The board Chairman was fast to dismiss others, but not him. What's up? Go away if you don't like it, threats like that are uncalled for.

Hopefully, the Township Committee will use ENVIRONMENTAL grant funds available to BUY the open parcels of land in question. This would be a nod to all of Towaco residents that they have been heard LOUD and CLEAR.

Deb Nielson was the only brave soul to vote "NO" and by doing so has showed she cares about Towaco residents. Thanks Deb!

Township Committee must think outside the box on this subject.

You HAVE to consider the residents directly effected, which means ALL of Montville when it comes to the drinking source.

Where is the DEP & EPA stand on this issue?? Aren't they suppose to protect us???
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 25, 2008 12:29 PM
 
 
A little hysterical arent you? 45 units in a town with 20,000 people is going to make Montville into a city??

Face it, this area is a blight on our WHOLE TOWN, and nothing nice is going to happen without incentives to get the owners to improve things. How do you expect to get that ugly glass building on Waughaw Road fixed up unless you let them build some apartments. Or that ugly stuff next to the ice cream store.

Most people in Montville want to see that area get improved, and this plan will help that happen. It will raise property values everywhere, and there won't be any of the bad stuff your talking about.

Progress means change. Get used to it. Your nothing but a bunch of not-in-my-backyard crybabies.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 25, 2008 12:50 PM
 
 
Let them move development into your neighborhood. If you don't like Towaco the way it is...MOVE!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 25, 2008 3:20 PM
 
 
I attended the Planning Board meeting this Thursday night and I have to tell you that I was dead set against the master plan from the start. After listening to the presentation by the guy, I'm sorry, I don't know his name, I feel much better about the plan. I have been told by friends and neighbors a whole lot of stuff that is apparently not true. I really feel that in the end, Towaco will be a better place to live when this area is revitalized. It is an eyesore and has been my whole life. I am afraid it will continue to look this way for the rest of my life unless this plan is approved. I understand the concerns about the aquifer and traffic but I honestly think they were addressed at the meeting. I know people will disagree with me but that is the beauty of it. God Bless America!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 25, 2008 11:28 PM
 
 
I didn't want to speak publicly about it because the minute I do it gives them a political excuse for doing what they are doing but it was clear to me from the onset that this was going to pass.

Understand that the Township Committee has to pass the enabling ordinance for this to take effect but the downside is that some developer now has it on record that the Township Planning Board has passed this and that will give them an edge in Court if it goes that far.

I know that when I fought against any residential component and wanted a smaller TC1 area people said I did that for fear of losing my seat (that wasn't true by the way) but the end result is that at that time the people were listened to and the plan was dropped. Now it is back bigger then ever.

If I understood the planner right, he stated that the Grant WAS NOT TIED TO RESIDENTIAL which is something that people were told earlier.

OLD Town Properties could have gone through the Board of Adjustment at any time over the last 5 years if this were just about their portion of the project without any masterplan review.

That said the most alarming statement I heard was from the Planning Board Member who said that " "they were getting a large number of rezoning requests which he attributed to an antiquated Master Plan and he said that Montville Township needs a new vision." I believe that the real reason they are getting many more rezoning requests is that the developers see the Township Committee and Planning Board as more developer friendly and certainly last night gives support to my belief. What he referred to as antiquated was really a long term attempt to slow down the developement of Montville Township. Ultimately I believe the whole 202 Corridor is in play and that Planning Board Member's vision reflects larger and more intense development which I believe will change the Character of Montville Township and particularly Towaco forever.

If I can be allowed one political comment I assume that this is what they meant by "New Voices, Better Choices"


Dan Grant
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on January 26, 2008 3:32 PM
 
 
HI Dan

Well I won another bet with some PB members last Thursday.

I wagered them that you would NEVER stand up at the microphone and ask direct questions or put forth your supposed facts so they could be addressed.

You did the exact same thing with the condo issues during the campaign last year and you will continue to try to divide this town.

What a shame because if you put any part of your time into volunteering you could truly be the asset to the community that you keep telling us you are.

How about taking the version of the master plan that you voted to approve when you served and sit down with me over a cup of coffee and we compare that vesion to the one approved last Thursday?

Of course the new voices better choices slogan was Deb and Jim's and as one anon poster pointed out Deb voted against approval. So what is point about Deb and Jim?

You and I as well as the majority of the public know full well why Deb voted no. Except for that annon poster.

Regards,
Art Daughtry
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on January 27, 2008 9:45 AM
 
 
I agree that the increase in variance requests is definitely NOT due to problems with current ordinances, but rather with the greed and ego of people who seem to know they can get variances approved that serve to make them more money, the public be damned.

Since the location and scope of this plan has impact on people throughout the Township, does anyone know if or how this issue could be put on a future election ballot and let the voters decide its fate? The obvious bias in favor of it by this board makes their opinions highly suspect.

Frank Lechleiter
Posted by Anonymous Frank Lechleiter on January 27, 2008 10:18 AM
 
 
Art,
First off I didn't post on this site. Someone put my e-mail here which I sent to the TCA as a member of the TCA and a resident of Towaco and as I stated in the e-mail and you prove with your comments here, whenever I step forward with an opinion you have been very skillfull about forgetting about the issue and making it about me. It is not about me it is about the over developement of Towaco.

This plan was not in evidence during the campaign and I remember your quote at the TCA that the issue was moot but you couldn't talk about it. Well my friend it isn't moot any more. Some 90 days after the election it springs forward and is passed by your planning board over the objection of so many articulate Towaco residents with legitimate concerns and you want to pretend it is about me. When I was defeated it was dead and now you brought it back.

You carried around a bogus chart about the Bonding of the Township but you sure didn't bring that map of the Towaco Redevelopement to the TCA forum. Why not? If this is something you are proud of you should have. By the way your bet about me, did that occur at the Saterday Morning Breakfast Club of Montville Townships rich and famous?

Dan Grant
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on January 27, 2008 12:52 PM
 
 
Hi Dan

Does the post above mean you won’t sit down with me over a cup of coffee and you bring the master plan you voted for and we compare that plan to the one approved last Thursday?

Now the post I was replying to was definitely your post so no Maytag spin Dan. Yes Terry Cavanaugh sent to the world your opinions and of course you knew full well she would do just that so?

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and frankly most times I welcome them provided they are grounded in facts. I believe, my opinion, the planning board and the TC are trying to stimulate redevelopment of the Towaco center area and still maintain its quaint nature. The problem is the definition of over development and the fact that the Towaco train station is not Morristown, Netcong or Summit. Of the roughly 130 people that utilize the parking at the Towaco train station roughly 65 percent are ridding the busses.

Dan you do need to ask other attendees before quoting me. When I stated at the TCA meeting last year that the issue was moot it was in the middle of a discussion about the infamous quick check gas station, NOT Towaco center. Funny how you missed that. As far as the Towaco Redevelopment please let me help your memory. I pointed out there were 2 of the 3 key properties that were in the beginning stages of filing applications with either the planning board or the zoning board of adjustment. The Two were Scelba’s Old Towne and the McDermott’s restaurant on Whitehall Road.

What bogus chart about the bonding issues? Sorry Dan those are all facts so please post here any debt numbers that you believe are not accurate.

Sorry Dan the bet I made with planning board members was made right after Terry posted your email and then I kept reminding them right up to last Thursday.

Thanks for your consistency!

Well I can play this game with you for about another week but then I need to move on.

If you honestly want to sit down with the master plan you voted for and compare it to the one approved last Thursday then I’m still available.

Regards,
Art
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on January 27, 2008 4:38 PM
 
 
Dan, Are you saying that you NEVER endorsed a plan with a residential component? Careful, THEY DO keep records on this stuff!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 27, 2008 9:01 PM
 
 
Art,
Again this isn't about me. I sent the e-mial to some members of the TCA and asked that it be sent out to the membership as a matter of concern to the TCA membership. Terry is on that list. The president of the TCA elected not to send it out.
I elected not to speak because of exactly the reasons you show here. This isn't about Dan Grant. It is about a plan that was brought back to life under your leadership and a plan that I believe is damaging to Towaco. I did in fact oppose residential use in Towaco as a matter of zoning change and did infact take the positon that Majorca and Park and the south side of Whitehall Rd. should be taken out of the Commericial Plan. Some members of the Planning Board were quite mad at me for doing that but none of them opposed me publically. I also put on the motion to recind the design standards because of the Court case which brought the whole plan back to square one.
In regard to Old Town, I had advised them to go to the Board of Adjustment which would not have required any zone change which would lead to over developement and would have reached a conclusion years ago. That would not have requireed a complete rezoning of a very sensitive area. That is all history now. This is your Township Committee's and Planning Board's plan I am simply a resident of Towaco, concerned about a plan that I think is damaging to Towaco. I also think the comments of the planning board member who spoke of " a need for a new vision and new Master Plan speak volumns about the potential for developement along the whole 202 Corridor. Just because there are numerous requests for rezoning doesn't mean we have to change the Charactor of Montville Township. Sometimes you have to stand up and say no.

Dan Grant
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on January 28, 2008 8:24 AM
 
 
Dan is correct, don't destroy the character of Towaco with cookie cutter planners garbage off the shelf.We will look like "every other place" USA. And have crappy drinking water,traffic and major mess with our infastructure to boot.
Art, Why are you against the people who helped get you into office? Saturday morning breakfast club is better than us? I am very disappointed in you. What is going on here that the common folk don't know about?
I was so confident in you. How sad.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 28, 2008 10:45 AM
 
 
Art,

On Jan 27th you stated
"You and I as well as the majority of the public know full well why Deb voted no. Except for that annon poster.".

I was not at the meeting. Can you please enlighten me (and other members of the public) as to why Deb voted no. Thank you.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 28, 2008 10:46 AM
 
 
Once again, Dan will not answer a direct question. Time to come clean Danny Boy!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 28, 2008 5:03 PM
 
 
Sorry, I am not playing that game. The people of Towaco deserve better than they are getting. Read my explanation and comments above.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on January 28, 2008 6:45 PM
 
 
Misleading the public is not 'playing a game'. This isn't a setup Dan. Just answer the simple question: Did you support a residential component in the past? It's OK to change your mind. Just come clean.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 29, 2008 4:59 PM
 
 
The "FIX WAS IN" long before that planning board meeting started. This was very clear to the people of Towaco. Residents are not as stupid as the town leaders thought.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 30, 2008 8:57 AM
 
 
" and actually remember being at meetings earlier on where you distinctly said there would be no housing put on this spot.

That is a direct quote form another poster with an indication my feelings about residential use in this area. I opposed it and said so. The issue of residential inclusion never came to a vote because we recinded the design standards on my motion when we were in Court with a developer.

This is all history now and what was passed by the Planning Board is much larger and includes the residential componant that was not in any plan I favored.

Dan
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on January 30, 2008 12:50 PM
 
 
Dan, If your stance on the residential component is and has always been "no", then say so. If not, then it's pretty obvious you changed your mind somewhere along the way. What changed your mind?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on January 30, 2008 5:11 PM
 
 
Dan said: "I assume that this is what some candidates meant last fall with the slogan, "New Voices, Better Choices."

That slogan was from 2005 when Deb and Jim were elected.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 1, 2008 8:38 AM
 
 
"Revitalizing is imperative" - What a stupid statement, it's not like this area is Newark or Camden.

"Studies show that the number of children would be minimal" - Another stupid statement, any sensible person knows that studies tend to support the group that pay to have them done. I'm sure if I was paying for the study it would show that the # of children would be greater than 2 per unit and I don't think anyone considers children a negative but we view the addition of children to an already stressed school system a huge liability to those struggling to pay our already inflated tax bills - that's a huge negative.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 1, 2008 9:12 PM
 
 
So let me get this straight, your kids are either in the schools or have already moved through them. Now it's time to exclude anyone elses from enjoying the same benefits that you did. Shame on you to suggest that we should shut the doors to our schools and not let any additional residences have the same opportunities the rest of us had. Back in the 60's there was no Valley View, Cedar Hill, Hilldale, William Mason, Woodmont or even a high school. Suppose the people back then had the same attidtude that you do. Where would your kids go to school. It's OK to shut the door NOW. You are very selfish.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 2, 2008 9:22 AM
 
 
The point being made is that the estimated tax revenues from this mess will not cover the cost of services, including schools, especially if you put a more realistic number on the school age children who will reside there. To have any chance of stabilizing taxes this kind of development must be stopped. This project is truly "paving paradise and putting up a parking lot". Removing more trees and vegetation, increasing temperatures, adding to global warming, reducing water supply, increasing water demand, increasing traffic, doubling the height of the current buildings, this is progress? Think you don't like the way things look now, once you see more and larger buildings there most people will beg to go back to the way things were. But,of course, it will be too late and we'll all have to pay and deal with it, while those who are behind this sit back and count their money.

Frank Lechleiter

PS- Anonymous posting should not be an option.
Posted by Anonymous Frank Lechleiter on February 2, 2008 11:46 AM
 
 
Anonymous postings are OK, as long as they don't disparage an individual.
I don't see how the individual in the 9:12pm posting is being selfish? Sounds like it is being practical, doesn't say anything about not letting kids go to school, talks about lim