ARCHIVES
 




 		  
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
What will the neighbors say?
Posted by Ron Soussa at 7:20 PM
 
Proposed developments at GI Auto, Hilltop Care Center, and Towaco Center have some neighbors upset while others think they are improvements to Montville. The land use boards have the difficult job of considering the overall Township's interests while sometimes facing a room full of irate people.

And don't under-estimate the influence of politics.

To what extent, if any, should the concerns of adjacent property owners be given greater weight than that of others in town?


35 Comments    |    Post a comment
Home
 


 
35 Comments:

Here is a suggestion, GI Auto, return it to a wetlands site, and use it for a flood Plain for the Passaic River for when it floods.

Hill Top Nursing Home Site, level it, and make it a residential development.

TVC, give the existing strip mall a face lift.

Take the existing Dog Park, move it over to Manchester Park, then take the existing Dog Park and turn it into to the desired Residential/Commercial/Retail site for TVC.
Posted by Anonymous chris schlomann on July 18, 2007 10:16 AM
 
 
For those who might not know, Hilltop Care Center is the property on Hook Mountain Road that burned a year or so back and supposedly used to be a staple in Weird New Jersey.

Apparently it had approvals from the late 90's for assisted care and nursing home (60 assisted and 120 nursing) which may have lapsed and the new property owners are before the Zoning Board of Adjustment to renew them.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on July 18, 2007 6:01 PM
 
 
Chris,
Just a few things to file under "nothing is as easy as it seems"
GI Auto is an ongoing profitable business which someone would have to pay for, if it were to be returned to a natural state. Then you have the issue of any clean up that might be required. The potential cost to Taxpayers would be tremendous.

Residential housing is a negative as a ratable unless it is age restricted or senior housing of some type. Planning guides site 1.8 (don't ask me about the .8) children per single family residence and at an educational cost of $11,000.00 per student per year would have to pay property taxes of $30,000 just to break even.

On the Kramer Property. I just recently retrieved a petition from residents in that area, signed by almost 500 residents of that neighborhood, asking the Township to buy the Kramer property to keep it from being developed. (The dog park came later) At that point in time very little openspace money had been spent south of Horseneck Rd. After delaying the purchase twice to consider development applications the Township bought it. Now in order to sell it, the Township would have to have a referendum placed on the ballot under our Open-space Ordinance.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on July 19, 2007 2:27 PM
 
 
I second Chris Schlomann's suggestions.

The only problem of developing Hill Top to a "senior" type living development is that the market is already saturated with such developments. Even if we all got old tommorow, there would still be available rooms in Morris county.

We may want to suggest HIGH END office space for some NYC companies looking to reduce their commutation and tax burdeon.

Marketing to this group by some of our fine Montville realtors may be the answer.

Keep ratables, lessen burden on the infastructure by having a high end office complex.

Built to suit for the right city folk. Its out of the way, but close to everything. Perfect.

The Dog park area would be a great "Village" area. Smack downtown. Not infringing on anyone. Lot of room for parking.
Equidistant from ALL residents.
Makes more sense than trying to force the small Towaco space into an undesirable, messy traffic nightmare. For the sake of a few developers making a buck.
Michele Caron

Good Advice my friend!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 26, 2007 10:53 AM
 
 
GI Junk yard prob will solve itself ..when the 55 year old ,10 ton rated by DOT corroding and rotteing overpass ingress/egress County Bridge collapes and falls into the Passaic River tributary after a 30 ton Car hauler or refuse truck parks on it for one minute.
NOT if, When.!!
Hey Ronnie A .,this
Posted by Blogger bobd1950 on July 26, 2007 9:39 PM
 
 
To Michele and others
Do you know there is almost a 30% office space vacancy in Morris county? Offices add greatly to rush hour traffic. Health care does not.
THe dog park is town park land and cannot be developed.

Hilltop is expensive nursing care project and not 55 plus housing. I am sure the developers are not throwing money away. This has been on the property for 70 years its not new.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on July 27, 2007 9:31 AM
 
 
the dog park would have been a great village area. why not put stores there and move the dog park someplace else????
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 1, 2007 6:07 PM
 
 
Why does everyone in Towaco want a Town Center in Pine Brook?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 2, 2007 2:40 PM
 
 
I don't think everyone wants a town center, but you have to admit if we were to put one in, the dog park is the perfect spot
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 3, 2007 12:15 PM
 
 
People have a right to try to determine what their neighborhood looks like as long as it is within the Law. The Kramer property had the support of about 500 names of people on a petition,largely from the area, asking the Township to purchase it. In addition we have major traffic conditions at both ends of ChangeBridge Rd. Should those issues have been ignored?
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on August 4, 2007 11:29 AM
 
 
I think the changebridge property would be a great town center.
Its the center of town. The dogs can walk at the train station.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 6, 2007 9:42 AM
 
 
REally Dan, how hard is it to get 500 signatures on a petition to prevent development? Does anyone want construction near their houses these days?

22,000 Montville residents were denied a town center on the Changebridge property (the best possible location) because 500 people signed a petition? That's not leadership, that's politics.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 6, 2007 2:26 PM
 
 
The Kramer Property is five acres, not much more then a strip mall, (Hardly a Town Center). I don't know how hard it was to get the signatures , I believe you would have to ask former Mayor Fred Eckhardt, I think it was he that collected them. We had two previous applications on the property both of which were pulled by the applicants. You can't build what somebody doesn't apply for. You can call it politics to take into concideration the feelings of 500 people but if they were ignored they would have a justified claim of Government not being responsive. I still believe that weight has to be given to the people most affected by development in their neighborhood. Call that politics if you will but I guarentee that if your residence was effected you would want somebody to listen to your feelings on it.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on August 6, 2007 3:00 PM
 
 
That property is 5.7 acres and would have allowed about 60,000 square feet of development. There was a very old approval for a 54,000 sf light industrial building which obviously was not going to be built.

The truth is that Kiddie Academy had that Changebridge property under contract for a child care center.

There was nothing for the neighbors to be afraid of, except the fact for some silly reason that prime property was zoned industrial.

Montville spent $1,000,000 buying that property along with $120,000 in property taxes lost each year.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on August 6, 2007 3:46 PM
 
 
Let's not forget to mention the $110,000 of tax payer dollars for construction of a dog park.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 6, 2007 4:44 PM
 
 
I guess the real question is why did the Applicants pull their applications on the Kramer property? They had at least two opportunities to present their plans and I asked that the purchase be held up by the Township so we could at least get a look at what was proposed. They took a walk. The dog park has roughly 300 paying members and cost $60,000.00. If the Township Leaders now want to sell that property all they have to do is put a resolution on the Ballot and let the voters decide. The Open-space ordinance could not be fairer in that once purchased, it will be the people that decide if openspace will be sold, not politicians for the benefit of their friends.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on August 6, 2007 6:34 PM
 
 
60,000 feet would have made a helluva nice town center!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 6, 2007 7:22 PM
 
 
Dan, you know as well as I do that Kiddie Academy and others "walked" because they were told in no uncertain terms that Montville was going to buy that property and that they shouldn't spend their time or money.

In fact a current member of one of Montville's land use boards wanted to move his business there but was told by John Rosellini not to bother trying.

He couldn't build on property that the town intended to waste $1,000,000 (and $120,000 per year) on.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on August 6, 2007 8:17 PM
 
 
Dan - partial facts are a perennial problem with you. The dog park was over $100,000 not $60,000. File a request to see numbers....
Likewise check the ACTUAL figures for current dog park registrations. And since you seem to have wads of time to blog, go and sit at the dog park and count users.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 6, 2007 9:09 PM
 
 
Dan -

Dog park usage (paid registration) is way down from its original numbers. This was discussed at a recent TC meeting. I'll try to dig up my notes from the meeting.

Also of note at that meeting was the fact that the TC voted to forgive the loan made to the dog park because the group that organized the building of the park claimed that the TC had promised to give them the funds, while the TC thought that it was just a loan. Since the TC didn't have any documentation on this (don't we take minutes?), they just dropped the issue and forgave the loan. Lest anyone think that the group behind the dogpark is crying poverty, you should know that they're building a gazebo there.

I wish that I could say that this is the only instance of the TC dropping a 'bad loan' this year.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on August 7, 2007 9:16 AM
 
 
Bob,
As of this morning I found out that while registration is down it is only marginally down. I will admit that I don't know either way. I also found that out that continuing changes have raised the original cost from the $60,000 that was spent.
The real issue here as I see it is that instead of this continuing as a political issue, The Township Committee has it within their power to place the sale of the Kramer property on the ballot providing they can get Green Acres approval and let the people of Montville judge the issue. They only have until Sept. 7th to do that, so the clock is ticking, but if the real issue is to be decided that is the way to do it. We made the best judgement we could at the time but if it is going to continue as an issue then let's get a real answer.

In regard to the poster that claims that people were discouraged from buying the property by the former Mayor and said that a person currently on a land use board was told by the former mayor, not to bother. Prove it. Let that person come forward and make that claim. Even if true which I personally doubt, I would say that the Mayor was only 1 of 5 on the Township Committee and 1 of 9 on the planning board , all with an equal vote. There was ample opportunity for them to make their case to the full Committee or Planning Board. They did not. On two occasions I asked for a delay on the purchase so that applicants could be heard. In both cases applications were withdrawn. If they chose to believe one person with no greater vote than anyone else involved that was their choice.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on August 7, 2007 2:40 PM
 
 
To the poster who claims to be the only one in town who didn't know the town was discouraging buyers:

You've been caught fibbing at least twice on this thread alone. And I'M supposed to "prove it"?
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on August 7, 2007 3:38 PM
 
 
The dog park has 170 paying members.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 7, 2007 5:29 PM
 
 
According to the town clerk the number is 161 dog park members.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 8, 2007 6:59 PM
 
 
Dan -

The figures I got today are 161 permits issued this year, Vs. 277 permits 2 years ago when it opened. That's not marginally down.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on August 8, 2007 11:40 PM
 
 
Re: the dog park members -- is that 161 people who are members or is that 161 animals (i.e. if I have 3 dogs would that count as 1 or 3)?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 9, 2007 8:21 AM
 
 
Bob,
Your information is better then mine. I got them same info late in the day and I don't know what the reason is for it. I do know a few people who have opted out because of the pea gravel and a few others because of the cost. Of course if that continues it has to recognised that it is a idea that didn't work but I also read about other Towns putting in the same facilities. I think that there ought to be an attempt to boost use before it is abandoned.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on August 9, 2007 11:15 AM
 
 
That's 161 dogs. People with multiple dogs are supposed to get multiple permits.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on August 9, 2007 11:23 AM
 
 
The dog park wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't located on such a high profile and valuable piece of real estate.

The dog park people do an outstanding job of fundraising and have developed the finest dog park in the area. You all have to realize that this park is the only one where users have to pay to join, and it is located in a town where many dog owners have access to other places to walk and socialize their dogs. That doesn't make it easy to get members.

If the dog park were located off the beaten path, say at Manchester Park or Reilly field, no one would care.

Don't blame the dog park people. Blame the past politicians - including the one who thinks he should be in office again - who made that ridiculous $1 million purchase which costs us at least $120,000 a year in lost taxes.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on August 9, 2007 1:41 PM
 
 
I have to agree with Ron on this one. The Dog Park people are not to blame. Manchester Park may have been a better spot. The land the dog park sits on now would be an excellent mixed community.

I still don't know what the the reason is for this parcel of land not to be explored as much as others have for the town center idea?

Seems to be an awful big piece of land there.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 9, 2007 4:50 PM
 
 
If the "dog park people" (as they have been referred to in this blog) are so good at fundraising -- then why did the Township Committee have to forgive their loan? Why aren't they paying the town back? As I recall -- their original pitch was that the dog park would be self-sufficient (like the people in favor of the pool assert). If that is the case than other than the cost of the land (which I am not debating here) the dog park should not have cost the taxpayers anything -- but it has!!!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on August 9, 2007 7:59 PM
 
 
I don't think there was any formal loan to forgive. I've never seen anything in writing.

Anyway, who was the genius (I know, he's running in November) who was in office when over $100,000 was spent when it could have been done for next to nothing at Reilly or Manchester park?

Don't blame the dog park people.

Blame the politicians who made the indefensible decision to buy that million dollar property and locate the dog park there.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on August 16, 2007 1:44 PM
 
 
Ron, when do you mention that your developement company represented the sale of this property and rumor has it that you yourself told potential developers not to go ahead with the plans and withdraw the application for the Kiddie Accademy. I requested that the applications be allowed to continue twice and stopped the purchase so that they could be heard. Someone convinced them to withdraw. Who was that? The record shows that it was my motion that gave them the withdrawal WITHOUT PREJEDICE so they coud bring it back if they wanted to. I have no direct knowledge but could it be that you got your commission faster because the Township bought it and now you want to attack anyway? You pretend to be a disinterested party yet did you sit in on the open space meetings as a member in direct conflict of the interests of the Township? You were appointed to the Economic Developement Committee and now based on their recomendations new zoning is being proposed and how much of that rezoning effects property you either own or represent? I understand you had to be removed from the very first meeting because you represented the Pine Brook Motel which was under discussion.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on August 19, 2007 9:58 AM
 
 
Regarding the loan: was it formal or not? Therein lies the problem.

According to the minutes of the June 26th township committee meeting (now on-line):

"Daughtry stated he thought the Dog Park Committee was going to repay the town; however, that was never in a written agreement."
...
"Vanderhoof stated the money collected for the dog park is collected by the Dog Park Committee. It is then kept in an account by the Township. They tell us what to spend the money on."
...
"Some people think the dog park money should be reimbursed to the town for our cost of building the dog park. Moscone stated that was the intent."
...
"Nielson asked how much the dog park cost. Vanderhoof stated $92,000."
...
"Vanderhoof stated the Dog Park Committee does not recall having to repay the Township."

Note that the $92,000 does not include the time that Montville DPW personnel spent working on it.

Questions:
Don't we have minutes from the meetings where the funding was initially discussed? We don't need a written agreement. An oral one would do.

Why wasn't any investigation done prior to forgiving the loan?

Where did these funds come from in the budget?
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on August 21, 2007 12:40 PM
 
 
Dan, how can you type with your pants on fire? Do you have asbestos underwear?

The dog park has roughly 300 paying members and cost $60,000.00.....Dan Grant, August 6, 2007

Two lies in one sentence is a new record for you. What are you going to tell us next, that "Taxes Are Just Right"?
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on August 22, 2007 1:43 PM
 
 
Post a comment    |    


 























OurMontville.com
Copyright © 2007 OurMontville.com