The owner of GI Auto Salvage recently sent out a letter (Download gi_auto_speaks_out.pdf )about his proposal to build a Lowe's and Sports Authority shopping center on what is currently the junkyard at the end of Old Bloomfield Avenue.
Montville's Township Committee sent out a response ( Download TwspResponse.pdf )in which it "finds it necessary to correct the misrepresentations" in that letter.
What do Montville residents think? Should the Lowe's and Sports Authority be approved or is some other use better?
We have enough of these stores in our immediate area. What we do lack is senior citizen housing. Let's kill two birds with one stone and rid the township of an eyesore and address a growing need--affordable housing for our greying population.
Posted by
Tony Malanga
on
November 3, 2008 11:44 AM
apparently you are supporting the incumbents....nice use of a web page
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 11:46 AM
I for one thank the township committee for standing up to a bully who is trying to threaten his neighbors with the continued use of his junkyard.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 11:47 AM
I live on Bloomfield Avenue and ANYTHING would be an improvement! This can't be done fast enough to suit me!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 12:26 PM
Lets look at the big picture. Lowes was going to occupy and clean up contaminated land.It would have brought in an estimated 100k in tax revenue(A nice sum in our failing economy). We need to do what is best for the town and not for small interests. Look township wide as we fought Lowes,The Towaco center,The property by the towaco train station....all development that would bring new life to the area. Now the economy is in the tank and I would guess that any improvements scheduled are on hold now. Would lowes still want the junkyard property in these economic times? This town has no sense of anything, go down changebridge road and you'll find offices next to retail next to residential, next to waerhouse. Developers want to make improvements to the town. We fight and fight to block this development and property value drops and these developers go elseware.On route 23 in Wayne(The old state farm property) Lowes wanted to build there. The residents faught and faught and now Lowes resides in Butler. The money that would have been braught into Wayne now drives right by the still empty state farm property and heads up to Lowes in Butler.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 12:48 PM
Whereas I agree that we have enough home improvement stores in this vicinity - my concern for the township includes the fact that if the area was 100% devoted to senior housing (or any other type of housing), what will it do to our already restricted water supply? I feel we are already saturated with condo's and townhouses, as well as single family homes. I'd be happy if no further residences were built in Montville Township, however I would be willing to compromise with partial senior housing (this way we don't have to worry about expanding the schools once again) and partial retail. I think Montville could use a good grocery store, i.e. Stop & Shop or Whole Foods.
GI Salvage has a right to make the most of their property. The continuation of a salvage yard is their right and unless the township wants to play ball, GI can sit a wait until a new administration is in. If the administration wants to save money they should also a apart of new development. It will come with or without them.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 1:58 PM
A senior citizen complex would tax the water supply and the rescue squad. The city of Westfield fought for years to keep a Shoprite out, because of traffic congestion. It was finally built one block over townline in Garwood. Westfield has the traffic and no tax revenue. Big boxstore in highway location brings needed revenue to Montville, with few liabilities.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 2:01 PM
It is difficult to believe that the Township would decline any opportunity to rid itself of this putrid scar in our community. Only a large corporation such as a big-box company could be relied upon to sucessfully remediate the pollution on this property while at the same time to come up with a reasonable solution to any traffic flow which could ensue. It certainly appears that tempers on both sides are prevailing rather than attention to the basic issue which is to rid ourselves of this horrendous blight. Gene Savettiere
Posted by
Gene Savettiere
on
November 3, 2008 2:34 PM
Should land use be determined by plebiscite? The last time I checked, Constitutionally derived private property rights trump the fickle fashions of the masses every time. In a famous exclusionary zoning case in Pennsylvania a land owner was repeatedly denied the opportunity to develop a shopping center on a site. The owner then applied for the permissions needed to develop a trailer park - and was also refused. The land owner sued the township - in Federal Court - because the township did not offer sufficient housing opportunities to low income residents. He won. The only applicable question is what is the highest and best use for the site within current market conditions. All the rest is pointless gum flapping.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 3:55 PM
If I remember correctly the clean-up plan calls for them to remove the contaminated soil to a depth of a few feet and cap it with concrete. This is ultimately a huge mistake as many years from now when that cap breaks the town will face multimillion dollar lawsuits. The only way any developement should take place is to make sure that ALL contaminated soil is removed; no matter how deep they need to dig, this cost alone will scare off any developer.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 7:09 PM
We don't need any more of these stores! Enough is enough.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 8:16 PM
The junkyard has prospered for 60 years now - it's practically a historical landmark. Huge box stores bring crime and a host of other negative and costly aspects that will "eat up" the supposed $1M tax windfall. The junkyard should stay. End of story.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2008 9:48 PM
Was any consideration given to anything OTHER than the typical dime-a-dozen retail outlets? Perhaps a Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, something you can't find 4 of within a 6 mile radius? Maybe a mixed-use retail/residential project along the lines of that proposed for Towaco Center? It seems like there's a complete dearth of innovative thinking.
Donna Ambriano
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 4, 2008 11:14 AM
The soil at GI Auto is closely monitored with 28 wells by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, according to the DEP regulations this is public information, it would be nice if people would do thier homework before they say things that are not true!!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 4, 2008 12:17 PM
Hi Donna
Unfortunately a town cannot judge or mandate the type of enterprise only the use group. Whole foods would be great and how about my first choice a Wegman’s.
Many concerns are still unanswered and with the applicant going before the Zoning Board of Adjustment these concerns, which include citizen concerns and traffic concerns will be addressed in detail.
I must admit that I don’t know where the comments regarding sufficient water and the aquifer are coming from. The posters that talk about water supply apparently don’t understand how water allocation works. I was at two meetings where one citizen from Towaco kept trying to manipulate the presentation by the highlands council regarding our water resources. I’m not sure if it was purely political motivation but maybe, if the person or persons post their names we can all sit down and go over how Montville Township is allocated water by the DEP. I did know when GI was still considering the senior housing that there was water allocation as well as sewer (you need both) available. Thus Montville MUA would have to have additional gallonage for water from the DEP and ParTroy sewer had to provide additional capacity as well. I believe DEP controls both ends (excuse the pun) water and sewer.
I’m sure the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment will handle the applicant in a professional manor.
Regards Art Daughtry
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 4, 2008 12:24 PM
Look at the Boonton Wal-Mart shopping center that replaced the Drew Chemical pollution as a great example of what could be. We could use a Lowe's closer than Butler to provide the nicer alternative to Home Depot.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 4, 2008 12:42 PM
Ok, everyone seems to have good arguments, but no one is thinking of the final turnout....TRAFFIC! Holy Cow people...I travel in that area 4 times a day, and the traffic is terrible! I can't even imagine what it would be like after building a Lowes & or a Sports Authority....
Posted by
Terry
on
November 4, 2008 1:17 PM
Calling the junkyard an "historical landmark"! Come on now, what are you smoking!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 4, 2008 2:42 PM
Terry wrote... Ok, everyone seems to have good arguments, but no one is thinking of the final turnout....TRAFFIC! Holy Cow people...I travel in that area 4 times a day, and the traffic is terrible! I can't even imagine what it would be like after building a Lowes & or a Sports Authority -------------- Amen brother! One more reason to leave the lightly-traffic'd junkyard as an ongoing viable solution. It seems the supposed tax benefit to the town is horrifically over-stated. When all is said and done, it's probably tax-negative.
Perhaps when the junkyard is sold to a larger, public company, some of the minor nagging issues will be addressed. Embrace the junkyard - it is the best solution, both in the short-term and the long.
Posted by
Steven
on
November 4, 2008 11:12 PM
Embrace the junkyard!! Yikes!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 5, 2008 10:17 AM
Who is the "use group"? And why can't the town suggest (not mandate) the type of development they'd like to see (if any) on the site? Can anyone enlighten? Thanks.
Donna Ambriano
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 6, 2008 5:07 PM
My preference is senior housing but if the owners cannot make a deal doing that, they, like we do, have to confront the reality of the market. I live on John Street and would have those giant bright lights as a concern with any big box. Patricia Ling
Posted by
patricia ling
on
November 6, 2008 5:41 PM
Why can't a junkyard be a historical landmark? The Gettysburg battlefield, where there was gore and carnage, is considered historical. Many crime scenes are historical landmarks. Let's think outside the box people. SAVETHEJUNKYARD.COM!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 6, 2008 8:41 PM
You are right, the Gettysburg battlefield was a site of gore and carnage as were crime scenes but THEY WERE CLEANED UP! You don't go to Gettysburg and see skeletal remains lying around but you are o.k. with the skeletal remains of rusting vehicles? Don't you have any pride at all? If they want to clean that abomination up and place a plaque on the property stating it is a historical site, I'm o.k. with that. But rotting vehicles? I cannot believe that in this day and age, anyone would want this eyesore anywhere near them, unless of course, you are so far away that you don't have to see it.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 7, 2008 1:09 PM
Anonymous wrote... I cannot believe that in this day and age, anyone would want this eyesore anywhere near them, unless of course, you are so far away that you don't have to see it. -------------- You obviously have no passion for automobiles, their history, and their restoration. That's fine, not everyone does. I actually looked at purchasing a home in the John street area once, and I viewed the proximity to GI's as a positive aspect.
Given the alternative to blaring lights 24x7, substantial increases in traffic and noise, increased crime potential, increased noise/air polution, etc, I think the junkyard looks like a pretty good ongoing use of the property.
Posted by
Steven
on
November 7, 2008 2:25 PM
Hi Donna
You ask, who is the use group, well it is not who is the use group it is what is a use group. The letter sent to all township residents on October 28 describes the use groups, which are acceptable, based on the current Ordinance number 2007-51.
The acceptable uses for the GI property are, age restricted housing, self-storage facilities, hotel and convention center, age restricted residential and small retail shops also known as mixed use.
So lets say the citizens would like to see a Marriott Hotel there but did not want to see a Hilton hotel. The town would have to look at both applications in same fashion because they are both acceptable based on the Hotel use.
This is why if big box was an acceptable use then Lowes, Wegmans, Whole Foods would all be acceptable uses.
You can call Linda White, our Director of land use on 973-331-3300 if you would like any further detailed information.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 8, 2008 2:18 PM
To Steven BUT YOU DIDN'T PURCHASE THE HOME ON JOHN STREET, DID YOU! Your last comment was way over the top. I think you are just playing games here. It's a shame you don't have anything better to do.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 10, 2008 10:19 AM
We need an update! What happened at the November 5 hearing, as referenced in Mr. Avila's letter of Oct 10, 2008?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 10, 2008 12:16 PM
It was the first of many appearances by the applicant. Last week was the intro etc.
The best way to keep informed is go to every meeting that GI is scheduled to appear.
If that is not possible then maybe some neighbors that go on a regular basis can update you.
Honestly I don't have a better answer.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 11, 2008 10:07 AM
"Anonymous" wrote... To Steven BUT YOU DIDN'T PURCHASE THE HOME ON JOHN STREET, DID YOU! Your last comment was way over the top. I think you are just playing games here. It's a shame you don't have anything better to do. ----------------------- Indeed someone else got the house before I could make an offer - I snoozed, I loose. It's too bad you categorize my comments as "over the top". Again, different folks have different perspectives on things - it's a shame you can't seem to accept that.
Posted by
Steven
on
November 11, 2008 3:02 PM
We DO NOT need a Lowes here. The traffic is bad already then you want to add more. NO WAY i have been in Montville for 32 years and WE DO NO NOT NEED THAT!!! U people that just moved to town think these thngs are GREAT u people even wanted a supermarket in town. PLEASE STOP being so LAZY and drive 10 mins OUT of YOUR WAY. And keep Montville the way it was and still should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 17, 2008 11:59 AM
Has anybody ever thought of videotaping these meetings? The tapes could be broadcast on the local access channel or put on record at the library.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 18, 2008 4:34 PM
I like the historic site idea. Lets take it one step further. Take a picture of it and make it part of Montville's logo.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 21, 2008 3:23 PM
I agree, we DO NOT need a Lowes here and the town was right to block such a use. I drove by the junkyard for years before even realizing it was there - it's mostly hidden from sight, and isn't nearly the problem you all are making it out to be. I'm not sure that I'm ready to declare it an historical site just yet though! :O)
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 23, 2008 10:14 PM
Let’s state some facts & put some stakes in the ground – - The vast majority of us would like to see the junk yard replaced with a better use. - The Township Committee did not believe big box to be an appropriate use as it was removed from the re-zoning ordinance. - The owner originally submitted a plan for 400 age restricted housing units. The TC generally liked it, but raised preliminary concerns on # of units and bldg heights. Demand for this type of development still exists within the township. - The owner then changed to a big box plan (which he is entitled to do), but it raised new concerns – traffic, lights, noise, crime. I note traffic first as the developer did not have access from or exit onto Rte 46 approved from NJDOT. - Age restricted housing would add over $2 million in tax revenue per year (say 360 units at $6k each); big box would add $500-$700k (Home Depot is $250-$300k). - Zoning Board of Adjustment reviews the variances requested (18 of them including use, set backs, etc.) to determine if big box is an appropriate and reasonable use for the area. The ball is now in the ZBA court. My perspective is to improve the use of the property but not at the expense of the neighborhood and the local residents.
Posted by
JimSandham
on
November 24, 2008 11:09 AM
Jim Sandham wrote... I note traffic first as the developer did not have access from or exit onto Rte 46 approved from NJDOT. ---------------------------- No doubt, Rt.46 access would be a requirement of most any retail use, and it's not an easily addressed issue, given that we're dealing with a property that is substantially below highway level - virtually swamp-land. Frankly, I think this is a deal-killer and the town shouldn't waste any more time on this whole thing unless a DOT-backed plan is presented.
I realize there's a bit of a "chicken vs. egg" scenario here, but if the junkyard owner truely wants to make a change to the use of the property, he's going to have to make a significant investment which may not pay off. Perhaps he should take the easy route and just sell out to a larger junkyard "chain" as he's suggested.
Posted by
Harold
on
November 25, 2008 11:27 AM
Hey! Why not put a school on the junkyard property? If it's not too toxic for seniors then it shouldn't be too toxic for kids, right? No amount of cleanup will ever make that property inhabitable. While it may never be a landmark, I've purchased many useful parts for my vehicles from G.I. over the past 30 years. Let's keep it as what it is. A useful source of hard to find auto parts.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
December 8, 2008 1:43 PM
So it looks to me like on March 4 the board will in all liklihood buckle under and allow the Lowe's to be built after all - a victory for strong-arm tactics. It is New Jersey, after all. ...sigh
Posted by
Harold
on
February 20, 2009 5:26 PM
Anyone know how things turned out at the meeting this past Wednesday (3/4)? Are we getting a Lowe's or does the junkyard continue on into the foreseeable future?
Posted by
Harold
on
March 6, 2009 10:34 AM
does anyone know the status of this? My vote is for Lowes! They have stepped up w/ a credible plan and i think the bene's outway any negatives.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
May 27, 2009 11:09 AM
How many more banks, office buildings, condos does this town need? We need a local supermarket which will employ our teens,college students, stay home moms, retirees . . . I am tierd of shopping at the over crowed Shoprites of Parsippany and Lincoln Park. Every town has it's own local supermarket.. Why can't we? It would be nice to take a 5 min drive to the store instead of the 20 min drive. I would love to see a local Grocery Store in Pine Brook!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
May 27, 2009 3:03 PM
Anon May 27, 2009 3:03 PM
Lots of people would love to see a supermarket in Montville. Do you know of a location that is zoned for it and that is buildable?
