Quarry Rehab Security and Lake Water Testing

There is a resolution on the agenda for a regular meeting of the Bernards Township Committee on April 10.  If adopted, it will reduce the security for quarry rehabilitation from about $8.4 million to $3.4 million.

Below is a link to a letter I submitted to the Bernards Township Committee today.  In it I urge the committee to not reduce the security.  I argue that there is a possibility that substances may leach from the embankments constructed from imported material and adversely affect lake water quality.  Funds may be required to resolve this problem.

The lake is filling now.  I argue that sampling and testing of the water should be done now and in the future to determine if there is a problem.

To read the letter go here.

Bill Allen    04-09-18

Posted in Rehab-Plan | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Quarry Redevelopment Concept Plan of March 2018

Below is the concept plan for redevelopment of the tract known as the Millington Quarry in Bernards Township.  It was submitted to the township on 03-09-18.

The posting here is for reference only.  It implies neither support for, nor opposition to, the concept plan.

The plan submitted in October 2017 is here.

Bill Allen    03-24-18

Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged | Leave a comment

Quarry Redevelopment Plan: The Solar Green

The Solar Green is an evolving plan of development proposed for the 180-acre tract in Bernards Township known as the Millington Quarry.  The principle feature of the plan today is a 40-acre solar farm of photo-voltaic solar panels constructed on the south slope of the tract.

Township resident Bill DeLorenzo introduced the plan at the special meeting on the quarry held by the Township Committee in Ridge PAC on January 24.  He requested an opportunity to present a comprehensive outline of the plan at a regular public meeting.  This outline is in a 17-slide deck.  To review it, click below.

The Solar Green

Notes for viewing;

  • The window will open in scan mode.  Use the slider in the right margin to move up and down in the slide deck.
  • To view in Power Point mode, click on the Download icon, 2nd from left in upper right.  Click on Open with Power Point.  Click on OK.  Numbered thumbnails of the slides will appear in left margin.  Click on a slide to view it in steady state.

Slide 11 refers to a letter of interest from solar field developer Advanced Solar Products.  Click  letter to see it.

Posted on 01-25-18.  Letter added on 01-31-18.

Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Quarry Redevelopment: A Bad Beginning Can Lead to a Good Ending

Letter below was submitted to the Bernards Township Committee on January 22, 2018.

To:               Mayor and Members of Bernards Township Committee

Subject:     Quarry Redevelopment:  A Bad Beginning Can Lead to a Good Ending 

Resolution 2018-0109 is on your agenda for the January 24 meeting.  If adopted, it will reject the plan for the quarry presented on October 24 and pull the plug on the quarry redevelopment planning process you authorized earlier last year.  I support the first action and oppose the second.  My reasons are in the letters to you on November 29 and January 15 and I won’t repeat them here.  I will tell of some events in which I participated, and from which I learned.

In March 1975 the NJ Supreme Court handed down its first Mount Laurel decision.  It dealt with exclusionary residential zoning  Lower courts had been wrestling with this issue for several years, and a decision from the high court was expected.  The principle holding was that a “developing municipality” had to provide for its “fair share” of affordable housing (what was then called “low and moderate income housing”).

Bernards at that time had only single family detached homes.  Zoning regulations had recently been changed for the land now occupied by Society Hill, The Cedars, and Spring Ridge to provide for a mix of dwelling types, similar to those there now.  But no homes had been built and the land owner was suing the town for higher density.  This was the Lorenc case.  Very shortly after the Mount Laura decision, plaintiff’s attorney amended the complaint to stipulate that Bernards Township was a developing municipality, as defined by the Supreme Court, and that it must provide for its fair share of affordable housing.

I was on the Township Committee in 1975.  After a heated discussion on a hot night in the old Town Hall in June, among Township Committee and Planning Board members and their attorneys, we agreed that Bernards was in fact a developing municipality, and that we had to provide for our fair share of affordable housing.

But there was a problem:  no one knew how to do this.  We advised the judge in the Lorenc case that we would comply, but we needed time.  He gave us a December deadline.

We worked hard through the summer and in the fall decided to introduce an ordinance.  We wanted to let the residents know our decision.  The township administrator prepared a newsletter and mailed it to every home in town.

The newsletter contained a map of a new zone, in which affordable housing would be allowed.  The map showed all the land between Valley and Lyons Roads in the new zone.  Unfortunately, no one with common sense reviewed the printed document before it was mailed.  It was regular black and white newsprint, and the new zone showed as a big black blob in the middle of the township.

The town exploded.  There were SRO meetings with angry objectors–first in Town Hall, then in Ridge High, and finally in William Annin, which had the largest auditorium in those days.  My wife sat in the back of one meeting and heard a man growl as he stormed out:  “Someday I’m going to shoot those bastards.”

I’m sure you see a parallel with the quarry plan you presented last October .  But the people, who have spoken at your meetings, have been much more courteous and rational, and much less angry than those I remember from 1975.  You have had it easy.

What we proposed in 1975 was a huge mistake.  But there was a good ending.  Township officials and advisors went back to the drawing board, engaged the public in discussions, and produced a much better proposal in the spring.  It became the basis for an ordinance that was adopted in May 1976, with broad public support and virtually no visible opposition.

You should reject the October plan, but continue the quarry planning process.  The public has become engaged.  Keep them engaged and develop a plan that will be an all-around win.  One that will satisfy the quarry owner, benefit the town, and make you and the community proud.

I saw this done 42 years ago.  Let’s do it again this year.

Bill Allen,    01-22-18

Notes:

  • This letter, the two referred to in it, and other relevant documents and information are on website quarryfutures.org
  • I plan to read this letter at your meeting on January 24.
Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged | Leave a comment

Quarry Redevelopment: Continue Planning Process

Letter below was submitted to the Bernards Township Committee on January 15, 2018.

To:              Mayor and Members of Bernards Township Committee

Subject:     Quarry Redevelopment:  Continue Planning Process

This is follow-up to a letter to you on November 29 and your meeting on January 9.

On November 29 I urged you to examine what was good and what was bad in the plan for quarry development presented at your October 24 meeting.  And also to continue the redevelopment planning process then in motion.

I did not attend your January 9 meeting, but I have watched the video clip and read the account of the meeting in the Bernardsville News.  You announced that you will act on a resolution at your January 24 meeting.  However, as I write this I don’t know if this resolution will be limited to your disapproval of the October plan, or if it will terminate the whole quarry redevelopment planning process.

For the reasons outlined in my November 29 letter I urge you to reject the October plan, and to continue the redevelopment planning process.

Many in the community have demonstrated their opposition to the October plan.  They are right to do so, because that plan calls for much too intensive development.  Some have advocated that you leave the zoning for the quarry land as R-3.  This permits only single family houses on lots of two acres or more.  This would be a serious mistake and I explained why on November 29.

Between the extremes of the October plan and R-3 residential zoning, there are many development alternatives.  With the redevelopment process that you have begun, and with the attention and participation of many concerned citizens, it will be possible to produce a plan that receives broad acceptance, and that will be a benefit and a credit to the community.

Please continue the current quarry redevelopment process.  Thank you.

Bill Allen,    01-15-18

Note:  The November 29 letter is on line at

https://www.quarryfutures.org/quarry-redevelopment-doing-nothing-is-not-an-option/

Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged | Leave a comment