Quarry Park and Lakeview Village: 2017 Revisit

Posted on December 3, 2017 by Site Admin

We are currently engaged in a Quarry Redevelopment Process.  Most members of the public who have spoken out oppose the plan presented at a public meeting on October 24.  Some have suggested that the land be acquired and used as open space or a park.  It is appropriate, I believe, to revisit the concept plan I designed in 2004 called Quarry Park and Lakeview Village>

At that time I estimated that the post-quarry, residential R-3 zoning would yield 34 lots suitable for building large single family houses.  The value of a development right for a single family house was roughly equal to the value of two development rights for upscale townhouses.  Therefore, I proposed that the developer have the option to build 68 townhouses.  The 2004 concept plan shows townhouses in 4 rows of 17 each.

There have been some topography changes and recent estimates are that R-3 zoning will yield about 40 lots suitable for single family houses.  I don’t have any reason to change the 2-for-1 ratio, so I now propose 80 townhouses.

I believe that the current R-3 zoning is not defensible in court.  I also believe that, with an option to build townhouses, it is defensible.

The homeowners association for these units will not want the work and responsibility for maintaining the large lake and surrounding land.  Therefore, I believe today, as I did in 2004, that the developer will be willing to transfer the lake, land, and maintenance responsibility to the township at no cost.  This will become Quarry Park.

Park maintenance will have costs.  Because they will use the park and benefit from it, I propose that the homeowners pay half of these costs.

The lake will fill from precipitation.  The surface elevation is expected to stabilize at the elevation of the surrounding groundwater table.  But circulation of water between the lake and groundwater will be minimal.  The lake will be almost a closed system and pose unique challenges.

Knowledgeable people believe that it will be possible to manage this system, and maintain good water quality, via use of aerators and prevention of harmful substances from entering the lake.  However, it will be necessary to have an ongoing water testing program and people who will monitor the results and take appropriate actions.

I recommend a Lake Management Advisory Committee (LMAC) modeled after the current Deer Management Advisory Committee on which I served for many years.  The LMAC will be composed of volunteers who have a general interest in the environment, or specific interests in lakes or fish, or who just want to serve their community.  There follow some examples of its tasks and responsibilities:

  • During the rehabilitation hearings representatives of the township and the quarry agreed that the lake will require mechanical aeration to maintain an adequate level of dissolved oxygen (DO).  But they did not agree on the size of the aeration pumps.  Pumps will be provided as part of the rehabilitation program.  LMAC will monitor the DO and make recommendations on what to do if the DO is too low.
  • The elevation of the lake is estimated to stabilize at 220 feet, and current thinking is to design lakeside features and facilities for a slightly lower elevation–say 218 feet–, and to pump the extra water to the Passaic River to maintain 218 feet.  The LMAC will monitor lake levels and advise on the pumping plan.
  • We expect the lake to support a community of fish.  Because it will be an isolated water body these fish must be deliberately introduced (aka stocked).  The LMAC will monitor the fish and overall biotic community and make recommendations for maintaining and improving its health.

The LMAC will have a small budget, that will be a part of the overall park maintenance budget.

Because the pumps mentioned above do not have to be operated 24/7, they will be excellent candidates to use on-site generated solar power.

I propose a bathing beach and swimming activities that will be managed and self-financed like Pleasant Valley Pool.  Think a Beach Commission–like the present Pool Commission– composed of non-paid volunteers, and beach users who will pay annual membership fees.

I propose that the LMAC and Beach Commission be separate agencies, because their responsibilities, and probably their interests, will be quite different.  They will, of course, need to cooperate and share information.

In 2004 I thought that public use of the lake for non-motorized watercraft–canoes, kayaks, paddle boards, rowboats for fishing– could be unsupervised, so long as people wore life jackets. I grew up near the Delaware River, and people used it at their own risk.

I have now been persuaded that, in today’s world, boating activity will have to be managed.  Therefore, I propose that this work be bundled with the Beach Commission.

Township residents, who pay membership fees, can enjoy active uses inside the lake.  Other residents can enjoy fishing from the edge.  Or they may walk, run, or bike near the lake or in the rest of the park.  Or they may just stand or sit and enjoy the scene.

All above is possible if township government pays half of the annual park maintenance cost.

Critical caveat:  The township should not accept transfer of any quarry land before steps have been taken to make it safe for public use and chemical tests have shown that lake water quality will be suitable for fishing and swimming.

Bill Allen,    12-07-17

 

 

Posted in Quarry Park | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Quarry Redevelopment Project: Doing Nothing Is Not an Option!

Posted on November 29, 2017 by Site Admin

The Bernards Township Committee held a public meeting on 11-28-17.  Representatives of the developer, that proposed the plan for the quarry that was introduced and discussed on 10-24-17, described that plan.  Members of the public and committee commented on it.  I read some prepared comments.  These are repeated and elaborated upon in a letter submitted on November 29 and copied below.

Bill Allen,    11-29-17 

To:              Mayor and Members of Bernards Township Committee

Subject:     Quarry Redevelopment Project:  Doing Nothing is Not An Option!

Introduction:  You hosted an excellent meeting last night.  You struck a good balance between the time used by Anthony Sblendorio and David Placek to describe their plan and the time members of the public used to comment on it.  I made some comments designed to fit within your five-minute rule.  I will repeat and elaborate on these here.

The plan introduced at your meeting on October 24, and discussed again last night, is a very detailed concept plan.  Let’s call this the October plan.

Exhibit 1 of the October plan is a colored map called the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan.  I expect that most of us looked at it and saw problems.  Traffic probably jumped into the minds of many, as it does with every major development proposal.  Others thought of children crowding our schools.  I thought of all the stuff that would go into the lake and adversely affect water quality.

We should study the 63-page description of the plan before we condemn it.  It’s obviously the result of a lot of work, and it contains many interesting ideas.

Potential Bad Outcome:  My fear is that the vigorous public opposition to the October plan will discourage serious consideration of any plan, and at the end of the day we will still have R-3 zoning on the quarry land.  This would be a very bad outcome.

R-3 zoning, with its requirement for 2-acre residential lots, is not defensible on this land.

  • No responsible planner would recommend this. In fact, I have found no evidence that any planner ever did. In the late 60s all undeveloped land in the eastern part of the township was zoned for 3-acre residential.  Some parcels were later changed to accommodate specific development projects.  The balance were changed from 3-acres to 2-acres in a wholesale zoning revision circa 1980.  The specific zoning for the quarry land was never addressed.  It was deliberately passed over in the last two master plan reviews.
  • The clearest evidence of the need for change is the fact that you have authorized the redevelopment process in which you are now engaged.
  • Affordable housing obligations will be a wild card in litigation.

Left unchanged the R-3 zoning will be challenged in court by MQI or another developer.  The township’s litigation experience with MQI over many years, and the recent one with the mosque, have not been happy ones.  A biased judge may rule that the township must allow many hundreds of dwelling units, perhaps of a design and quality inferior to what would be produced, if the township revised the zoning in pursuit of its own objectives.

No one wants this outcome.  It can be avoided if you continue the redevelopment process and rezone the property to something that is defensible, that is a benefit to the township community, and that is accepted by it.

Proposal:  Let’s look at the October plan and determine what’s good and what’s bad, what makes sense and what doesn’t.

♦ Most important on the good side, in my opinion, is the fact that the plan is being proposed by Anthony Sblendorio. He is a very creative guy, and he lives in town. If we all work together, I believe we can create something that will be a credit to the community, and that will be accepted by it.

♦ From my perspective as a long term resident, I think the proposed office building and hotel make no sense. They will serve and draw from the region, not just the local community. Township policy since the 70s has been to steer these activities to edges of the township, and primarily to the I78 and I287 interchanges.

In 1975 I participated as a Township Committee representative on the Planning Board in a review of the township master plan.  The policy described above was discussed and approved at that time.  It is the reason Lisa Winter could say last night that the town still had “the look and feel of a rural community.”  Our residents support this policy and I see no reason to change it.

♦ Multifamily dwellings do make sense. We have solid data that show that multifamily units are homes to relatively few public school students, and that the property taxes they generate more than cover the costs of educating the students.

Not so for single family detached dwellings.  They are homes for relatively many public school students.  On average they are fiscal losers.  This is particularly true for new homes, because parents with children tend to buy them.

Proof of above is in an analysis of the relationships between dwelling types, number of bedrooms, numbers of students, and property assessments for the 2004-2005 school year.  It rested on student data collected by Bill Draper and on property values from the township assessor.  The number of students in a dwelling is strongly influenced by the type of dwelling—single vs multi family—and by the number of bedrooms.  This analysis is on the Quarry Futures website at HST Rules: Homes, Schools, Taxes.

There may be more recent data, but I doubt that it tells a different story.

♦ Evaluation of the retail proposals in the October plan is more complicated.

Establishments that will support the quarry community make sense.  Those that need to attract customers from outside make less sense.  The Dewy Meadow and Lyons retail centers are nearby and have vacancies.

Basking Ridge and Liberty Corner grew from colonial villages.  The businesses there grew with the town and homes grew around them.  I don’t know the history of Lyons Mall, but my guess is that its location is related to the railroad station.  The Hills Highland Center was part of the overall Hills development.  Dewy Meadow is on the site of a former farm which had some limited commercial activity.  All of these retail centers serve primarily local residents.  None were new and inserted into an established residential neighborhood.

Riverwalk and Market Place are parts of the Martinsville/I78 business district.

I found David Placek’s comments on modern retailing very interesting:  small stores, with little inventory, where the customer can combine an in-store experience with the efficiency of online shopping.  Question:  Why should this be done in the quarry, rather than in the established retail centers identified above?

Lakeside/boardwalk activities are initially very appealing.  But they prompt questions:

  • How do we prevent harmful materials from entering the lake?
  • Will evening activities produce light and noise pollution that are not acceptable to residents inside or near the quarry? Remember the long argument over the band on the terrace at the Basking Ridge Country Club.

I propose that we—township officials, developer, and residents—examine each separate element in the October plan.  Then design a development plan that includes those elements that make sense and excludes those that do not.

Easier said than done?  Of course.  But it’s the only rational way to proceed that I can think of.

Quantitative Impacts:  Reasoning above is qualitative.  We also need numbers for things like traffic, public school students, and lake pollution.

For traffic I propose a simple spreadsheet model.  Put each activity on a separate row.  Put the activity name in Col A, estimated daily trips per unit in Col B (eg single family dwelling, hotel room, 1000 SF of office space), estimated peak hour trips per unit in Col C, quantity of planned units in Col D, total daily trips in Col E, and total peak hour trips in Col F.  Add up the totals.

Use this model first to estimate the traffic for the October plan.  Compare it to current traffic counts on Stonehouse and Pond Hill Roads.  It will probably show that this plan’s traffic will be significant relative to current traffic.  Then play with the quantities of planned units in Col D and look for an acceptable overall impact.  For example, set the office space and hotel rooms to zero.

Do something similar for public school students, which will be easy, and for lake pollution, which will be more difficult.

Wrapup:  Thank you for considering these comments and proposals.

Bill Allen,    11-29-17

 

Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged | Leave a comment

Quarry Rehab Plan: Report on Current Status

Posted on November 20, 2017 by Site Admin

Letter below was submitted to Bernards Township Committee on November 20, 2017.

To:              Mayor and Members of Bernards Township Committee

Subject:     Quarry Rehab Plan:  Report on Current Statu  

When I was working with John Belardo in late 2001 to revise the township ordinance with regard to the requirements for, and review of a quarry rehabilitation plan (aka rehab plan), I did not imagine that we would still be discussing a plan 16 years later.  But we should.

The Planning Board (PB) began a review of rehab Plan 2011 in late 2011.  It adopted a final report with 18 recommendations on 05-07-13 and submitted it to you.  You approved a Settlement Agreement with MQI on 04-29-14 that dealt with Plan 2011 and some other things.  The agreement acknowledged the PB report and approved Plan 2011, subject to some changes relevant to the importation of “fill” to be used as cover material.

The Settlement Agreement stipulates that the approved rehab plan would expire on 01-31-17.  No new rehab plan has been submitted.  The fact that you are engaged in the Quarry Redevelopment Project suggests that you consider rehabilitation to be complete.  But is it?

Good management and good governance require, I believe, that you issue a report on the work done to rehabilitate the property in accord with the plan approved in 2014.  This report should address each of the 18 recommendations in the PB report and describe its status:  complete, or in process of completion, or not undertaken.

This report should do the same for the agreement worked out in 2014 with MQI regarding fill.  I was surprised to see comments on the importation of fill in the concept plan presented at your meeting on 10-24-17.  Has there been no action on what was approved in the 2014 settlement agreement?

Many people have spent many hours in many meetings over many years discussing quarry rehabilitation.  Some of them are still around, including me, and we would like to know what all this discussion has accomplished.

Thank you for considering this proposal for a rehab status report.

Bill Allen

Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged | Leave a comment

Quarry Redevelopment: Lake Water Quality and Development Intensity

Posted on October 29, 2017 by Site Admin

Letter below was submitted to the Bernards Township Committee on October 29, 2017.

To:              Mayor and Members of Bernards Township Committee

Subject:     Quarry Redevelopment:  Lake Water Quality and Development Intensity

You held an excellent meeting this past Tuesday, October 24.  Announcement of the draft “ordinance” frightened many people over the weekend into thinking you were planning to pass something quickly.  This got their attention and produced a large turnout.  You assured them that this was not your intent, and things settled down.  You heard many rational and important comments, presented in a civil manner.

One important issue was only touched on, and I will elaborate on that below.

MOA Contaminants:  The PB received lots of data on soil and well water sampling in the MOA area during the Rehab Plan 2011 hearings.  Since that time discussions of future lake water quality have focused on the long term risks of leaching of harmful substances from the MOA soils to the lake and their impacts.  I talked about this many times and three former members of the PB raised this issue at your meeting.

The last data that I have seen is from 2012 and the indications from it were equivocal.  However, as I write here my premise is that the harmful substances in the MOA area will not adversely affect long term lake water quality and make it unsuitable for human uses–fishing, swimming, and non-motorized boating.  This premise must, of course, be confir by actual tests of future lake water to assure that it is in fact suitable for these uses before they are authorized.

Development Intensity, 2004 Concept Plan:  During the Rehab Plan 2003 hearings we addressed the potential water quality problems in a body of water, that is essentially a closed system.  At minimum, aerators will be required to mix oxygen with the water and prevent algae growth.

All non-volatile substances that enter the lake from the air, or via overland flow, or via seepage will tend to remain there.  So it will be essential to minimize the entrance of harmful substances like pesticides, goose droppings, and residual automotive products.

These hearings prompted the proposal to have a long term lake management plan.

In the concept plan for the property entitled Quarry Park and Lakeview Village, that I designed in 2004, I put the main road with curbs and storm sewer near the south edge of the lake, and raised it a little so that it would be a barrier to overland flow from the townhouses proposed higher up on the south slope.  There would be no overland flow directly to the lake from the developed area.

I put a row of shrubs along the south edge of the lake to serve as a goose barrier.

Using the concept site plan that Kevin Page submitted in the rehab package, I estimated that regular 2-acre zoning regulations would yield 34 to 35 single family houses.  In 2004 a trade of the development right for one single family house for two development rights for townhouses seemed reasonable.  So I proposed four rows of 17 townhouses like those in Amherst Mews in The Hills, a total of 68.  I proposed shrubbery and ground cover that would require little maintenance.

My gut in 2004 said that this plan would probably work, but I am not a lake expert and could not guarantee this.

Development Intensity, 2017 Quarry Redevelopment Concept Plan:  The plan presented and discussed on Tuesday proposed very dense development and much of it was very close to the lake edge.  It would be impossible to prevent direct overland flow from this development to the lake, and the amount of potentially harmful material that would enter the lake would probably be very large.

Apart from a requirement for a lake management plan, I find no mention in the 63-page plan document of the impacts on water quality of this dense development.  A lake management plan is not enough.  We need to assess the risks to water quality from the proposed development.  Then reduce them to an acceptable level by scaling back the development and or by removing the contaminants with a water treatment plant operating on a continuous basis.  This must be worked out before an ordinance is written and adopted.

It’s easy to make quick estimates of traffic by using standard factors for average trips per day or by hour for different categories of development.  Examples:  Trips during commuter hour from a single family home, and same for 1000 feet of office space.  There may be similar factors for pollutants generated by different categories of development, but I’m not sure.

What I am sure of is the need for a water quality professional to review this proposal.  I recommend that you hire Steve Souza and his Princeton Hydro firm.  He has expertise in restoration and management of fresh water streams and lakes.  He was the consultant for the PB during most of the quarry rehab hearings, and in my opinion he was very helpful.

I urge you to get Steve involved immediately.  Thank you for considering this proposa

Bill Allen

Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lake Water Quality and Development Intensity

Posted on October 29, 2017 by Site Admin

Letter below was submitted to the Bernards Township Committee on 10-29-17.

To:              Mayor and Members of Bernards Township Committee

Subject:     Quarry Redevelopment:  Lake Water Quality and Development Intensity

 You held an excellent meeting this past Tuesday, October 24.  Announcement of the draft “ordinance” frightened many people over the weekend into thinking you were planning to pass something quickly.  This got their attention and produced a large turnout.  You assured them that this was not your intent, and things settled down.  You heard many rational and important comments, presented in a civil manner.

One important issue was only touched on, and I will elaborate on that below.

MOA Contaminants: The PB received lots of data on soil and well water sampling in the MOA area during the Rehab Plan 2011 hearings. Since that time discussions of future lake water quality have focused on the long term risks of leaching of harmful substances from the MOA soils to the lake and their impacts.  I talked about this many times and three former members of the PB raised this issue at your meeting.

The last data that I have seen is from 2012 and the indications from it were equivocal. However, as I write here my premise is that the harmful substances in the MOA area will not adversely affect long term lake water quality and make it unsuitable for human uses–fishing, swimming, and non-motorized boating.  This premise must, of course, be confirmed by actual tests of future lake water to assure that it is in fact suitable for these uses before they are authorized.

Development Intensity, 2004 Concept Plan: During the Rehab Plan 2003 hearings we addressed the potential water quality problems in a body of water, that is essentially a closed system. At minimum, aerators will be required to mix oxygen with the water and prevent algae growth.

All non-volatile substances that enter the lake from the air, or via overland flow, or via seepage will tend to remain there. So it will be essential to minimize the entrance of harmful substances like pesticides, goose droppings, and residual automotive products.

These hearings prompted the proposal to have a long term lake management plan.

In the concept plan for the property entitled Quarry Park and Lakeview Village, that I designed in 2004, I put the main road with curbs and storm sewer near the south edge of the lake, and raised it a little so that it would be a barrier to overland flow from the townhouses proposed higher up on the south slope. There would be no overland flow directly to the lake from the developed area.

I put a row of shrubs along the south edge of the lake to serve as a goose barrier.

Using the concept site plan that Kevin Page submitted in the rehab package, I estimated that regular 2-acre zoning regulations would yield 34 to 35 single family houses. In 2004 a trade of the development right for one single family house for two development rights for townhouses seemed reasonable.  So I proposed four rows of 17 townhouses like those in Amherst Mews in The Hills, a total of 68.  I proposed shrubbery and ground cover that would require little maintenance.

My gut in 2004 said that this plan would probably work, but I am not a lake expert and could not guarantee this.

Development Intensity, 2017 Quarry Redevelopment Concept Plan:  The plan presented and discussed on Tuesday proposed very dense development and much of it was very close to the lake edge.  It would be impossible to prevent direct overland flow from this development to the lake, and the amount of potentially harmful material that would enter the lake would probably be very large.

Apart from a requirement for a lake management plan, I find no mention in the 63-page plan document of the impacts on water quality of this dense development. A lake management plan is not enough.  We need to assess the risks to water quality from the proposed development.  Then reduce them to an acceptable level by scaling back the development and or by removing the contaminants with a water treatment plant operating on a continuous basis.  This must be worked out before an ordinance is written and adopted.

It’s easy to make quick estimates of traffic by using standard factors for average trips per day or by hour for different categories of development. Examples:  Trips during commuter hour from a single family home, and same for 1000 feet of office space.  There may be similar factors for pollutants generated by different categories of development, but I’m not sure.

What I am sure of is the need for a water quality professional to review this proposal. I recommend that you hire Steve Souza and his Princeton Hydro firm.  He has expertise in restoration and management of fresh water streams and lakes.  He was the consultant for the PB during most of the quarry rehab hearings, and in my opinion he was very helpful.

I urge you to get Steve involved immediately. Thank you for considering this proposal.

Bill Allen,    10-29-17

Posted in Redevelopment Plan | Tagged , | Leave a comment