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