| Author |
Message |
    
StellaLuna
Citizen
Username: Stellaluna
Post Number: 49
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 1:30 pm: | 
|
I want to ak all you visit the South Orabnge pool a question. Several of us, including people who work there feel that the land ehind the pool has appeared to have "shrunk"; the hill and land in back of the diving board is much smallerthan in prior years. Some people have stated "that Beifus took it back". I wrote to several trustees, but have not received a response, and our Village Administrator has stated that our eyes are deceving us. Does anyone know what is going on? Is it an optical illusion; are people spreading rumors?Thanks. |
kevin
Supporter
Username: Kevin
Post Number: 759
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Stella,
I created a graphic back in April that shows what you are asking. It's not perfect, but very close. You can see it here:
/discus/messages/3133/110213.html?1145761346#PO ST589018
|
StellaLuna
Citizen
Username: Stellaluna
Post Number: 50
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Eek- I should proofread before I post. But, thanks, kevin; it seems from your graphics that a great deal of pool land is missing - why would John Gross tell me it is still the same? |
Dan Shelffo
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 186
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
I seem to recall that some time ago, before the Trustees elected in 2005 were on the board, the BoT passed legislation allowing Beifus to encroach upon the buffer between the pool and his project.
I would guess that this could makes both our Village Administrator and the observers of the shrinkage technically correct.
Perhaps Mark Rosner can clarify.
|
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
I don't know the technicalities of encroachment, but if as StellaLuna says, people can see the "shrinkage" of the buffer, this seems to be quite a sizeable amount of land for it to be noticed, so what is considered encroachment of the buffer as opposed to taking over the buffer? Also, is this permanent or temporary? |
Nancy - LibraryLady
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3625
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 5:59 pm: |
|
It does appear to me to be smaller behind the diving tank as Stella Luna said. The fence juts in to cut off most of the area behind, where you use to be able to stand and watch your kids drive without them noticing you spying on them. It might be an optical illusion, but is sure seems like the fence encroaches on previous pool property. |
Crazy_quilter
Citizen
Username: Crazy_quilter
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 6:53 pm: |
|
my daughter thought they moved the diving boards.
someone else said to me that he used to sit under the shade on the hill and is now finding it hard to find a spot to sit. |
Jersey_Boy
Citizen
Username: Jersey_boy
Post Number: 1265
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
I'm not sure why, (maybe too much coffee) but this makes me more angry than any of the other land grabs that I've read about. Dirty business that kills other businesses, arguments about a gazebo or sculpture, I can handle all that.
Encroaching on donated public land with such a wonderful history, I can't abide.
J.B. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 10:13 am: |
|
Dan Shelffo's recollection is correct. The previous BOT, with only Patrick Joyce voting against, passed a resolution which decreased the size of the buffer between the pool and the rear of the Beifus property. This was done at the request of Beifus so that he could build a higher density building at the site, with a parking deck. The Planning Board approved a five story building with a parking deck. The originally approved plan dragged on and about two years later Beifus went before the Planning Board to amend the plan to a four story building without a parking deck. The plan was amended by Beifus to reduce the costs of the original plan, for which the BOT had reduced the size of the buffer. Even though the plan was amended, the reduced buffer is one of the legacies of the Beifus fiasco.
|
StellaLuna
Citizen
Username: Stellaluna
Post Number: 51
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Interesting. Why would town property be given to a private entity? Land donated to the people of South Orange. But as Mr. Gross said, " While the area around the pool has not been reduced the addition of a buffer zone of trees and shrubs navy (sic) make it appear so. The zone is intended to provide a visual buffer and the adjacent condominium project." |
Annie Modesitt
Citizen
Username: Modeknit
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 9:13 pm: |
|
This makes me really angry.
And even more upsetting is the fact that - except for the shady area between the kid's pools - there's no substantial shady place for those of us who like to be with our kids, but can't be in the sun for extended periods of time.
I'm the only one in my family without a skin cancer, I'd like to keep it that way...
How can we investigate this land grab further, and how can we:
1) Get some kind of a shade put up (perhaps tethered to that new beautiful chain link fence...)
2) Get the relatively small shady area immediately behind the boards be made more user friendly (ie, grass cut, pool hoses and brooms not stored there, more chairs in that area)
When I walked into the pool area and saw the changes, I felt like crying. I've always told friends that our pool is one of the best reasons to live in SO, and the shade is what makes it wonderful for EVERYONE. My husband turned to me as we surveyed the damage and said, "Well, one more reason to move out of South Orange ..."
Very sad.
http://www.shadefoundation.org/schools.php |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 705
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
|
If you are angry enough, go to the BOT meeting and let them know. Not enough citizens take that step. Our VP has repeatedly stood up for Beifus both at the BOT meetings and at the Planning Board meetings. It is shameful that he puts Beifus before the good of the community. It makes you wonder what really is at play here. In any event, tell him you've had enough, and bring along others who feel as you do. |
Soparents
Supporter
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
I think the next BOT meeting is Monday July 10th at 8pm in the Village Hall.
AM - you have a valid and most important concern. Go to the meeting and raise the point, it definately deserves to be heard and addressed.
|
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 10:14 pm: |
|
I'm unclear...does the "buffer zone" issue mean that Beifus is being allowed to build closer to his property line, in space that we have come to see as "pool space" or is there an actual shifting of the property line?
I'm assuming the former, but am not sure. |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 292
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Remember the 3 minute rule if you speak at the BOT meeting.
Prepare your statement and bring a watch so that you can get your message across. In fact, bring support. They can use their 3 minutes after Calabrese tries to squelch the issue. |
StellaLuna
Citizen
Username: Stellaluna
Post Number: 52
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 7:27 pm: |
|
I do think this is a reason to atend the next meeting. This land was donated to the people of South Orange as a place for a pool, not a place for a private entity to move dirt around. Has anyone ever read the documents relevant to the conveyance of this land? Would it even be legal to give it away? |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 644
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 8:51 pm: |
|
"Buffer zone," like the DMZ between North and South Korea?
This is town property, given away to a friend of Bill by Bill, Taylor, Rosen and maybe even Rosner. Please correct me if I am wrong about the vote.
Not an eminent domain taking, with proven public benefit, but, a giveaway of our land.
Thanks again to town attorney for looking out for Bill's friends at the expense of we taxpayers.
jd |
Annie Modesitt
Citizen
Username: Modeknit
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 12:41 am: |
|
I think I will try to make the meeting on Monday (will I be allowed to knit? I have a deadline Tuesday...)
Is anyone else up for a visit to the BOT on Monday? I've spent most of this Spring out of town (and haven't really had a reason to attend the meetings) but I'd love to bring this topic up.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a real quality of life question. I have an 8 & 9 year old, we already limit our pool time to after 4 in the afternoon (sun sensitivity), now I find we're curtailing it to after 6 or 7 (giving us about an hour of swimming, the kids LOVE me!)
This site seems to have a good solution -
http://www.shadesails.com
- and some of the ready made ones are very affordable. (I'd be happy to start a sunshade fund if the village doesn't want to spring for some cool shade for the pool-goers!) |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 23460
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 4:58 am: |
|
The tennis courts near the pool are also in the redevelopment zone.
I'll be at the meeting on July 10 and yes, knitting is allowed (although it seems Bill Calabrese can call the cops on anyone so I could be wrong). |
Jersey_Boy
Citizen
Username: Jersey_boy
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Once they build a giant building on that site, just feet away from the pool, there'll be plenty of shade.
That's what's got me pissed. The pool will be next to an apartment building. RIGHT next to it.
I'll try to be at the meeting.
J.B. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3485
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Is anyone sure that this is town land (or pool property) that is now under the control of Beifus? Or is this Beifus property that has historically been used near the pool? |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 11:45 pm: |
|
My question exactly...to me it sounds like they were given a variance to build closer to their property edge than is usual, rather than being allowed to take actual town land.
Either is problematic, but they are very different issues. Does anyone have clarity? |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
My understanding is that Dan Shelffo has it right. The property belonged to Beifus, but before the BOT resolution, a buffer of a certain size (I don't remember the exact number of feet) had to be maintained between the Beifus property and the pool. This was similar to the situation at the quarry where the original buffer was amended by the Planning Board to allow Pulte to blast so that Pulte would be able build with more open area in the rear of the townhomes.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4354
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 9:08 am: |
|
...and as I recall Art Taylor was a big advocate of reducing the buffer in both cases. |
Josh Holtz
Citizen
Username: Jholtz
Post Number: 510
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
Is anyone really worried that there will be a Beifus building built on the lot? |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 648
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 2:48 pm: |
|
It is a multi-level parking deck which will be built there, to alleviate parking problems downtown.
Who wants cars flying off a deck and into a pool?
jd
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 629
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Joel, this does not alleviate problems since they received a variance to reduce the quantity of spaces required for this project - the assumption was that there would be enough across the street in the NJT lot to make up the difference. |
Maryann
Citizen
Username: Maryann
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 4:42 pm: |
|
The "buffer" that has disappeared may or may not have belonged to Beifus Buick.
If it legitimately belonged to Beifus Buick, then there isn't much you can do about it.
HOWEVER, if the land in question was actually part of the original Cameron Field parcel,it can't be given away or sold. The following brief history of Cameron Field since 1909 explains why.
HOW DID CAMERON FIELD COME TO BE?
1.The Cameron Field Association collected $8,600 in contributions between 1909 and 1912 to build a playground in honor a popular local minister, the Rev. Lewis Cameron, who died on Oct. 30, 1909. They used $3,500 of the contributed money to purchase a 5 acre parcel of land called the "Tompkins Tract" from the Meadowlands Golf Club. The remaining $5,300 was used to develop a swimming pool, ball fields, an ice-skating pond, shelter houses, playground equipment, etc.
2. The Cameron Field Pool and Playground were officially dedicated May 30, 1914.
3. The CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION dated 1909 said it was formed "to purchase the necessary lands and equipment...to provide a playground for the children of the Village of South Orange...to be known perpetually as "Cameron Field" in memory of the late Lewis Cameron."
4.The DEED to the Vilage of South Orange, dated 1911, contained the words "THE PREMISES HEREIN CONVEYED ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR A FREE PUBLIC PLAYGROUND AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE."
MORE RECENT EVENTS
5. A proposal to replace the old pool came up in 1968. It was suggested that it be replaced with a paid, membership-type pool similar to Maplewood's. News-Record articles about it were published on July 18, July 25, August 1,
August 8, August 15, and August 29.
THE RESULTING LAW SUIT
6. Additional information about the Cameron Field Pool property may be found by researching the LAW SUIT that emerged in 1969 to keep the pool "free". It was led by Leo and Esther Kilduff, and Maragaret Ames Auer. Eugene Lewis was their lawyer. The village library and the South Orange Hstorical Society should have a copy of a two-part document titled " The Story of Cameron Field, Village of South Orange" and "You Can Fight City Hall and Win". This 7-page document was written by Esther Kilduff and Margaret Ames Auer and it's dated June 23, 1977.
7. The Kilduff/Auer lawsuit was successful. A June 28,1971 opinion written by NJ Supreme Court Justice Hall stated: "The premises herin conveyed (Cameron Field) are to be used only for the purpose of a free public playground, and for no other purpose."
QUESTION
If the land in question proves to be part of that original Cameron Field parcel, then how can the current Board of Trustees legally give it away???
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2849
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
I do not have a definite answer. I have been told the fence is at the same spot it was before. They did plant new trees on the side of the pool (I think it was paid for by Beifus as part of the agreement).
If the property is part of the original cameron field parcel, it can not be given away.
If no answer is given on Monday night I will put it on the agenda for the legal committee to explore.
|
Elaine Harris
Citizen
Username: Elaineharris
Post Number: 208
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Maryann, that was a brilliant summary. Once upon a time in America there was a better understanding and respect for property rights. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 667
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
I believe the pool is now named in honor of Peter Connor, a Columbia High graduate, (I hope I have the name correct, for the following reason), who posthumously was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his valourous actions in saving the lives of others during the Vietnam War.
jd |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Here's a link to the minutes of the Sept. 23, 2002 meeting where the relevant ordinance was dicussed: http://southorange.org/minutes/2002/09232002r.htm |
Crazy_quilter
Citizen
Username: Crazy_quilter
Post Number: 358
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
i was looking again at the property. i am sure the fence juts way more into the pool area than it did previously. did they remove some of the hill? i remember sitting on the hill and watching the diving board, which i cannot do now. |
Maryann
Citizen
Username: Maryann
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Kevin,
Would you ever be able to locate the original plot plan of Cameron Field? It will probably be labelled the "Tompkins Tract". Its deed is dated 1911.
Posting it here at MOL next to your "April Graphic" would give everyone an opportunity to see if Cameron Field's original borders line up with the Beifus property line in question.
|
kevin
Supporter
Username: Kevin
Post Number: 781
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Maryann, someone here could probably get that by going to the library and looking up the Sanborn Atlas from that period. This assumes that the local library has some in their collection.
Any volunteers?
|
Nancy - LibraryLady
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3655
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 8:54 pm: |
|
http://www.sopl.org/TLCScripts/interpac.dll?RPRLogin?Directions=1&Config=ysm&Bra nch=,0,
this is the link from the SOuth Orange Library's website to the digital Sanborn Maps of NJ. Just us your library card bar code and your pin to log in.
www.sopl.org
reference tab
Sanborn Maps |
kevin
Supporter
Username: Kevin
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Awesome! I knew someone must have had the NJ maps online. Now I just need a library card....
|
Nancy - LibraryLady
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3656
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Kevin, as long as you live, work or go to school in S.O., you are eligible for a library card. Come in and say hi and get your bar code while you wait! |
Maryann
Citizen
Username: Maryann
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:33 am: |
|
Kevin, Nancy-Library Lady,
I would like to join you in researching and posting the original map of Cameron Field here at MOL. However, I can't because I no longer live in South Orange. I moved away after retiring five years ago.
Even though I now live in another state, MOL keeps me informed about what's happening back "home".
Like so many other villagers, I have fond memories of Cameron Field and its pool -- the old one and the new one.
Cameron Field is particularly valuable now that open space in South Orange is at a premium. I think we'd all hate to see even a small portion of it squandered for commercial use. Anything villagers can do to preserve that kind of open space is important.
Has Cameron Field's boundary line really been compromised? Has the area behind the diving tank actually "shrunk"? Or, could all of this simply be an "optical illusion"? The answers to all of these questions are on Cameron Field's original survey / plot plan. Why? Because regardless of what happens to the properties adjacent to it, Cameron Field's boundaries must by law remain unchanged "in perpetuity". Cameron Field cannot be sold, traded, or given away.
Kevin, Nancy-Library Lady -- Thank you so much for even considering my request. I thank you, too, for your obvious interest in Cameron Field, and for any help you can give to protect it.
I know that searching for the survey, and posting it, will be take time. I apologize for even asking. If I lived within an easy driving distance, I could spend a day there helping you find it. Oh well...
Good luck locating it.
And thanks again not just for myself, but for every villager who's ever enjoyed -- or ever will enjoy --a summer day in Cameron Field.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
This is what I gather from going back through the BOT minutes. The actual ordinance passed by the BOT is in the Redevelopment Plan which the Village Code says is available at Village Hall. The first reading of the ordinance took place at a special meeting of the BOT in July. The purpose of this ordinace was to amend the Cental Business District Redelopment Plan which had been adopted in 1996. I'm not sure whether that original plan provided for a buffer at the Beifus site. Nevertheless, the ordinance as introduced at the first reading in July did provide for a buffer between the pool and the Beifus property as recommended by the planning consultant hired by the Village. Patrick Joyce refers to this in his objection to the "technical changes" referred to by Ed Matthews. The "techinical changes" eliminated the buffer so as to allow Beifus to build a parking deck up to his property line. The original plan approved by the Planning Board approved the parking deck. Beifus subsequently eliminated the parking deck.
It is important to remember that even though the original building might have been built up to the property line, the Beifus property is in the redevelopment zone and as such, the Village had the right to make sure that there was a buffer on Beifus' property as suggested by the planners.
Instead, the Planning Board and BOT decided not to follow the advice of the planners and instead, the buffer now has to be on Village property.
|
Elaine Harris
Citizen
Username: Elaineharris
Post Number: 211
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
But...property which is the subject of this restrictive covenant should not be used as a "buffer" because it impairs its ability to be used for recreation. If the BoT intends to use a portion of the existing Cameron property as the buffer, this is wrong. We complained about this issue in the past but nobody paid attention. Unfortunately, it takes bulldozers to make the public pay attention. Thank goodness all of you are paying attention now. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
The pool area *looks* quite different -- but whether that is a result of taking down the old trees, the new high fence with the brown privacy material, and/or the new plantings -- unclear.
I first thought we "lost" pool property -- but after looking more closely, I'm not so sure -- it seems to me that the trees cut down (on the Beifus side) along with a previously much lower fence could be skewing the view.
Need more info on this.
(BTW -- could someone tell me why several of the new trees planted are directly under the old trees? either someone is assuming the old trees will die soon OR this was a very poorly planned planting. likewise, is ANYONE at the pool watering the many new trees and shrubs? This time of year, unless frequently watered, they are likely to die)
Pete |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 674
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 4:35 pm: |
|
The buffer does not have to be on village property. The board of t's chose to do that.
That's how it goes in The Incomplete Village.
I think from now on, it is: The Unfinished Village.
jd |
Maryann
Citizen
Username: Maryann
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:36 pm: |
|
Does anyone know if this issue was brought up at Monday's BOT meeting?
Was it finally resolved or was it put on the Legal Committee's agenda as
MRosner suggested it might be? |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
MRosner wasn't there, unfortunately. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page