| Author |
Message |
    
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2226
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:46 pm: | 
|
Howard: Earlier, this is what I posted: They recommended standards that are much more stringent than the OSHA standards - In other words, the OSHA standards are the base line and we are looking to exceed those by a large margin.
The large margin would be ten times greater (although it would then mean 1/10 of the OSHA standard).
When you were at the meeting, did Birdsall review the standards and did they review how Pulte is expected to minimize any dust?
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 387
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Birdsall did not make any statement of standard that they would recommend.
I think it would be appropriate to reveal to the public the proposed standard. We may disagree but at least it is available for discussion/dialogue. |
Douglas Gill
Citizen
Username: Doug_gill
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 2, 2005 - 1:11 am: |
|
The OSHA mission statement starts 'OSHA's mission is to assure the safety and health of America's workers...' (at http://www.osha.gov/)
OSHA regulates many, many substances. It assumes an at-will relationship between employer and adult employee, and assumes the employee leaves the work site after an 8-hour day.
The EPA mission statement starts 'The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health...'
(at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm)
EPA regulates only 7 air pollutants, including respirable dust. EPA regulations are based on hard science correlating air quality measurements with hospital visits, and are designed to protect infants, asthmatic kids, and the elderly.
OSHA as a baseline when considering residential exposure is not in line with the intended use of its standards. Discussions of residential exposure should be based on relaxing EPA standards, not exceeding OSHA standards. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 395
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:32 pm: |
|
Please take note that the Village has signed an agreement with PULTE to allow crushing of rock at the Manor construction site.
At the next BOT meeting - Monday Sept. 12 you will have an opportunity to discuss what is contained in that agreement - "Resolution Formally Acknowledging the Execution of the Rock Crushing Agreement Between the Township of South Orange Village and Pulte Homes of N.J. Limited Partnership."
For further discussion of issues see
www.howard-levison.com |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2780
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
They are going to allow a COMMERCIAL operation in an area that is zoned RESIDENTIAL????
What other restrictions have the Village imposed to compensate the residents? Will Pulte now be required to observe STOP signs and other traffic regulations? Will Pulte now be required to observe existing Village ordinances regarding noise and construction hours?
....or will the Village simply PAY Pulte ANOTHER $1.2 million to take away the rock? 
I will be out of town on Monday, but if you could post a recap here, Howard, that would be great. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 226
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
So that's the MO of Pulte. Back the town into a corner by creating that hugh mountain of rock, and then "negotiating" their way out of it. That mountain should have never been permitted in the first place. On-going vigilance by town officials should have prevented what we are now left with. The town officals negotiated with Pulte, but how about Pulte negotiating with residents who are being impacted by noise, dust and all that goes along with a commerical quarrying ooperation. Seems to me that a lawsuit may be the only alternative for residents. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 2366
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
MHD-
Just curious. How long have you lived in town? While I agree with what you're saying, back I was a kid the quarry was a 'working' quarry... |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2782
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
JTA,
I moved into town after the quarrying ceased & frankly I didn't know anything about the site until I heard it was going to be developed.
However, the site is NOW zoned residential and quarrying is no longer permitted. Since the construction has begun, the trucks habitually run through stop signs, exceed speed limits and violate construction hours. I do not know if that occurred when it was a 'working' quarry, but all we can do is ensure those violations cease to occur now. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 2370
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Thanks for your response MHD. I wonder if it's not too late to take action against realtor who sold you your house. It's unlikely they didn't know about the intended development as it was talked about for many years.
Wasn't the area around the quarry always zoned for development?
I'm not sure what was done about the traffic violations back when the quarry was a working quarry. Could be people weren't as aware then as they are now.
Even so, I don't understand why the police won't enforce the traffic laws around the quarry. We all know the town sure can use the money. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2783
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
So, what happened at the meeting last night? Did the Village give the developer carte blanche to operate a quarrying operation without any compensation to the Village or the residents?
JTA - FWIW, our house was for sale by owner. However, it's probably moot since while we have lived here, we went to MANY open houses (for fun) in the neighborhood and were told by all realtors "don't worry about that site, they've been fighting over it for years & nothing will ever happen there". I guess they were technically correct, since nothing GOOD is happening there. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Howard --
Are the details of levels of dust/particulates allowed on your site?
I'd like to make some contacts about this -- and having specifics would help.
I am amazed and saddened at what I have heard about this -- for the families in the neighborhood, the school children (and their teachers), and the reflection of values in South Orange.
Thanks, Pete |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 396
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
I have obtained a copy of the Pulte agreement through an OPRA request and it can be found at
www.howard-levison.com |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Awesome work Howard!
Can you give a frame of reference for the allowable particulate levels - OSHA vs. EPA (compare these vs agreement)?
In isolation, its unclear what the #'s mean -- and how lax (or stringent) they are.
This galls me no end. Air quality in northern NJ isn't great to begin with. How many people need to have symptoms of asthma, COPD, or God forbid, much worse to have this stopped?
BTW -- is the $20k fine stipulated in the agreement -- is that fair (against town/state/ whatever ordinances)? And we could discuss, whether it even comes close to being a disincentive to this behavior (NOT!).
/p |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 397
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
A starting point would be to review the following discussions of the EPA Standards:
http://www.howard-levison.com/Press_Fine_Particulate_Matter.doc
http://www.howard-levison.com/US_EPA_Fugitive_Dust_PM_10_PM25.pdf |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 230
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
I cannot believe that Pulte gets off with a $20,000 fine for all past violations and only $1,000 per subsequent violation as the full extent of their liability going forward. This is a huge company, and this is what South Orange's attorney agrees to! These amounts mean nothing to Pulte. No wonder the village attorney always says he can't discuss deals in the open while they are being negotiated. The populace would be irate if we knew what he was agreeing to. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 402
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
"Time of the essence"/"People are Suffering" were rational expressed by the BOT and used as justification for signing the Pulte Crushing Agreement on Sept 2 without public debate/dialogue and trustee vote.
It is now Sept. 23 - Where is the work plan prescribed by the agreement, where is the consultant/contract, where is the notice of installation of crushers, where are the base line air samples, and did we get the $20,000 for prior violations?????
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 403
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Notice has been given by Pulte that it is their intent to begin crushing operations on Friday Sept. 30th. The following information has been requested through OPRA and current status:
· As stated in the agreement Pulte would provide a “Work Plan” – status: None available.
· Copy of Contract for the onsite “Qualified Consultant” that is to be in place within 10 days of agreement signing – status: None available.
· Payment of $20,000 for prior violations to be received within 7 days of contract signing – status: Not yet received.
· Weekly status reports (Note: it is important to have background monitoring levels prior to start of operations) – status: None available.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2804
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Thanks for the update, Howard.
We still have yet to even hear an explanation why such an agreement was signed prior to public discussion. Isn't that illegal? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2276
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Howard: The rock crushing can not begin untill they comply with the agreement (qualified consultant in place, monitoring, etc).
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2805
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
I just watched some more of the meeting from Sept 12 & I want to commend Trustee DeVaris for questioning why this agreement was signed without a public meeting.
However, a reasonable answer was still not provided, even though Taylor yelled at Trustee DeVaris like a child.
I urge everyone to download the meeting & replay it around the 4:00:00 mark.
http://www.southorange.org/videoViewer.asp |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 7481
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
A bit off-topic, but the quarry shot in Garden State appears to have been staged.
Quote: Director Zach Braff says people commonly ask him where scenes set in Kiernan’s Quarry were filmed: “Where is that place? It’s in Rocco’s mind,” he says
http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=28045-1 |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 404
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
I do not understand your comment.
The agreement covers more than just crushing. Understand work is proceeding now by the definition of the agreement even though they have not begun crushing. In fact a resident lodged a complaint today.
|
Dan Shelffo
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 166
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 9:09 pm: |
|
In this past Sunday's New York Times Magazine in an essay titled, "The Broken Contract" By MICHAEL IGNATIEFF the author writes:
"A contract of citizenship defines the duties of care that public officials owe to the people of a democratic society. The Constitution defines some parts of this contract, and statutes define other parts, but much of it is a tacit understanding that citizens have about what to expect from their government. Its basic term is protection: helping citizens to protect their families and possessions from forces beyond their control."
Now granted the author was referring to the Katrina disaster (and in no way do I want to compare that to what we are facing here) but I thought the sentiment was applicable. We expect certain basic protection from our government. It made me wonder why the BOT is so pro-developer and anti-neighborhood. Where is our basic protection from excessive dust and truck traffic?
The Village screams that "there are no enforceable standards" yet there are EPA defined standards for air quality and isn’t it the role of government to enforce? The “acceptable” level of pollution that Pulte is allowed to put in the air is 10 times what the EPA recommends as OK to breath. Ten Times, what’s up with that?
The Village justifies their position by saying that we live in a non attainment area where the air quality is bad anyway so why bother. They apply this same argument to trucks loaded down with 20 tons of rock and ignoring stop signs by saying the residents roll through stop signs as well so why bother with enforcement?
Pulte starts crushing again on Friday and I would guess that soon after the constant truck traffic starts. From this thread I get the impression that there is not yet a work plan, qualified consultant or a weekly reporting system. I get the feeling that we are no better prepared for this then FEMA was for Katrina.
|
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 184
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
I would like to reiterate what MHD asked in an effort to get an answer...
"We still have yet to even hear an explanation why such an agreement was signed prior to public discussion. Isn't that illegal?" |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2811
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
We still have yet to even hear an explanation why such an agreement was signed prior to public discussion. Isn't that illegal?
Anyone? |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
During the 9/12/05 BoT meeting I raised the same question:
Why the Rock Crushing Agreement was signed before there was any public discussion among the members of the BoT - surely the residents would like to know the position of their elected officials on this contract - and before going through the standard procedure of taking an open vote to pass a resolution authorizing the Village President to sign the Agreement?
I was given the following answer by Village Administrator Mr. Gross:
“The Board wanted to move forward with this agreement, as opposed to going into litigation, for a number of reasons that the Board felt were advantageous to the Board to do so… I think there was a decision, or a perception - I don’t want to go into details - but it became of some urgency to conclude this matter in order to prevent that this matter goes to a level that this Board did not want to go to: litigation.”
And, later, Trustee Moore-Abrams answered to the same question:
“Time was of the essence because people are suffering…”
I did not consider these responses satisfactory. |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 266
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
oh my G-d. Who is Mr. Gross? Ari Fleischer? |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 410
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Listen to the clip from the BOT meeting:
www.howard-levison.com/bot09122005timeoftheessense.wmv
"Time of the essence"/"People are Suffering" were rational expressed by the BOT and used as justification for signing the Pulte Crushing Agreement on Sept 2 without public debate/dialogue and trustee vote.
But what we see today almost one month after signing ("People are Suffering") and as stated in the agreement:
· Pulte would provide a “Work Plan” – status: None available.
· A Contract for the onsite “Qualified Consultant” that is to be in place within 10 days of agreement signing – status: Not yet available.
· Payment of $20,000 for prior violations to be received within 7 days of contract signing – status: Not yet received.
· Weekly status reports (Note: it is important to have background monitoring levels prior to start of operations) – status: None available. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
I'm curious. Who was suffering? What suffering is Teri referring to? I thought prior to this agreement, Pulte had ceased operations that were causing health issues. (?) |
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 185
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Gross and Matthews hold for too long that litigation ax over our heads whenever they have to cover up the blunders of their negotiating failures. If litigation is a concern for the BOT, they should be concerned about being sued by the residents. For how long are the residents going to allow construction activities in their neighborhood with the Village taking a minimum of precautions to protect their children's health? How long before they sue the Village?
Time was of essence says trustee Moore-Abrams. Time was of essence for the contractor to start work today Friday, so time became of essence for the BOT to sign the agreement asap. But, so far, time has not been of essence to enforce the terms of the agreement listed in Howard's post above.
Time is of essence because people are suffering, says Terrianne Moore-Abrams, yet we accept levels of air pollution that are ten times more dangerous than EPA’s minimum recommendations. Where is her concern for people’s suffering here?
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 411
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Coming soon to your backyard
 |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2812
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Cost of 30 acre property - $6.2 million
Approximate Revenue from 69 units - $69 million
Approximate revenue per DAY of crushed bluestone - $200/ton * 20 tons/truck * 40 trucks/day = $160,000/day
Cost of working with a Village that is too cowardly or incompetent to defend the residents - Priceless! |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 412
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Just received notice that the Village received the $20,000 today. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Is that the infamous crusher mentioned in the agreement? No obvious "dust supression" to my eye!
Howard, thanks for persevering...
Pete |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2813
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
From the Village website:
South Orange News
Pulte begins Rock Crushing Prematurely
On Friday, September 30th, the Village Administrator and Director of Code Enforcement made a surprise inspection at the quarry site where Pulte Homes is currently building new homes. During the inspection they discovered that rock crushing was ongoing, prior to all of the required terms and conditions having been met. Pulte was ordered to halt these activities immediately and Village officials will continue to monitor the site to ensure crushing is not resumed until all terms have been satisfied.
|
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 186
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Oh no! Now Pulte will be fined $1,000! Oh my! Their stock is going to tumble!
Isn'it time we get rid of a Village President who has delegated all the duties to the incompetent duo of his buddies John Gross and Ed Matthews and to the "acting president" trustee Art Taylor? Calabrese is recusing himself from the meetings when the Quarry is discussed. How proper! Who is so naive to believe that he and trustee Art Taylor do not receive detailed report from Gross/Matthews for every step of their negotiations with Pulte? |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 270
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
For the sake of SO-M, and for SO in particular, could you SOrangians please, get your grass roots act together, and get rid of the Bums On BOT? It's embarassing. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 414
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 3, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
On Sept 12th John Gross stated there would on-site monitoring of activities:
www.howard-levison.com/bot09122005monitoring.wmv
On Oct 3. on www.southorange.org posted a News Article titled "Pulte begins Rock Crushing Prematurely" (see below).
We still don't have a Consulting Agreement or on-site Village representative as stated at the BOT meeting 9/12/05: www.howard-levison.com/bot09122005Consultant.wmv based on an outstanding OPRA request.
How do we obtain BaseLine air monitoring results is they started "prematurely"?
Now the latest NEWS article states that everything is in place.
_______________________
From South Orange News
Pulte begins Rock Crushing Prematurely
On Friday, September 30th, the Village Administrator and Director of Code Enforcement made a surprise inspection at the quarry site where Pulte Homes is currently building new homes. During the inspection they discovered that rock crushing was ongoing, prior to all of the required terms and conditions having been met. Pulte was ordered to halt these activities immediately and Village officials will continue to monitor the site to ensure crushing is not resumed until all terms have been satisfied. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2820
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
We still have yet to even hear an explanation why such an agreement was signed prior to public discussion. Isn't that illegal? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2826
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Mark - since you are posting on other threads, is there a reason you aren't answering the question here? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2302
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
MHD: I hear the word legal and I figure you wanted an answer from an attorney.
The following is not an official village response, just my understanding:
As far as I know it is legal and we were told that it was legal. The village president can take certain actions including signing agreements when he deems neccessary.
I think the real question you would like to know is why didn't we wait two more weeks to have the agreement discussed in public and then vote on a resolution authorizing the village president to sign the agreement (or as in this case, the acting village president).
I think the agreement dealt with most of the concerns that were expressed by residents although some feel that the agreement did not go far enough in some instances.
I see no problem is discussing specific questions at a BOT meeting even though the agreement has been signed. If anyone has a question they should feel free to ask at a meeting or by email.
Also, as I have stated before, I don't mind answering questions, but sometimes I take heat for the full BOT because I am the one delivering the message. I for one know that this is one of those times when the lines have been clearly drawn. I think that you and a couple of others are convinced there was some kind of secret deal made and that the BOT wanted to see as many homes as possible built in the quarry. You will never see the other point of view on the issue. Evidence is how you expressed your opinion on Bill Sullivan now doing work for the planning board. This never was to be the village against the residents (us vs them type of thinking). The goal was to do what was best for the village recognizing that certain actions in the past greatly impacted and limited what could be done.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2827
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Mark,
Yes...I am still awaiting an answer to "why didn't we wait two more weeks to have the agreement discussed in public and then vote on a resolution authorizing the village president to sign the agreement (or as in this case, the acting village president)?"
As for Bill Sullivan...I made a statement that I thought it was interesting that he is now working for the Planning Board. I drew no conclusions.
However, it is an OBVIOUS FACT that the BOT was committed to develop the quarry and was unwilling to entertain a variety of other options that were available. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2304
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
MHD: With 20-20 hindsight, it probably could have waited the two weeks.
You posted the following statement in regards to Bill Sullivan: " Interesting how 2.5 years ago he was going up against the Planning Board and now he is part of them."
You refer to the planning board as them. Bill Sullivan was not up against the planning board, but against a developer. The planning board was required to hold site plan hearings.
It was not obvious to me.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page