| Author |
Message |
    
vermontgolfer
Citizen
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 249
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 8:09 pm: | 
|
mayhewdrive,
You may not believe this, but I'm as frustrated as anyone else with the slow progress, or lack thereof, as I'm sure some would call it. However, it appears that everytime something starts to move along, some group or other step to the plate and throw a monkey wrench into the plan. Take this thread, Animal Shelter, it again has evolved into something else, but a group of residents, none of whom I know, feel that putting the shelter in/at Farrell Field is not where they want it. Let's not kid ourselves, this objection has nothing to do with Green Acres and open space, it has to do with they don't want it near their home. If I lived near there, maybe I'd feel the same way, I don't so I can't honestly answer. However, their resistance has slowed/stopped the project. This is not the case for every delayed project in SO, but we sure do have a vocal crowd when something doesn't please them. I've said enough on the subject, signing off! |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 620
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 8:21 pm: |
|
VG,
I know it always comes back to the quarry for me, but that is a prime example where there was EXTREMELY VOCAL opposition, yet the project went ahead anyway. (I'm sure there were some who supported the notion, but certainly the majority of people were against the development, as evidenced by the Open Space Trust Fund and the election of Patrick, among other examples).
So, I find it hard to believe that a few squeaky wheels are stifling all projects in town. As they say, if there is a will, there is a way.
I agree we can't blame the BOT for everything (good or bad), but if people aren't angry about the lack of progress they just aren't paying attention. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5953
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 8:32 pm: |
|
The BoT themselves admitted to not knowing where the building was going to be situated after construction began. How could homeowners in the area know the details? For crying out loud, let OPEN input from the community happen. I'm still waiting for my mailing to an open meeting about proposed Seton Hall cinder block monstrosities proposed to be built within 100' of my property. Certainly if Farrell Field neighbors got that courtesy I'm assuming I and my neighbors would too. Especially in light of the FACT THAT SETON HALL PAYS ZERO IN TAXES TO THE VILLAGE.
Thus far only Steve Steglitz has had the guts to take them on. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10528
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 8:42 pm: |
|
The public was invited to a Planning Board Meeting on the shelter. No one showed up.
End of story.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
Soda
Citizen
Username: Soda
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Dave, maybe someday you'll have a son or daughter playing ball on that field.
You know, M-3 was a ball field before you bought your house, and it'll be a ball field long after you move away. The fences and bleachers have stood there for many years (maybe even before Ed Matthews -- yes, THAT Ed Matthews -- began his long unpaid tenure running South Orange's version of Little League, which he ended just as my own son was coming of age to join up), and you bought your home knowing that you'd be seeing them every time you looked out your window over that field.
Generations of kids (maybe one day yours) will benefit from the improvements which have been made to that field over the years: improved drainage, new sod, the regulation 200-foot fence, the flagpole, the lights, the scoreboard... The dugouts will be another positive step in the process.
Do you long for hushed country noises at night? Do you get angry on those balmy summer evenings when you hear the sounds of baseball being played outside your window? Do you wish you could look out your window now and see a pristine scene of virgin rolling hills and babbling brooks? Or do you see what you've seen every day since you moved in: baseball fields, tennis courts, public parking, and a community center?
You're sounding every bit as much a NIMBY as the Farrell Field folks, and that just encourages those who take online shots at the BOT at any and every opportunity (but are, sadly, never seen volunteering for any community activities).
I want to think of you as above all that, Dave. You know where I live. Maybe one day I'll be faced with the sale/development of Orange Lawn Tennis Club, and if/when that happens, maybe I'll raise a hue and cry about the BOT failing to see it coming, or maybe I'll support alternative candidates to challenge the incumbents. Maybe I'll wanna throw the bums out. But I hope that when it's my turn to cry NIMBY, I'll keep my perpective. You may be in danger of losing yours.
Try and see the bigger picture. Your kid will be glad you did.
--Soda |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5956
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Who's objecting to baseball? I'm objecting into turning a nice field into a cemented, ugly collosus. There is no good reason why these graffiti canvases need to be built. They in no way improve the game. Their sole purpose is to get more money for SHU athletics dept while dragging down home values in the neighborhood. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10532
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 10:59 pm: |
|
And I'm going to be advertising on them with the following:
"This graffitti canvas sponsored by Sbenois Engineering, Maplewood's Largest Employer. By the way, this ugly structure would never be permitted in Maplewood, where our largest bodies of water aren't duck toilets"
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4089
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 3:27 am: |
|
I am very familar with that corner of Meadowlands and Dave has a point. I am usually not particularly sensitive to people who move in next to a ball field or a development property and I think Duncan and MHD will attest to that. However, in the last couple of years the ball field on the corner has gone from an unlighted, unfenced field used by the rec league and the Suburban League to a fenced, lighted facility with a PA system used by Seton Hall's womens softball team. I believe, from previous posts here, that the only reason they want to build the dugouts is that it is an NCCA Division 1 requirement.
I think Dave and the other residents in the area had a reasonable expectation that the corner would not end up the way it is turning out.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 838
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 9:41 am: |
|
Dave: It is clear that you have NOT seen the sketches of the dugouts. They might not be beautiful, but they are going to be finished with trim and there is going to be 4 - 5 tress planted behind each one to help cover them. There was a time when there were no backstops too. However we like to offer a playing experience for the kids that is similar to one in other towns (and most towns have put in dugouts). It is a baseball field used by hundreds of children in S. Orange each year. The dugouts will also have a storage area that is going to be utilized instead of needind another shed. And contrary to some comments, the dugouts were the desire of many of the little league coaches (two of them came to the last meeting and spoke in favor of them at the last meeting). When it turned out SHU needed them, we were able to get them to pay for the dugouts and SHU does contribute manpower for maintaining the field.
There was a public hearing on the lights several years ago before the lights were put up.
The BOT did not do a review of the exact location, however it is the Planning Board where the site plan approvals are given. That is where there was a public hearing and it gives the residents a system of checks and balances so that there are others involved in the decison making process besides just the BOT. Without offering an opinion on the shelter, I will state that notices were sent and it was not only advertised in the local paper, there were several articles over the years. There is nothing wrong with objecting, but I do question the timing.
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5958
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 9:59 am: |
|
Not one single notification received here. Not for the lights, not for the dugouts. When do the giant bleachers and advertising billboards go up?
There are no checks and balances in SO, just blank checks to Seton Hall. The BoT's negotiating skills need work. Planting a few small trees is nice, though I wonder how long it will take them to grow to the size of the 70 year old trees that will require removal. I know, I know, "the plan doesn't call for cutting down trees." |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 840
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 11:01 am: |
|
Dave: There were no notifications needed for the dugouts. They were discussed in public before a vote was taken. You chose not to come to the meeting although you knew about the proposal (as evidenced in an earlier thread).
The dugouts were orignially requested by residents (goes back several years), not SHU (oh you forgot that litte fact again). SHU is paying the full cost of the dugouts. I will let you explain what the blank check statement means.
And the plans do not show any trees being removed but obviously it will take many years for a tree to grow to the size of the ones on the sidelines. There should not be trees on a baseball field.
Since you did not come to the meeting, you did not look at the plans or sketches, one could assume you prefer to complain on your own website while acting as if this was some kind of official ojection.
From the emails and comments I received, there was a majority in favor of the dugouts. As far as I am concerned, it is a baseball field and I am glad we can help the children enjoy the playing experience.
Stadium seating, billboards, and hot dog vendors all come when we get the Yankees to move to S. Orange. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 27
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 11:14 am: |
|
Mark, where can one see a rendering of the proposed dugouts? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 841
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 11:28 am: |
|
There should be one at village hall in the village engineer's office. I will bring mine to the next trustee meeting and anyone can look.
Or if someone wants, they can contact me to make arrangements to meet with me to look at my copy if they do not want to wait. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5959
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 11:51 am: |
|
Sure, I would have come if I thought it would have mattered at all. And I would simply have been labeled "NIMBY" as if people should just shut up and not care about what happens in their community.
Well, thank god the coaches won't have to sit out in the rain. Not that baseball is played in the rain, of course. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 842
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Dave: I had suggested that you come and voice your opinion. Your attitude is surprising since you seem to be one that suggests trying to create change by discussion. This board helps in that regard. However sometimes you have to go one step further and in this case, you could have at least come to a meeting and voiced your opinion to the village, the BOT and to SHU. At this point you cannot say you did that.
Most of the time, the majority rules in the village (and if anyone wants to debate the quarry in that regards, please start a new thread).
I have been very open and try to do what I think is right. There has been times when my opinion has been swayed by someone speaking at a meeting (and I know the same is true for some of the other trustees). In this case, it was clear to me that there was a majority in favor of the dugouts. Those who have spoken against mostly did so because they felt that dugouts are ugly. Well, they might be. So are backstops, the portable bleachers, soccer nets, the fences around the tennis courts, etc. The issue is about recreation and dugouts are seen as an improvement by those who play baseball.
Baseball games start as long as it is not raining and the field is playable. Sometimes it rains during the games and usually play continues until it comes down too hard or there is lightning. So yes, the coaches and some players will not have to sit in the rain. If there is a delay in the game then all the players will have shelter.
The ball fields are for all the residents in the village not just by those who live in the area. If your complaint is not a NIMBY complaint, then what is it. I doubt you would have complained if we were building the dugouts on a baseball field at the waterlands.
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5965
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 1:51 pm: |
|
QED |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 102
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 8:43 pm: |
|
I hate that the thread for the shelter has become a thread for the anti-dugout league and I would like to bring it back but I can not resist asking a question.
If a public citizen wanted to make a donation of dugouts would there be this much arguement or is it because it benefits SHU? I played little league on rotten, rock filled fields with broken benches and no bleachers. The fields here are GREAT. Let's keep improving them. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:37 am: |
|
Thanks Mark. Just a suggestion - could you have the rendering scanned and placed on the southorange.org web site - maybe under redevelopment projects. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 30
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:41 am: |
|
Clarification: I am referring to both the Shelter and Dugout proposals.
Thanks again. |
aplastic
Citizen
Username: Aplastic
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 4:48 pm: |
|
I got a chance to see the site plans for the animal shelter. A quick look at the grading plan and the landscaping plan is all that's needed to know all the trees between the fence line and shelter were intended to come down. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 843
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 9:45 am: |
|
Howard L: I will check and let you know although I would think we could post a pciture of the proposed structures. I do think the shelter (architects' rendering ) was shown in the Gaslight and the News-Record. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 31
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Thanks Mark.
The other suggestion was to have these projects (Shelter and Dugouts) included on the redevelopment project list on the southorange.org site. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 846
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Here is a link from the JAC website with a rendering and floor plan of the animal shelter. http://www.jaconline.org/s1/our_shelter.html
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 624
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Based on all those huge trees behind the building, I would tend to guess this was not meant to reflect the actual landscaping plan. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 850
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 3:45 pm: |
|
There are still many trees around the site. As I stated earlier, showing the picture and the floor plan has nothing to do with what the objection is about.
The JAC plans to plant many new trees along the fence, so I tend to think the picture is accurate. |
aplastic
Citizen
Username: Aplastic
Post Number: 15
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 6:31 pm: |
|
The rendering is inaccurate on two accounts:
1. There are no large trees left behind the shelter.
2. The elevation behind the shelter will be substantially higher than the first floor elevation- the rendering shows the rear at the same grade as thge front of the building. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 112
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 7:55 pm: |
|
In my experience a rendering is not a detailed drawing, just something to show a concept. It is not what the builder uses during construction. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 847
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I'm beginning to think it not at all surprising that advocates for preserving Farrell Field against construction believed the park to be larger than was claimed on behalf of the animal shelter.
While cleaning out a cabinet I found a copy of "Illuminating South Orange," the Village reference manual handed out to new arrivals at welcome-to-town meetings. Not being sure it contained information I still needed, I thumbed through it. The manual fell open to one of the pages listing the town's parks. Out of curiosity, I turned the page to look for a description of Farrell Field.
The following information was before me:
Farrell Field
3.54 acres
Walton Ave.
2 tennis courts; playgrounds; half-court basketball; baseball diamond
A note at the bottom of the table of contents of "Illuminating South Orange" reads, "The information within is current as of September, 1999."
I realize this does not constitute a legal document. But how unreasonable is it for residents neighboring Farrell Field to have wondered why the town itself publicly represented the park to be three and a half acres, and then, apparently, changed its mind? |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 823
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Richard Bell,
I saw your letter in today's News Record. I didn't understand the reference to Senator Lautenberg. Did the Senator write a letter to the DEP supporting or opposing the construction of the shelter in its present location?
What is the latest status? Has DEP issued a ruling? If not, what is the expected date for that? |
Katie Clayton
Citizen
Username: Grovykndofluv
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 7:57 am: |
|
i have a question....who's animal shelter is it? the town? who can we contact with questions? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:04 am: |
|
You should contact the Jersey Animal Coalition. |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 836
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:14 am: |
|
JAC: http://www.jaconline.org/s1/index.html |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page