| Author | Message | ||
     aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2003 |
I'm sure that application to the planning board requires a site plan which depicts the proposed location of improvements (the animal shelter) and certain features in the surrounding area(fences, tennis courts, playground etc.) Was such a plan presented to the planning board? This plan would also be required when application is made for building permits. What is the land the animal shelter is to be located on zoned? Is a non municipal use permitted in this zone? | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 567 Registered: 5-2001 |
Richard, Good to see you here on MOL. I've been very impressed with your presentations before the BOT the past few weeks. It reminds me alot of what we dealt with 5 years ago, when we were told 198 units in the Quarry is a "done deal" and the Trustees all said "our hands are tied"...again a result of bad advice from Counsel. The same counsel who botched the Shop Rite project and now the Animal Shelter. Just know that the public is on your side. I wish you luck! | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thanks for the encouragement, mayhewdrive. Aplastic has a good point and perhaps someone from the BOT or the Planning Board would be kind enough to respond to his questions regarding whether they saw the plans and what the plans showed. The July 2001 Planning Board Resolution approving the animal shelter site plan refers to "drawings submitted as Exhibits SD-1 through SD-5 and the elevation drawing by THe Goldstein Partnership". The Farrell Field Park Association sent a letter to John Gross on November 12 and asked to see these drawings and to continue to meet with the Village and the JAC regarding replacing many of the lost trees, but, like Mr. Matthews, Mr. Gross has yet to respond, even just to say that he doesn't want to respond. We understand that it may be that the Village officials don't want to talk to us because there is a lawsuit pending, but I think they could at least send us a letter to that effect. I suppose we will have to submit an OPRA request at Village Hall in order to see the drawings, which is how we've gotten to see all of the other documents, but we hoped that Mr. Gross would have at least gotten back to us. We have been so busy that it is difficult to run down the Village Hall and fill out the Public Record Request Forms to see the drawings - if someone out there has the time, I encourage them to do so and let us know what they find. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 109 Registered: 4-2003 |
It continues to boggle my mind how Town Hall (BOT, Adminsitrator, Attorney, President) can EXCLUDE the residents of SO from participation in everything vital to the well being of this town. We had an opportunity to open up the process, to bring reason, rationality, and participation into the SO governing process in the May 2003 BOT election, when the "Open South Orange" slate ran, and, with 40% of the vote, lost to the machine. Yes, I may sound like a broken record, but Richard Bell's eloquence about the process for the Animal Shelter on Farrell Field, combined with the 16+ years of opportunity for study and deliberation and raising funds for a much needed service, adds to the anger about the Shop Rite site, the unnecessary GC PILOT, etc etc etc. and how there seems to be no end in site of the mismanagement, malfeasance, and incompetence of this Village's "leaders". Is it possible for us all to descend en mass on Town Hall at a BOT meeting, led by 4mysons, to DEMAND that WE the PEOPLE be ALLOWED IN TO THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING for SOUTH ORANGE??? 4mysons, please name the date for us all to meet at Town Hall (a la Maplewood). I ask the rest of us to reply here our intent to join in on the date specified. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 110 Registered: 4-2003 |
Just one other point: Why do we, the residents, of this town who pay the huge salaries of the Administrator ($175,000 plus free SUV, plus free cell phone, at last count) and the Attorney (his billable hours are only able to be obtained from OPRA Act requests, requiring the requestor to know what he has been asked to work on, etc. Just requesting the total paid to the Attorney for 2002, for example, produces nothing, even though we the public pay the bills. It's been difficult to figure out exactly how much he gets paid. Some have estimated that the figure is one million+ a year. Can't verify it, and can't refute it either, since we, the people, who pay the bills, aren't allowed to know the cost), have to request EVERY BIT OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT through the OPRA Act? This takes time, costs money, and often produces only a document with the "To, From, Subject and Date" filled in to show that the docuemnt(s) requested exist, but the text is confidential and therefore not provided. When we go to the BOT meeting en mass (see my post above) to demand to be let in to the decision-making process, we also need to demand an end to this BS about not being able to get any public documents just for the asking. If we can't see the documents, how can we possibly hold our elected and paid officials accountable? S.O. paid officials never undergo any performance reviews, and we the people are denied access to the paper work that highlights either 1) their genius and good works on our behalf, or 2) their malfeasance and incompetence. Paying one million+ for legal services might well be a bargain, if the work performed was seen as exceptional by the folks that pay the bills (similarly, the Administrator's salary amount is only an issue if the people who pay it feel taht the services provided for that amount are deficient.) ENOUGH WITH THE OPRA. OPEN UP TOWN HALL AND ITS CONTENTS TO THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH ORANGE. | ||
| deepthroat Citizen Username: Deepthroat Post Number: 12 Registered: 5-2003 |
I'll be there Washashore let me know! I'll keep digging, just for you! | ||
| 4mysons Citizen Username: 4mysons Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2003 |
There is a Planning Board meeting tonight at 7:30. It concerns the Village's Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The public should attend since it deals with land use and development.} | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 809 Registered: 4-2002 |
As Richard Bell points out the village with Maplewood is in litigation over the matter so I can't discuss anything other than what has already been stated in public. Just want to point out a couple of things, but I am not offering an opinion on the shelter or the location. There were meetings in the late 1990's discussing the location. 48 residents (those who lived close by the then proposed site) were invited by registered mail to attend the planning board hearings in 2001. There is documentation that shows the park area to be just over 2 acres. There were residents who helped pick the location. The OPRA form is available online to be printed and can be sent by certified mail (form should witnessed by a public notary) so a visit to village hall is not neccessary. | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2003 |
Mrosner is one of the trustees who seem to be keeping an open mind regarding the relocation of the animal shelter and is to be commended. However, regarding the notification of 48 residents in 2001, the key words mrsoner used are "were invited". By law all the Village needed to do was to mail the registered letters - not make sure that they were received. Indeed, it seems that several residents who live directly across the street from the park did not receive notification. If any of the "invited" 48 residents went to Village Hall today and requested the green signature card that supposedly bears their signature, I think the number of "notified" residents would dwindle considerably. In addition, the notification letter itself merely listed the address for the proposed animal shelter as, I believe, "298 Walton Avenue", which if you look at the street addresses in the neighborhood is an address north of the Public Works Garage (300 Walton Avenue), far away from the park. This is probably why Village officials may not have realized exactly what location they were approving. Mrosner's statement that there is "documentation" that shows the park as "just over 2 acres", seems to imply that the documentation is valid. On the contrary, our 80-page presentation that was given to Green Acres and copied to mrosner last week clearly discounts the miniscule documentation presented by the Village. The Village refers to a 1984 tax map that has a "dotted line" purportedly representing the park's eastern border, but which Green Acres itself in 1989 noted was not clear and Judge Levy also noted was not very convincing. The Village also points to the 1979 Master Plan, which shows a map of the area, gives no acreage for the park, but "looks like 2 acres". The 1979 Master Plan Background Analysis, however, which can be found in the South Orange Public Library in the same file as the 1979 Master Plan does list Farrell Field and it's listing is 3.5 acres, not 2.2. Finally, some of the Recreation and Open Space Inventories which the Village submitted to Green Acres contain a "2.2 acre" listing for Farrell Field Park. The Village also submitted ROSI's to Green Acres that lists Farrell Field as 3.5 acres. ROSIs are taken on good faith by Green Acres, until proven otherwise (which is what we are in the process of doing) and the 80 page presentation mrosner has in his possession should certainly prove all of the "documents" he refers to above are simply not valid. In fact, it is very surprising to the Farrell Field Park Association that the Village has so little documentation to back up its contention that the Park is only 2.2 acres. Their reasoning seems simply to be that it is 2.2 acres simply because they say so. Finally, regarding mrosner's comment that there were residents who helped pick the location. I assume he's referring to the members of the Jersey Animal Coalition who live in South Orange. Residents of the surrounding neighbor (at least those not affiliated with the JAC) certainly were not notified and asked to help pick the location. As 4mysons pointed out above, Maplewood's current plan to relocate its police station goes above and beyond the law to make sure that residents of surrounding neighborhoods are consulted and included in the process. It's a plain fact that this simply was not done with the animal shelter and that's why we are where we're at today. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 111 Registered: 4-2003 |
RICHARD BELL FOR BOT!!! | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2003 |
It's tough job and I have a great deal of respect for current and past members of the BOT. I would not even try to suggest that I have the same level of commitment and knowledge of South Orange public affairs as them and others in town. But thanks for the compliment, Washashore, spur of the moment as it was. | ||
| 4mysons Citizen Username: 4mysons Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2003 |
Washashore: Let's set a date for a rally for all to attend at Town Hall. Our focal points should be the lack of real development in our village, for example, the Shop Rite site,the Quarry,the dugouts, the Beifus site, lack of communication issues such as the Animal Shelter, and the fact that citizens are not informed of decisions by our BOT,nor are they asked for for any input unlike Maplewood who is working with their community in choosing a new site for the police headquarts. We also need to address the serious conflict of interest that exists in our local government. Also we need to discuss the fact that out Town Administrator and Town Attorney seem to have more authority than our elected officials. We should have a rally outside Town Hall. Again I say Lets set a Date. | ||
| Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 79 Registered: 9-2003 |
Come on 4sons, never gonna happen. You think all you kvetchers will actually show your faces instead of hiding behind you screen names. Ha! | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 585 Registered: 5-2001 |
What WAS the outcome of the Green Acres decision today? Weren't they going to decide whether the shelter was being built on Green Acres property today (Friday)? Guesswho...I guess it takes one to know one. Ha! | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2003 |
I'll gladly take part in a march and rally that expresses community outrage at the conduct of town officials - sounds like 4mysons and others want to do more than simply give lip service to the problems. Guesswho, whoever that is, should attend as well and express their alternative viewpoint. mayhewdrive - Green Acres was supposed to have decided the size of Farrell Field Park by Dec. 5th, but they sent all parties a letter this week saying they have to delay their decision for three weeks. It is clear that our 80-page presentation is being given serious consideration by Green Acres and we are confident that in three weeks, they will agree with all of the evidence that shows that the animal shelter is being built on encumbered parkland. The injunction hearing yesterday was merely to ask the court to stop construction until Green Acres makes its final determination in three weeks. We're not sure why the judge would not enjoin construction until Green Acres makes its determination, as it seems like it would have been a fair and logical thing to do, but it looks like mother nature has granted us our injunctive relief. The scariest thing that came out of yesterday's hearing, however, was that Ed Matthews, Village Counsel, stated on the record that even if Green Acres finds that the Village is building an animal shelter within the Park's boundaries, the Village plans to try to build the animal shelter there anyway. Yet another example of the Village's total lack of regard for open space and thumbing its nose at preserving its parkland. I am not surprised that people want to march and rally in opposition to such egregious behaviour and conduct by Village officials. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5831 Registered: 4-1998  |
How tall is the building supposed to be? | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 384 Registered: 8-2002 |
Richard -- can you describe the extent of encroachment which your filing states? thx Pete | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2003 |
Dave Ross - we have not yet been provided the elevation drawing that shows the exact height of the structure. However, it is our understanding that the top of the building will be on level with or higher than the children's playground which is approximately 30 feet from the shelter. peteglider - our Presentation to Green Acres shows that the animal shelter lies completely within the boundaries of the Park. This is easily seen by comparing the JAC Site Plan SD-1 with the Village Engineer's "Survey of Walton Avenue Playground for Park Purposes". The JAC site plan places the shelter just inside the eastern boundary of Farrell Field Park, which is a former street called "Fairhaven Drive" and is the street on which Veteran's Houses were located in the 1950s. The Board of Recreation Commissioners in 1953 advised by resolution "the extension of the present playground located thereon to include the property on which the ex-service men's homes are located ..." The Village Engineer in 1958 did a survey and several site drawings of the park, which was clearly shown to be 3.5 acres from his survey. That is what the Park has been listed as in all Village documents since then, except for a few Green Acres ROSI's, which we have disputed and which is the subject of their investigation. | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2003 |
Correction to my last posting - the Engineer's Survey is titled "Survey of Waterlands at Walton Avenue for Park Purposes". I got it confused with the plans for the Park done by the same Village Engineer which were titled "Walton Avenue Playground Improvement". | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10478 Registered: 10-2001  |
Dearest Richard Bell, Did you receive notification two years ago? Were you aware that a shelter was being planned? Did you ever register any complaints about the project up until recently? Do you take issue with the exact placement of the shelter in the park or is it your view that the shelter does not belong in the park at all? ---> 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 |
