| Author | Message | ||
     Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2003 |
Sbenois - no, I did not receive notification two years ago. They have no "green signature card" for me on file. I suggest others check as well to see if they have one for them. I was aware that for ten years they had been trying to replace the animal shelter that was formerly located next to the DPW Garage, but was not aware of the current location choice and it seems that members of the BOT were not aware either (see minutes of October 15 BOT meeting). I (and many others) take issue with hundreds of trees being cut from Farrell Field Park for an animal shelter when our parkland by law must be used for recreation and conservation purposes. The Farrell Field Park Association has publicly offered to help find a new location for the shelter. As we've stated many times before, we are not opposed to an animal shelter and will help the Jersey Animal Coalition raise the money they need to place it where they originally planned - next to the DPW Garage, or at another location. "sbenois enginnering llc" - not sure what you meant by the posting from "Arturo November '03" - it appears to be part of a thread from some other discussion. | ||
| Mary Gotz-Rother Citizen Username: Mary_rother Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2003 |
To all who are reading that Mr. Bell did not receive notice I will set the record straight. Mr. Bell was told by a town employee that a notice for the planning board meeting was mailed to him. Proof of his mailing is on record. If he did not sign for it, it means that he refused delivery or did not pick if up at the post office. He did admit to a town employee "I never pick up registered mail" It is not the obligation of the person sending the certified mail to force a person to sign or pick up a letter. The other objector who also said he did not get noticed told everyone at a town meeting that he was traveling and a neighbor picked up that mail. Once again, that is not the fault or obligaton of the person sending the certified notice. I advise people reading this message board to please be careful about what is truth and what is fiction. | ||
| Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 81 Registered: 9-2003 |
Mary, Do you REALLY think the people who have posted to this thread care about the truth? Avoiding news you do';t want to received by not accepting certified mail is the oldest trick in the book. "I never received any notice" Sure, does one really think that the lawyers for the JAC would neglect to send notification? | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2003 |
That John Gross, the "town employee" Ms. Gotz-Rother refer's to in her post, would twist my words into a false quote is just another example of the questionable conduct of town officials and why people want to march on Village Hall in protest. For all I know, "Guesswho" IS John Gross. The postings by "Guesswho" to this thread make less sense every time they appear and only cause a distraction from the debate. Perhaps that is the purpose. Regarding "what is truth and what is fiction", I suggest that Ms. Gotz-Rother ask Steve Rother, the Jersey Animal Coalition attorney, the truth about why he agreed at the Weds. Oct. 15th BOT meeting (see the minutes) to stop cutting down trees until Fri. Oct. 17th, but the very next morning more trees were taken down. Trustee Steve Steglitz and myself had to go to the site and stop the contractor until Mr. Rother showed up to tell them to stop cutting down more trees. She should also ask him why he agreed on October 31st at a meeting with at least five other people (including Andy Brady and Sal Renda) not to cut down any more trees until they were marked and the Farrell Field Field Park Association was notified so all involved could deterimine whether they could be saved. Days later 30 more trees were taken down without notification to the FFPA and Mr. Rother again claimed a "miscommunication" with the contractor. Such bad faith on the part of the JAC is, unfortunately just two examples of the Village's error-filled process that has led to the debate in this thread. I doubt of course that Ms. Gotz-Rother, or "guesswho" will try to continue to debate on the issues, but will instead simply continue heave accusations, which has been their technique so far in an effort to distract from one simple truth: that the JAC is building an animal shelter on protected parkland. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 590 Registered: 5-2001 |
Just for those who didn't follow along...Mary Gotz-Rother is the wife of Steve Rother, attorney for the JAC. | ||
| Mary Gotz-Rother Citizen Username: Mary_rother Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2003 |
At least Mayhewdrive (most of us know who you are but I will not out you if you want to hide behind an alias), I post under my real name. I am proud to be the wife of the JAC attorney who has done all the pro bono work for the JAC for 10 years. I am not hiding that fact. Stay tuned for more tonight when I have time to fill the public in on the facts. Let them decide who is telling the truth. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 595 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mary - I meant nothing derogatory against you or Steve. I'm sorry if it came across that way. | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2003 |
It was interesting watching the JAC's premature celebration at tonight's BOT meeting. Green Acres will decide in three weeks whether the JAC is building on protected parkland, but Ed Matthews claims he has apparently gleaned from conversations with Green Acres staff members what their decision will be. I'll wager that a call to Green Acres staff tomorrow will elicit a different answer from them. Of course, I think it was John Gross who said at the BOT meeting two weeks ago (in response to Trustee Joyce's concern about listing Farrell Field as only 2.2 acres in the current Open Space Master Plan prior to the Green Acres decision) that he had spoken to Green Acres and he was sure that they would have a decision by the Dec. 1st Planning Board public hearing. Well, it appears that prediction was wrong, too, since Green Acres sent all parties letters on December 3rd and December 4th stating that they could not make a determination for three weeks because of the "volume, complexity and time of submission" of the materials presented to them. We'll see what they decide, and the Farrell Field Park Association is confident they'll confirm the findings of our 80-page presentation that shows the park was created as 3.5 acres in the 1950's, developed as 3.5 acres in the 1960's, listed as 3.5 acres in Master Plans in the 1970's and submitted on Green Acres ROSI's as 3.5 acres in the 1980's. In addition, aerial photos viewed at Green Acres offices on Nov. 26th confirm the condoned usage of all 3.5 acres of the park right up until October 10, 2003 when all the trees were clear cut from the Park. | ||
| Soda Citizen Username: Soda Post Number: 1119 Registered: 5-2001  |
My daughter recently adopted a stray eight-week old kitten, found by an acquaintance of hers, all alone on a New York City street. The kitten is doing fine now, and is becoming a much-loved, totally spoiled family pet. Previously, our family had adopted both a kitten and a puppy through "PAWS", that excellent Montclair animal protection group. I wondered aloud to our vet at the time (1990 or so) why there was no animal shelter in our two villages. He sadly confided to me that he felt it was a pipe dream, that expecting South Orange and Maplewood to come together on such a project was unrealistic. That pipe dream is now becoming reality, thanks to the steadfast and gallant efforts of the Jersey Animal Coalition. Stray and abandoned animals in our community will finally get the centralized care and protection they deserve, and hundreds of families will benefit from the love and joy that pet adoption will bring into their homes. To those few who have tried to obstruct this good work: your public outcry, whatever its original motivation, is now close to being silenced, and I can only hope you'll become good neighbors to the shelter when it is finally completed and open. To those opportunists who have jumped on the shelter issue in hopes of attacking members of the BOT for political mileage: shame on you. I hope none of your pets ever strays or becomes lost, but should that ever happen, perhaps you'll be glad that the J.A.C. shelter exists, waiting to reunite you with your missing family member... --Soda | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 596 Registered: 5-2001 |
Richard, What is a "ROSI"? You have used that term in several of your posts. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10479 Registered: 10-2001  |
Dearest Richard Bell, What's interesting is the way you continue to misrepresent the facts. At tonight's meeting, the most striking, and frankly damning comment, was related to the fact that the BOT had previously recommended that the Shelter project should go before the Planning Board -although not required-, specifically to give the neighbors an opportunity to be heard. At that Planning Board meeting, neither you or your now objecting neighbors raised an issue. So the FACT is: you had your opportunity to raise objections to this project at a time that would have given the town, the JAC and the then non-existent Farrell Field Association a perfect opportunity to let all concerns be heard and addressed. But you were sleeping. You don't get rewarded for being asleep Mr. Bell. Frankly, you should be taken to task for it. 48 letters went out. The Town went out of its way to do everything above board and for whatever reason, there was no interest. This project has been moving along for years. The JAC has done everything right according to the law. They've done it in a neighborly manner and they've done it with the best interests of two broad communities at heart. As an orgainzation they are universally praised for their integrity and fine work. Even tonight, Ms. Theroux expressed her gratitude towards the organization for openly listening to, and addressing, neighbor's concerns related to the size of the buffer zone, although the JAC didn't have to. Further, as Mr. Taylor pointed out, that buffer zone was consumed by "weed trees" that were growing wildly. Presumably, these are the same trees ("hundreds") that you long for despite the fact that the JAC has promised a more scenic and finely landscaped area. Even though they didn't have to. Your lawsuit was thrown out last Friday by the judge. It was deemed to have no merit. It has no merit. It's time to move on. The community needs this shelter. It's going to be a warm and caring addition to the area. As a final thought, please get yourself a subscription to the News-Record and pay your cable bill. That way you'll have a much better sense of what goes on in your community. ---> 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 | ||
| stefano Citizen Username: Stefano Post Number: 392 Registered: 2-2002  |
Dearest S- This just came to mind: shouldn't we create a non-existent organization at some point? thankey dr stefano | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10480 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dearest Doctor Stefano, Get a load of this Richard Bell guy. First, goes after the JAC, then he acts like he doesn't know who Arturo is! Does this guy know that Sbenois Engineering is Maplewood's largest employer? Does he know that the entire workforce will mobilize against him to ensure that this shelter will be built? Does he know that we'll send in a squadron of termites to chew up the rest of the trees unless Rover and Butch get what they want? Doctor, how have you been? ---> 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 | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2003 |
Mayhewdrive - a "ROSI" is part the Village's application to Green Acres - a "Recreation and Open Space Inventory", which lists the acreage for all parks in town and protects them. Green Acres takes the listings on good faith, unless proven otherwise Curiously, the only place Village has listed the Park as 2.2 acres in all of its records over the past 50 years is on an invalid ROSI. Green Acres has found enough evidence to investigate whether this listing is incorrect. All of the other Village documents - Master Plans, other ROSIs, Engineering Drawings, as well as a League of Women Voters history book - list the Park as at least 3.5 acres. Even the Village's website lists the Park as 3.5 acres. The Village claims these listings are all "mistakes". Soda and sbenois - we've said it many times before, but we'll gladly repeat it for those of you who were "asleep". The Farrell Field Park Association is not opposed to an animal shelter. We are only opposed to the location of the shelter - a location which shocked and surprised a majority of townspeople, including members of the BOT. We've offered to help find a new location quickly for the shelter and members of the BOT have already considered alternative locations and will certainly make it their top priority. We realize that you are frustrated after so many years, but if it's being built in protected parkland, then it's against the law. We also realize that the JAC has very strong political ties not only with the BOT but with Essex County and State government officials, so we are fighting an uphill battle here. Our attempts to bring everyone to the table to work out a resolution have so far been ignored by the Village, but we hope that with a Green Acres decision in a few weeks, we can all sit down and work this out together. Regarding the lawsuit - Judge Levy simply said that the true size of the Park was Green Acres' decision, and not his, to make - so let's wait and see what they decide. stefano and sbenois - personal attacks and cliqueish comments may be entertaining to some, but they only serve to distract from an honest discussion of the issues. | ||
| Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 83 Registered: 9-2003 |
We are only opposed to the location of the shelter In other words, it would be fine somewhere else, just NIMBY. This whole town is infected with NIMBYitis. Progress is fine, just not anywhere near ME. It is really getting old. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5865 Registered: 4-1998  |
The area seems dug down quite far below the level of the playground. Most of it will be hidden, especially if trees are planted along the perimeter of the park. This is just based on casual observation and no idea about what the building plans show, of course. | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2003 |
guesswho - what's getting old is having to wade through the muck of personal attacks by posters like you to get to the issues ... dave ross - you are quite right about the area begin dug out far below the level of the playground - in effect, they have now created a park with two levels. The lower level could be used for any number of recreational activities including a small soccer/football field or a larger playground area. Some people have even suggested a "bark park" since the Village bans dogs from its parks and dog owners need a place to walk their dogs. These constructive ideas from citizens help the process rather than hinder it. guesswho might want to learn from people who contribute more than accusations. | ||
| Mary Gotz-Rother Citizen Username: Mary_rother Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2003 |
Mr. Bell you are the last person who wants an HONEST discussion. JAC and Mr. Rother have tried to work with you and your other member, but the only solution for YOU is to move the shelter. That is not a solution. Construction has begun, there is a design for that site, soil work has been done. Do you want to cut down more trees next to some other neighbor's property? For some reason you have a personal vendetta against several people in town and are using JAC as a club. If you saw last night's BOT meeting, you realized that our members, friends, volunteers and families that have adopted animals will not let you do this. You are hurting your neighbors and costing the town attorney fees because of your personal grudge or your desire to run for office. At the first BOT meeting Mr. Rother appeared to answer some of your questions he said he did not want to pit neighbor against neighbor and would work with you and your so called Farrell Field Park Association. We tried. We even said that if the organization is unhappy with the color we selected to paint the shelter we can agree on a color that is acceptable to the neighbors. We would even paint it the [del] color of your house if that is what they wanted. (If the other members of the association are reading this, if the shelter ends up a [del] color, it is because your spokesperson so choose it!!!!! ) The night of the Town meeting that Mr. Rother agreed to stop cutting the trees, upon leaving the meeting he immediately called the contractor relaying the message to do so. There were four witnesses to that phone call. One of them was Mayhewdrive's friend. As soon as my husband got the call that the trees were being cut, he slipped sweats over his PJ's and ran down to tell them to stop. (It was a rather comical site.) The remainder of the trees were marked and it was up to the so called association to go down and look at the marked trees. We did not send a registered letter to that effect because we knew it would be ignored. JAC has been working with Maplewood and South Orange for over 10 years on this project. I think everyone knows who JAC is. What is the Farrell Field Park Association? Is it a group that was created to stop the shelter building. No one has heard of the group until now. Where were you two years ago when we had the planning board hearings? JAC had their supporters out to ask questions about the site and the building. Mr. Bell and "Farrell Field Park Association" say they support JAC and the shelter. Folks this is a true case of something called NIMBY{(not in my back yard) or in their case front yard. Mr. Bell states the shelter is in the center of the park. It is on the right side of the road to the dump,past the park and tennis courts. The site has been used as a dumping ground for people who can not make the dump or have things that are not accepted by the town, i.e. engine blocks, propane tanks. The site for years has been used by the high school students to have bonfires and drinking parties. I do not think that this is an approved recreation use by the town, noneless the parents. If the site was used for the sledding, as Bell mentioned and there were so many trees on it, wasn't that dangerous for the children and would that not put such a liability for the town for that unauthorized use? Trees and sleds do not mix. Mr. Bell and the "Farrell Field Park Association" claim the park as their own. I would like to know when the town turned over ownership to them? Maybe we should be upset about that secret deal. The same people who protest about all the money that goes out for attorney fees, are the ones causing the problems. Do you think the Town attorney works"pro bono" on these cases. You may try to bankrupt JAC with attorney fees, but guess what, its ain't going to happen. You will only cause South Orange taxes to go up to cover their costs. Now about the court case. The judge threw the case out of cout and said if Green Acres comes up with a decision on the objector's side, they can start a new action. As it stands their present case is DEAD. They do have the right to appeal. JAC in not an organization with big coporate sponsors. If there is any one out there that would like to be one, please let us know. JAC is made up children and adults who for the past 10 years been sending in their pennies and dollars to built this shelter. These are the individuals you are hurting along with the dogs that are not picked up when they escape from their yards because there is no place to bring them. We are not the official town's animal control, but I bet our group has rescued more lost pets. The bottom line is the process has always been open, it is just that some nay-sayers jumped in after 10 years and are sadly attempting to divide a community that has worked hard on this project. I think you would be a perfect candidate for public office with your community building skills. Thank goodness Hitler did not have access to the internet, imagine how many more people he could have recuited with his lies!!!! | ||
| aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2003 |
Hilter? You have gone too far. The reference is offensive | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 598 Registered: 5-2001 |
"One of them was Mayhewdrive's friend". Mary - I don't know why you are dragging me into this. For the record, I am fairly indifferent to the whole issue. I initially questioned here on MOL what the issue even was. I do sympathize with Mr. Bell for the rude way he was treated by many of the Trustees. Considering the way the BOT has botched so many other projects in town (Beifus, SOPAC, Supermarket, Quarry), it's easy to assume they botched this one, too. However, I have listened to both sides & honestly don't have a firm opinion on the subject. So, please keep me out of it. |
