The letter with the heading above and the content below was published in the Bernardsville News on September 24, 2009.
Editor:
A letter in your paper on September 17 endorsed the Republican candidates for Bernards Township Committee and included comments related to the quarry. These prompt a response.
The writer commends township officials for repeatedly making it known that “they are committed to a prohibition on any further fill and complete testing of existing fill.”
Some relevant history follows. In February 2005 the Planning Board recommended that the steep quarry slopes be reshaped to satisfy the township ordinance. It advised against the importation of fill for this purpose.
In January 2006, with no warning or explanation, the Township Committee rejected the board’s advice and voted to open the door to uncontrolled importation of fill. Four of those who voted still serve on the committee, including John Malay who is running for reelection this year
In 2008 township officials moved to stop the importation of fill. They have managed this so badly that we are now in the 18th month of expensive and paralyzing litigation. There is nothing in this record to brag about.
The writer states that some are proposing “high-density housing” on the quarry property, and that this will bring more school children.
A detailed alternative to single-family houses is described on the website in the post entitled “Quarry Park and Lakeview Village”. The proposal is to substitute two townhouses for each single family house that is allowed under present zoning. An analysis on the same website explains why these townhouses will generate about the same total amount of property taxes, but will be home to only half the number of public school students.
The letter writer denigrates the proposal for a public park and suggests that the quarry pit will become “a sump absorbing all the run-off from surrounding yards, streets and parking lots.”
The most likely outcome for the pit is that it will fill from precipitation to the level of the water table. Because people will live near the resulting lake, and because some lake water will percolate to surrounding ground water, township government has a responsibility to work to assure that the lake water quality is good over the long term.
It must assure that any harmful substances, that are in the fill and near the future lake, are either removed or remediated. This in turn requires a comprehensive program for testing the fill now. The work is the responsibility of the quarry owner and operator.
Township officials must encourage a site design that will reduce the risks of pollution from human activities after the site is developed. The Quarry Park design will do this better than a conventional subdivision.
The lake must be monitored and managed over the long term to assure good water quality. It will be easier to do this if the lake and land immediately surrounding it are owned by a single entity. The Quarry Park plan provides for this.
The writer asserts that the park will be “a huge financial burden for the town taxpayers in perpetuity.”
The Quarry Park proposal addresses costs. There is no reason to conclude that those for taxpayers will be large. The townhouses will produce more school tax revenue than the costs for the public school students who will live in them.
Sonal Shah is the Democratic candidate for Bernards Township Committee. She has published no specific position on the quarry. However, one of her planks is: “Avoid costly, unnecessary litigation.” The quarry litigation is costly. And it could have been avoided.
Future problems of this kind can be avoided, if we elect township officials who will engage in respectful and rational discussion of important issues with each other and with the public. I believe Sonal will do this and I support her.
Vote for Sonal Shah on November 3!
Bill Allen, September 22, 2009