|
|
|
Revitalizing
Milltown . . . |
|
The conceptual plan is a balance of residential
apartments, townhouses and condominiums, commercial and
retail space with "green areas," walkways and open
space, to enhance the charming, small-town feel found
throughout the Borough.
The residential units will be age restricted, offering
senior citizens attractive home options in the heart of
Milltown and putting no burden on the Borough's schools.
An upscale restaurant, a neighborhood pub and other
quality retail will help fill out the design.
The site, once a thriving
employment hub, is underutilized and in need of
environmental cleanup before any building can start. The
Developer's Agreement reached with Boraie clearly
addresses the need for complete cleanup, in full
compliance with federal and state environmental law.
Boraie also agreed to
complete a traffic study, delineate wetlands and study
the impact on Milltown's infrastructure, including the
electric, sewer and water systems to ensure that all
Borough services are not adversely affected by the
project.
The site plan includes a
stand-alone senior citizens apartment complex. It will
be Milltown's first affordable senior citizen housing
complex. It is very unlikely that the Borough could ever
build such a complex on its own without the Ford Avenue
redevelopment project.
This will represent a rare
opportunity for Milltown's seniors to remain in Milltown
and enjoy a continued quality of life.
|
|
"The Milltown-Ford
Avenue Redevelopment Agency is dedicated to the area in a manner that
is beneficial to all Milltown residents. Because Milltown residents,
the Borough Council, the Planning Board, the Middlesex County
Improvement Authority, the Middlesex County Board of Chosen
Freeholders, local, county and state environmental agencies and other
concerned agencies are working together, I am confident that the Ford
Avenue site will become an asset to the people of Milltown for
generations to come." |
|
- Gloria M. Bradford
Milltown Mayor
|
|
MilltownFordAvenue.com |
|
"The Ford Avenue Redevelopment Project will eliminate a potentially
dangerous eyesore and beautify the center of Milltown. It will provide
homes for our senior citizens, improve public safety and help to keep
residential property taxes down for Milltown residents. I fully
support this project and commend the creative efforts of the Agency." |
|
- David B. Crabiel
Middlesex County Freeholder
Director
|
|
SB Building
Associates, et al. v. Borough of Milltown, et al.
January
30,
2009 |
|
I am pleased to enclose
Memorandum & Order of Federal Judge Anne E. Thompson
of the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey relative to the above-referenced matter. As
you recall, SB Building Associates, LP filed a lawsuit
in Federal District Court against the Borough of
Milltown and the Milltown Ford Avenue Redevelopment
Agency. As you also may recall, the essence of the
plaintiffs' complaint contends that the redevelopment
process undertaken by the Borough and the Agency
deprives plaintiffs of the exclusive right to enjoy and
use their property without just compensation, allegedly
in violation of their rights under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and also
violated their substantive due process rights. The
plaintiffs filed the current federal lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, plaintiffs contend that
the Agency's and Borough's actions were unlawful under
state law, namely, the New Jersey Local Redevelopment
and Housing Law.
On October 23, 2008, the Borough, along with the Agency,
filed a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings,
essentially arguing before the court that the
plaintiffs' case should be dismissed, arguing that the
plaintiffs' case was not ripe, as it failed to exhaust
all the state remedies available to it.
After careful consideration of the briefs supplied by
both parties, the court agreed with the Borough and
Agency and granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the pleadings and remanded the matter to the
State Superior Court for adjudication on plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims.
The federal court decision is very significant in that
the court now has determined that all the federal law
questions are dismissed as to the plaintiffs' complaint
and that the court declined to exercise jurisdiction
over any of plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.
Certainly, the plaintiffs could appeal Judge Thompson's
decision. Such appeal would have to be taken to the
United States Court of Appeals, but it is unlikely that
any appeal would be decided before the state court
ultimately rules on the plaintiffs' pending litigation.
Himelman,
Wertheim & Geller, LLC
David B. Himelman, Esq.
|
Resignation of Chairman Anthony J.
Zarillo
November 11, 2008 |
|
After careful consideration and
with deep regret I formally announce my resignation from the
Milltown Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency to take effect at
the conclusion of tonight’s meeting. I will at the earliest
possible moment submit a letter to the Mayor and Council
confirming my resignation. I am making this announcement at
this time to allow for the agency’s smooth transition come
January 2009 at which time the agency will reorganize and
have the opportunity to designate a new Chair.
I consider myself a very private person and will not discuss
further the reasons for my resignation. Suffice it to say
that my decision was based on my need to attend to family
and business matters.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Mayor and the
Borough Council for their trust by appointing me to the
agency. I want to especially acknowledge Mayor Gloria
Bradford for her hard work on the agency in addition to her
duties as Mayor of the Borough. Over these past seven years
I have come to respect Mayor Bradford for her commitment of
public service to the Borough and this agency. Her
unyielding commitment to find a responsible solution to the
redevelopment of Ford Avenue has always had my full support.
Even in the face of a highly spirited and controversial bid
for reelection as Mayor she steadfastly stood the course
supporting the agency’s plan of redevelopment.
In November 2007 she was overwhelmingly reelected as Mayor.
Her reelection was the direct result of the recognition of
the Borough’s residents of her many years of leadership as
Mayor. This vote however, not only validated her leadership
as Mayor it also reflected the resident’s support of the
agency’s redevelopment plan which was a key issue in the
campaign. Mayor we may come from different political parties
but on this issue we have been in full agreement. I publicly
want to thank you for your support over these past 7 years.
In addition, I want to
acknowledge and thank my good friend Freeholder Director
David B. Crabiel. I greatly appreciate his advice and input
that resulted in the revision of the agency’s original plan
that provided for a reduction in the number of units on the
site and also provided a 100 foot buffer from the water’s
edge to the beginning of the redevelopment of the site.
Furthermore, I want to recognize the assistance of the
Middlesex County Freeholder Board and the Middlesex County
Improvement Authority for providing their help and seed
money during the infancy of the agency.
My decision to resign did not come easy and for me it was
wrenching and time consuming. Through out my public and
private career when given an assignment I have always stayed
the course until the job or assignment was completed
regardless of how complex or difficult the task. As
difficult as it was to resign, my personal obligations trump
my love for and commitment to public service. As difficult
as it may be I must place my personal and business
responsibilities above all others.
I want to take this opportunity to reflect back on the past
seven years the agency has spent in bringing forth a
responsible plan of redevelopment for the site. Working very
closely with the Mayor, members of the agency, our
professional team, the developer and others we came forth
with a vision for the redevelopment of Ford Avenue site. It
was not only a viable solution to a very complex problem but
was supported by the vast majority of residents.
Unfortunately the fruits of that effort are now mired down
in protracted litigation. It is quite apparent that the
current litigation, filed by the owner of the property
alleging that the Borough has failed to meet its
constitutional obligation to provide adequate affordable
housing, will ultimately be determined by the courts. In
that event the current redevelopment plan for the site will
have to be amended to comply with the court ruling. Many of
the provisions in the plan and more importantly the goals of
the plan that I and others believed in and supported and
thought so critical to the plan may now have to be
abandoned. I am deeply troubled by that potential
eventuality.
I have stated publicly on a number of occasions my concern
for a court mandated decision regarding the redevelopment of
Ford Avenue and the potential impact such a plan could have
on the Borough. With a court mandated plan one of my
concerns is that the heart and soul of the plan that I and
others fought so hard for may never see the light of day. In
my opinion that would be most unfortunate. I will discuss
this further later on in my statement.
All through this long and sometimes arduous process the
dedication and commitment of the agency’s members and our
professionals to a responsible plan of redevelopment was
commendable. The current Redeveloper’s Agreement was driven
by a number of goals, principles and objectives that were
set very early on in the process. We stated from the
beginning that the plan had to be first of all in the best
interest of the Borough and its residents and had to address
the myriad of environmental issues confronting the site. The
original plan consisting of 324 mixed use residential units
and commercial and retail space and the revised 276 mixed
use plan clearly met those objectives. It was the dedication
and commitment of the agency that motivated me to
aggressively move the project forward even in the face of
numerous frivolous personal attacks, vilification of the
agency and its members and the constant barrage of distorted
facts and misinformation all of which over time have been
documented.
It is worth noting that the ability of the agency to bring
forward its plan of redevelopment was derailed not by the
token opposition the agency faced over the past seven years
but rather by an owner’s bottom line and a lack of concern
for the potential negative impact his plan would have on the
Borough and its residents. The owner has used the court
system of the Borough’s alleged failure to meet its
constitutional obligation of providing for affordable
housing in an effort to compel the Borough to approve his
plan to build approximately 500 residential units on the
site. It is clear that the owner has a total disregard for
the potential disastrous impact his plan would have on the
Borough and its residents.
What role, responsibility or authority did this agency play
in deciding the Borough’s affordable housing obligation? The
answer is clear and unequivocal the agency has no role. The
Council on Affordable Housing was created by the legislature
to promulgate rules, regulations and standards under which
they charge the local governing body with implementation of
the law. The enabling legislation does not grant any
jurisdiction, authority or responsibility over the issue of
affordable housing to a redevelopment agency. It is
interesting to note that the agency is not a party defendant
to that part of the complaint filed by the owner contending
that the Borough has failed to meet its affordable housing
obligation. The public needs to once again understand the
facts vs. fiction when charges are levied that the
litigation and this whole affordable housing issue was the
agency’s fault.
I stated my primary reason for my resignation. However, I
would be less than candid and honest if I did not indicate
that the current litigation has caused me to seriously
rethink the future role of the agency through a court
mandated redevelopment plan. I have come to the conclusion
that the goals and objectives originally set by the agency
in the early stages of developing the plan of redevelopment
of Ford Avenue and detailed in the current Redeveloper’s
Agreement could not be met. Should the Master’s Report be
adopted by the court it is the court that will ultimately
decide how the Borough will meet its affordable housing
obligation. As a result it is the court that will set the
parameters of the plan for the redevelopment of Ford Avenue.
Based on the
Master’s Report to the court, the Borough will be faced with
an affordable housing obligation that will have to be met
primarily at the Ford Avenue site. The report recommends a
plan of 350 mixed use residential units that is in excess of
the 276 units in the current Redeveloper’s Agreement.
Moreover, as I read the Report it does not provide for a
stand alone Senior Housing project that I and the agency
committed to and thought to be essential to any plan of
redevelopment of the site. The report also recommends that
all residential units be market based. Furthermore, it is
unclear what happens to the one million dollar contribution
toward the consolidation of the fire houses in the Borough
that is set forth in the current Redeveloper’s Agreement. It
is also unclear how the 350 proposed units will affect the
100 foot buffer. The additional units could have an adverse
affect on the amount of impervious cover at the site. The
additional units will require a larger footprint on the site
and therefore affect the amount of impervious cover on the
site. I was always committed to a “user friendly” site that
had as much “green space” as possible providing for
walkways, vegetation, landscaping and the like. The
additional 74 units in my opinion can only have a negative
impact on that aspect of the plan that I found to be
essential.
In both the agency’s 324 mixed use redevelopment plan
modified by the 276 mixed use redevelopment plan all
residential units would have been age restricted. This would
have insured that the additional 276 units in and of itself
would not directly generate any additional school aged
children. If the 350 market based units in the Master’s
recommendation are affirmed by the court this will generate
additional school children. The potential influx of school
aged children from the full 350 unit project being market
based could be devastating to our K through 8 school system.
Furthermore, the reality that full time kindergarten will be
required by the state would only further compound the space
problem for the district. I would strongly recommend that
the Borough Council in conjunction with our Board of
Education take aggressive action to inform the Judge of the
potential adverse impact the additional 350 market based
units would have on the Borough. Such an order by the court
could have a devastating affect on both the Borough’s
property taxpayer and the quality of education in the
Borough. I strongly suggest that this matter be revisited by
both Borough Council and Board of Education at the earliest
possible moment with the objective of seeking relief form
the court should the court adopt the Master’s Report. Our
elected officials need also to fight to restore the stand
alone senior citizens complex and insure that the one
million dollar contribution toward the consolidation of the
fire facilities is not lost.
One very positive result that has come out of efforts of the
agency has been our commitment to aggressively address the
environmental issues and challenges surrounding the site.
The decision to create the agency and it’s subsequent
efforts to aggressively address the environmental issues are
part of the agency’s long record in this matter. Those
efforts are clear and incontrovertible. Prior to the
creation of the agency in 2001 there was no public out cry
or concern regarding the impact of the environmental
contamination at Ford Avenue. There is nothing in the public
record that I could find where any of those concerns were
expressed and/or conveyed to the governing body of the
Borough prior to the creation of the agency in 2001. It was
the agency’s efforts to get the site designated as a
Brownfield site and our joining with the DEP and the Federal
EPA in the TRIAD group that has led to one of the most
complete site investigations in the state of any Brownfield
site. Moreover, all of the cost to date of the extensive
environmental work at the site be it the site investigation
and /or the plans for remediation have been done at no
direct cost to the Milltown taxpayer. The DEP and the State
Department of Community Affairs have on a number of
occasions cited the Milltown model as a true environmental
success story. For the first time ever the owner of the
property, at his expense has been directed by the Federal
EPA to clean up the powerhouse area. This was the direct
result of the agency’s proactive intervention with the
Federal EPA. Furthermore, the NJDEP has recently approved
the agency’s work plan and grant funding for the
investigation of the Mill Pond at no cost to the Borough. It
is safe to say that none, and let me emphasize none of the
environmental work at the site would have occurred without
the creation and action of the agency.
We are finally on the brink of
resolving the serious environmental issues at the site after
years of benign neglect. I am also confident that
ultimately remediation of the site will occur in full
compliance with all state and federal requirements once the
litigation is resolved. The agency and the Mayor/Council
should be proud of the agency’s environmental record that is
now part of the legacy of the redevelopment of Ford Avenue.
Finally, I want to wish the
Mayor, the Council and the members of the agency good health
and success in all your future efforts to resolve the issues
surrounding the redevelopment of Ford Avenue.
I ask that these comments be
made part of the minutes of this meeting and I thank all for
your kind attention and the opportunity to serve.
__________________________________________________________________
In tonight’s
resignation statement I have attempted to set forth my
concerns over a potentially court mandated redevelopment
plan for the Ford Avenue site should the Master’s Report be
adopted by the court. I want to take this opportunity to
outline what I believe to be reasonable alternatives to the
Master’s Report. These suggestions are intended to mitigate
the potentially harmful affects of certain aspects of the
Master’s Report and at the same time offer a responsible
alternative to the Master’s Report on the issue of
affordable housing.
I want to emphasize that my suggested alternatives to the
Master’s Report in no way challenges the courts
responsibility to decide the Borough’s affordable housing
obligation. My alternatives are not intended to frustrate
the court in its deliberation and determination of this very
important charge by the owner of the property. Rather it is
intended to suggest to the Borough a vehicle where the
Borough can advise the court of it’s concerns over the
potential adverse impact certain elements of the Master’s
Report may have on the Borough and its residents. I
recognize the seriousness of this issue and that the court’s
decision must be based on the testimony and evidence in this
matter. Should the Borough Council ultimately agree with
this alternative plan the court can than evaluate this
alternative plan against the other evidence and testimony in
the case.
The current action by the state legislature and the recent
court pronouncements on the issue of affordable housing in
the state leads me to conclude that a redevelopment plan for
the Ford Avenue site will have to contain an affordable
housing component. In fact the agency recognized that need
when it included an affordable housing element in its
redevelopment plan as contained in the current Redevelopment
Agreement. The Master’s Report also supports my opinion
regarding an affordable housing component at Ford Avenue by
recommending a 20% set aside of the 350 units or 70
affordable housing units.
With that as a backdrop I have been asking myself the
questions what real options or responsible alternatives are
there to the Borough that could help mitigate the adverse
impact of certain aspects of the Master’s Report before the
court?? Is there a way for the Borough to provide some
guidance and direction to the court to support its concern??
The facts are abundantly clear. The potential for the court
to find for the owner and impose a Builder’s Remedy is a
huge risk and is totally unacceptable. I have stated this
publicly for some time that the potential of over 500 mixed
use residential units on the site with over 100 affordable
housing units would have a devastating impact on the
borough. The Master’s Report recommends 350 units and
contains in my opinion elements that I have attempted to set
forth in my earlier statement that concern me. More
importantly the Master’s Report eliminates or puts at risk
many of the elements contained in the approved Redevelopment
Agreement that were essential to the Borough’s redevelopment
plan.
Make no mistake the Borough currently finds itself in a very
difficult if not precarious predicament regarding the
resolution of the affordable housing issue and its impact on
the redevelopment of Ford Avenue. There are no silver
bullets and all the rhetoric to solve the problems at Ford
Avenue regardless of how well intentioned will not carry the
day. We must accept as a given that Ford Avenue will contain
an element of affordable housing by the court ordering
either the Builder’s Remedy or the Master’s Report. In my
opinion that is unavoidable and inevitable. There are only
hard and difficult choices available and they have to be
made in a responsible and bipartisan manner.
With that in mind I would like to offer or suggest an
alternative redevelopment plan. The Borough’s current
redevelopment plan based on the Borough’s Ordinance adopted
by the Borough Council established 324 units. The 324 units
are consistent with the Borough’s own expert who includes a
20% set aside for affordable housing or 64 units. This in my
opinion establishes the foundation for my suggested plan.
The balance of 260 mixed use residential units would be
constructed and sold at their full market value. Of the 64
affordable housing units, 16 units would be designated for
seniors only and the remaining 48 units would be designated
as affordable housing. It is my recommendation that the
Borough provide no rental units on the Ford Avenue site. All
units should be owner occupied.
Another concern I
had with the Master’s Report was that all 350 units are
recommended to be market based. I have a serious concern
with this approach. My concern is the impact such a
recommendation would have on our school system and the
already overburdened taxpayer. I realize that compromise may
be necessary to reach a responsible solution to a difficult
problem. Therefore, in an effort to reach such a compromise
among the parties I would suggest that there be a reasonable
allocation of the remaining 260 units between age restricted
for the townhouses and age targeted for the condominiums.
This should minimize the school aged children generated
directly from the project. In addition, I would recommend
that retail space be included in the plan to provide for a
maybe a restaurant and retail shops. I was told some time
back that there was an interest to locate a health care
facility at the Ford Avenue site. This should also be
investigated. There should also be a continuation of the 100
foot buffer and the county’s commitment to purchase along
the Ponds edge approximately 4 acres and preserve it as open
space. Finally, any amendment to the Borough’s current
Redevelopment Agreement must contain continuation of the
contribution of 1 million dollars toward the cost of
consolidating the Borough’s fires stations.
I am therefore recommending that the agency tonight
authorize our legal counsel to send a letter to the Mayor
and Council outlining this proposal and suggesting the
following procedure. Soon after the new Council is sworn in
January the Mayor and the President of the Council reconvene
the former citizens group to discuss and deliberate on an
alternative plan as I have outlined tonight. Once a plan is
agreed to and approve by the Council the Borough’s special
counsel should than be authorized to provide notice to the
court of the Borough’s action.
The proposed action I have outlined tonight is not chiseled
in granite and I take no pride in authorship. I am not
attorney and I would defer to the advice of the Borough’s
Special Counsel. My objective tonight is to open up a
dialogue among the various stakeholders in the Borough that
would result in the Borough Council offering to the court an
acceptable alternative plan to the Master’s Report. The
court will than be fully appraised of the concerns of the
Mayor and Council regarding the potential adverse affect the
Master’s Report could have on the Borough prior to the Judge
rendering his decision.
Milltown Ford Avenue
Redevelopment Agency
Anthony J. Zarillo - Past Chairman
|
Status of Environmental Investigations - Updated
December 12, 2007 |
|
Provided herein is a status report on the
Environmental Investigations being conducted at the
Milltown-Ford Ave., Redevelopment Project.
A: MINIMALLY IMPACTED AREA (MIA)
All
fieldwork (Stage-3) required to investigate the MIA
towards developing a RAW has been completed by the
project team. A Stage-3 Report was submitted to NJDEP
in June 2007. Upon approval of the Stage 3 Report, and
resolution on the existing litigation, a Remedial Action
Workplan (RAW) will be prepared. Upon NJDEP approval of
the RAW, site development in the MIA can commence.
B: INVESTIGATIONS IN THE IMPACTED AREA
(IA) & MILL POND
NJDEP
approved the Workplan for the Impacted Area on November
19, 2007. The investigation in this area will continue,
once funds are released from NJDEP.
At the request of the Redevelopment Agency, NJDEP has
allocated Funds for developing a Workplan for
investigating Mill Pond. Prior to commencing this work,
it is important to identify the contaminant interaction
between the IA and the Pond. Accordingly, this work
will commence upon completion of the IA investigation.
C: FUNDING:
a) Site
Investigation (SI)/ Remedial Investigation (RI)
To date, funds have been provided by numerous entities
including USEPA (through the MCIA), NJIT, NJDEP and the
developer for investigative work (i.e. SI/RI) on the
site totaling approximately $3 Million Dollars.
Additional funds will be released to the Agency as the
project progresses and workplans are approved.
b)
Allocation for pending Remediation (RA) of the MIA
A
total of $3,973,519.00 was allocated in 2006 for
Remedial Action of the MIA, which has been estimated at
$11,571,694.00. The NJDEP has approved an additional $5
Million under the Agency’s 2007 allocation for this
work. This was approved by the EDA on 12/11/07. In
addition, the Agency is eligible for an additional $5
Million for 2008 for the RA work in the MIA. Receipt of
this funding would fulfill the Agency’s share (75%) of
the RA costs for the MIA.
CONCLUSIONS:
All the
Environmental Investigations in the MIA have been
completed, This comprehensive investigation was
conducted using the sophisticated TRIAD approach to
ensure that all contamination within the site has been
thoroughly investigated. This was conducted with
complete stakeholder participation including Mr. Richard
Chapin, P.E, representing the Edison Wetlands
Association. Based on the results of the
investigation, it is the consensus of all stakeholders
that capping the site is the most viable alternative for
site remediation. This will ensure that the
redeveloped site will have no adverse impact on both the
human and ecological environment including Mill Pond.
The next step in the process is the preparation of a
RAW, which upon NJDEP approval site development can
commence.
In addition,
further investigations in the Impacted Area and Mill
Pond will continue towards developing a similar RAW for
that area. Implementation of the RAW for the Impacted
Area will be the final phase of Remediation for the
Redevelopment Project.
To date,
approximately $3 Million has been received on behalf of
the Agency for environmental investigations. The
investigation work continues to be funded by NJDEP under
their Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation (HDSRF)
program. The pending Remedial Action Work has been
funded to date in the amount of $3,973,519, with an
additional $5 Million recommended by the DEP and
approved by the EDA at their meeting of December 11,
2007. The minutes of the meeting require the Governor’s
approval which we are advised should occur by the end of
the week. The Agency is also eligible for an additional
$5 Million in 2008. Should this request be approved this
should be sufficient to meet the Agency’s share (75%) of
the Remedial Action Costs for the Minimally Impacted
Area. This will bring the total HDSRF funding available
to the Borough to address and resolve the environmental
issues at the site to almost $14 million at no direct
cost to the Milltown property taxpayer.
Najarian Associates
Vajira K. Gunawardana, P.E., P.P., CFM, F.ASCE
|
Ford Avenue: Facts vs Fears
October 18, 2007 |
The letter to the Home
News Tribune that was published on October 17 that your
posted to your web site was edited by Mr. Hartman to, as
he explains, meet the space constraints of the paper. If
you want to do your readers justice I suggest you post
the whole "Op Ed" piece to your web site which is
attached. The HNT article was acceptable since 50% of
something is better than 100% of nothing.
The constant deluge
of misinformation regarding the Ford Avenue
Redevelopment project requires an Agency response. This
misinformation attempts to play on the fears of the
public and create hysteria by misrepresenting the facts
surrounding the project. The overall object is an
attempt to kill the project at all costs. The project’s
objectives, from the very beginning, were to fully and
thoroughly remediate the environmental contamination at
the site, demolish and remove the unsafe and unsightly
blemish on Milltown’s image and to provide property tax
relief to the already overburdened Milltown property
taxpayer. None of those objectives are compromised by
the proposed redevelopment plan.
CLAIM # 1 - The current litigation currently in New
Jersey’s Superior Court, filed by the owner of the
property, Mr. Berger is a charade.
RESPONSE - The suit is real, it is active and could be
very costly to the Borough. Judge James Hurley has
appointed a Special Master to oversee the issues in this
matter and has set a deadline of November 9, 2007 for
the Borough to respond to the allegations by the owner
that the Borough has failed to meet its constitutional
obligation of providing for affordable housing. Should
the Borough fail to respond the Court and the Special
Master would be left with only the Berger plan. The
likelihood that the Special Master would recommend to
the Court the imposition of what is referred to as the
Builder’s Remedy and the Court affirm that
recommendation regarding the imposition of the Berger
Plan is real not a charade. This would effectively take
the decision making out of the hands of the Borough. The
potential imposition of 562 non-age restricted units of
which 450 would be owner occupied and 112 affordable
units should not be taken lightly by Borough officials.
It would be a very dangerous and a cataclysmic risk on
the part of Borough officials to “roll the dice” and
assume the litigation is a charade.
CLAIM # 2 - The voice of the majority of Milltowners is
ignored.
RESPONSE - The original proposals from all the
developer’s responding to the Agency’s RFP proposed a
mix use of residential, commercial and retail. There
were no proposals for all open space or a mix of open
space and retail and commercial. The proposals contained
housing units that started at about 440 residential
units and no developer proposed age restricted housing.
The current proposed plan calls for 276 units a
reduction of 174 units or a downsizing of the
residential units at the site by 39%. In addition 114
townhouses of the 276 will be age restricted and 66
units will be constructed to meet the Borough’s
affordable housing state mandated requirement. The site
will also have a 100 ft. buffer from the Mill Pond’s
edge in direct response to the request of the Milltown
group. The proposed plan is a balanced and responsible
alternative to a very serious court challenge.
CLAIM # 3 - The Agency is not serious about the
environmental issues at the site. Their only objective
is the redevelopment of the site.
RESPONSE - The Agency reached out to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to work
together in addressing the serious environmental
challenges at the site. The Agency together with those
agencies entered into a first of its kind agreement
called (TRIAD) where all the interested parties in the
environmental community would work together very closely
in a cooperative manner, with the Agency’s environmental
experts. This objective was to insure a complete and
thorough site investigation and ultimate clean up of the
contamination in accordance with all federal and state
requirements. Again the Agency in order to insure the
widest possible input on this important issue,
authorized the participation in all the TRIAD activity
of Mr. Richard Chapin, the environmental expert of the
Milltown’s group.
CLAIM # 4 - The
infrastructure costs including the upgrade to the
electric, water or sewer facilities that can be
attributed to the project will be borne by the Milltown
property taxpayer.
RESPONSE - The cost of any infrastructure improvements
that are attributable to any project are normally
subject to the Borough’s “Fair Share” policy which has
been consistently applied in all development projects.
The “Fair Share” concept is where the developer and the
Borough share in the cost of the infrastructure
improvements. It is important to note that the Borough’s
share of the infrastructure improvements are recovered
by the Borough through the rates charged for the
electric, water and sewer service. Those rates would be
applicable to the residents of the Ford Avenue
development.
CLAIM # 5 - A flier distributed by the Milltown group at
Pride in Milltown Day attempts to project the yearly
increase in property taxes to the Borough resident at
$2,870,000 a year from the increase of 275 grade school
aged children from the project and $3,282,500 a year
from the increase in high school aged children from the
project.
RESPONSE - The flier unfortunately does not contain any
back up analysis nor is it sourced as to how and who
developed the data. There is no supporting documentation
for any of the claims set forth in the flier. Even if
one could argue that the flier has credibility there is
no proof to date to substantiate those assumptions. The
assumptions in the flier involve very complex and
difficult analysis usually involving specialized
education and experience. Normally a high level of
expertise or experience is necessary to develop this
analysis. There no evidence submitted to support any of
the forgoing. For example some of the fliers short
comings relate to the assumption that the rescue squad
will have to out source its services in order to serve
the Ford Avenue project. This is pure speculation not
based on any experience with the squad’s scope of
operation or financial condition. At the recent Council
meeting a senior member of the squad stated that while
the squad may have to outsource some of its services in
the future that decision would be totally unrelated to
the additional residents coming from the Ford Avenue
project. Another area that is pure speculation is the
assumption of the increased sanitation costs. The
residents of Ford Avenue will become members of an
association. It is anticipated that included in the
association fees, similar to many associations, the cost
of garbage collection and snow removal is handled by
private collectors. Therefore there would be no impact
on the Borough’s municipal services. The most serious
bogus assumption is that the project will produce 275
school children. That assumption has as much validity as
an assumption that the project will produce Zero or no
school aged children. Both assumptions are preposterous.
The Borough’s experts who have outstanding credentials
in this area relying on studies from the Rutgers
University Urban Policy Research Group and the
Development Impact Assessment Handbook entitled The
Urban Land Initiative stated that approximately 37
students will result from the proposed redevelopment
plan. The best that can be said is that the Milltown
group’s analysis cannot be supported by any reliable or
credible data and must be accepted for what it is a
mathematical exercise without any reliable
substantiation. Furthermore a leader of the Milltown
group stated at the Council meeting of October 9, 2007
that the Mill on Washington Avenue sends 14 school aged
children to the Milltown school system. A check with
Milltown’s School Superintendent, Dr. Linda Madison, who
checked the records of the district indicates that only
Two (2) children from the Mill are currently attending
Pre K through 12 grade in the Milltown School system.
The Mill is approximately 45 condos of 1, 2 and 3
bedrooms.
COMMENT - The most egregious statement used in support
of the Milltown’s group’s opposition to the proposed
redevelopment plan is an attempt to compare the
terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, where over 3,000
innocent lives were lost with the actions taken to
address the Ford Avenue redevelopment plan. In a letter
to the editor, from a senior member of the group, that
appeared in the Home News Tribune dated October 9, 2007
it stated and I quote, “Let September 11, 2001, always
be remembered not solely (Emphasis added) for the
tragedies that occurred on that day but also for the
travesty of justice that happened in Middlesex County
where a wonderful little town in Middlesex County was
compromised by inept professionals and politicians both
elected and selected to protect the public.”
That statement is so far over the top that I refuse to
make any comment. It is best left up to the residents of
Milltown to be the judge regarding the forgoing
statement.
Milltown Ford Avenue
Redevelopment Agency
Anthony J. Zarillo - Chairman
|
Statement of
Chairman Anthony J. Zarillo
April 18,
2007 |
|
Read
at the April 17th Meeting
Over the past few months I have been reluctant to
discuss in any detail the implications of the current
litigation brought by the property owner’s of Ford
Avenue, involving the Borough as it relates to the
affordable housing issue and the agency’s redevelopment
plan for the Ford Avenue site that is incorporated in
the Developer’s Agreement approved by the agency.
However, in talking to many residents over the past few
months it has become quite clear to me that there is
confusion and misunderstanding over the subject of the
litigation and more importantly what its impact would be
on the Borough should the owner’s of Ford Avenue prevail
in their suit.
After careful thought and consideration I have concluded
that it is important for the residents to be fully
informed about the potential impact on the Borough
should the litigation be successful. More importantly
the residents need to understand how success of the
litigation could impact them and what is at stake for
them and the Borough should the owner’s suit prevail. As
Chairman of the agency, I believe it is the agency’s
obligation to open a dialogue with the residents to
discuss the facts surrounding the litigation. What I
intend to discuss in my statement is already in the
public domain. It is the Borough and its residents that
will be most affected by the redevelopment of Ford
Avenue. In the matter of the pending litigation there is
the potential for a court ordered plan.
I have stated in the past and I continue to believe that
the vast majority of residents support the agency’s plan
for redevelopment which is dramatically different than
the plan before the court. Should the court uphold the
owner’s suit I believe that the will of the majority of
the Borough’s residents would be frustrated. Discussing
with the borough residents the facts in the litigation
and its potential impact, should the owner succeed in
the litigation, on the Borough and its residents is a
responsibility we must not shirk. Clearly the resident’s
best interests are at stake in the current litigation.
In order for the residents to make an informed judgment
over the issues involving redevelopment of Ford Avenue
they need to know the relevant facts in litigation. As I
have stated I believe as an agency we have that
responsibility.
This agency in developing our redevelopment plan has
been both responsive and responsible to the residents.
Our decision to redevelop Ford Avenue has been guided by
what we believe the public wants. We have listened to
the majority of residents for over the last five + years
and where possible we have modified the plan
accordingly. The owner’s suit, if nothing else does
brings the redevelopment issue of Ford Avenue clearly to
the fore. I will discuss what I mean by that statement
and why it is so important for the residents of Milltown
to fully understand what is at stake and at risk in the
current litigation.
The suit before the Superior Court of New Jersey was
brought by SB Builders Associates, L.P., SB Milltown
Industrial Realty Holdings, LLC., and Alsol Corp., the
owners of the property in Milltown which is the area
that is the subject of the redevelopment plan included
in the agency’s Developer’s Agreement. Defendant’s in
the suit are the Borough of Milltown, the Planning Board
of the Borough, the Milltown Ford Avenue Redevelopment
Agency, the County of Middlesex and Boraie Development,
LLC. The suit against the Borough is pretty specific in
what is referred to as exclusionary zoning, Mount Laurel
II. The suit alleges, among other things, that the
Borough has failed to create sufficient realistic
opportunities for the construction of safe, decent
housing affordable to low and moderate income households
to satisfy its fair share of the unmet regional need for
such housing. The suit further alleges that as a result
the Borough is in violation of the New Jersey
Constitution and the Fair Housing Act of 1985 as
construed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a case
brought before the Supreme Court in 1983. How the
Borough finds itself in this quandary at this time and
who may be responsible is really not important nor will
it result in resolution of the issue. I have stated
before playing the “blame game” serves no useful
purpose. The Borough now faces a very serious challenge
that requires a responsible response to the allegations
in the litigation. It is my hope that we see a
bipartisan solution to this serious challenge not
political posturing or demagoguery. In my opinion,
should the governing body fail in its response to the
pending litigation the potential outcome or result could
be devastating to the Borough.
Essentially the owner’s suit seeks to have the court
declare that Milltown is in fact in violation of its
constitutional obligations and asks the court to require
the Borough to rezone the property so as to remove the
restrictions placed on the property limiting residential
development to age-restricted housing and to increase
the permissible density on said property. The owner also
asks the court to appoint a special master to in effect
oversee the implementation of his plan and award a
site-specific builder’s remedy and effectively halt all
redevelopment activity pending further action by the
court. The parties all agreed to a 90 day suspension of
all activity, except for the SI environmental work
currently underway at the site.
What does all of this portend for the redevelopment of
Ford Avenue?
The agency’s plan at this time remains unchanged. Namely
the complete clean up and remediation of all
environmental degradation at the site in full compliance
with state and federal requirements, the 100 foot buffer
between the Mill Pond and the development, $1,000,000
contribution to the Borough for the consolidation of the
fire stations, facilities for our senior citizens and
sizable a contribution toward property tax relief,
estimated to be somewhere in the magnitude of 1.4
million annually to the borough. The Plan would result
in the construction of 276 age restricted residential
units and approximately 28,000 square feet of commercial
and retail space. This would equate to approximately 15
residential units per acre at the 22.4 acre site.
On the other hand the owner’s suit, commonly referred to
as a “builder’s remedy” would place 550 residential
units on the site, or approximately 25 residential units
per acre on the 22.4 acre site. This would result in an
additional 274 market based residential units being
built on the site over and above the 276 age restricted
units proposed in the Developer’s Agreement. This
represents an almost 100% increase in the total number
of units currently planned for the site. In addition,
none of the 550 residential units would be age
restricted and all would be market based units. There
has been no commercial and retail space identified in
the court papers. We assume that the 100 foot buffer
around the Mill Pond would have to be eliminated to
accommodate the 550 residential units on the 22.4 acres.
There is no discussion of the $1,000,000 contribution to
the Borough in the moving papers. As a point of interest
the suit asks the court to set aside this part of the
developer’s agreement.
In my opinion the options now facing the Borough,
relative to the affordable housing issue, for the
redevelopment of Ford Avenue have been clearly
crystallized as a result of this litigation. The final
plan for the redevelopment of Ford Avenue could be
decided by the Court. Or in the alternative The Borough
could fashion a response to the “builder’s remedy”
before the court in the form of an alternative or
modification to the current Agency’s Plan. This could be
in response to the claim that the Borough has failed to
provide for affordable housing and respond to the
constitutional violation argued in the litigation before
the court. It is critical for every resident to fully
understand what is at stake should the owner succeed in
the litigation.
The agency is not a named defendant relative to the
affordable housing issue before the court. More
importantly, the agency does not have any jurisdiction
nor does it have any authority over the ultimate
disposition of the
alleged affordable housing claim in the complaint.
However, the agency was created by the Mayor and Council
to carry out the redevelopment of Ford Avenue. We both
have the best interests of the residents as our
objective in carrying out this mandate. Therefore we
must work together in seeking a responsible resolution
of this matter. While the agency may not have any
authority over the final disposition of the affordable
housing issue before the court I want the Mayor and
Council to know that we strand ready and willing to work
with the governing body to help resolve this matter. I
will state again the agency wants a plan of
redevelopment for Ford Avenue that is in the best
interests of the residents and the Borough of Milltown.
I believe that the owner’s suit if affirmed by the court
is an unacceptable solution to the redevelopment of Ford
Avenue for a host of reasons. A responsible and
economically viable solution to the future redevelopment
of Ford Avenue has been the agency’s only objective. In
my opinion the risk of having the “builder’s remedy”, as
sought by the current owner’s of Ford Avenue and the
subject of the litigation, decided by the court could
have a deleterious effect on the Borough. I want to
thank the agency and to the residents for their
attention.
Milltown Ford Avenue
Redevelopment Agency
Anthony J. Zarillo - Chairman
|
Statement of
Chairman Anthony J. Zarillo
February
15,
2007 |
|
In
Defense of Recent Statements in the Press
I have been advised by our attorney neither to make any
public statements regarding the current litigation nor
to entertain any public discussion while the litigation
is pending. Obviously I have no intention of
jeopardizing the Borough of Milltown’s successful
defense of the litigation brought by the owner of the
Ford Avenue site. However, I feel compelled, as Chairman
of the agency to respond for the record to recent
statements in the press from a leader and co-founder of
the group called “Milltowners for a $sensible Ford
Avenue Redevelopment”.
The comments of this individual supporting a plan that
has a 45% increase in density, no age restriction on the
units, no senior citizens project and loss of the
$1,000,000 contribution toward the consolidation of the
Borough’s fire stations highlights his agenda. This is
quite apparent by the inconsistent nature of his recent
statements. Let me explain. The following is Mr. Jegou’s
quote from the Newark Star Ledger dated Friday, January
26, 2007: “Milltown can’t build anymore. I don’t believe
in condemnation and I’d like to see Berger win this
suit.” Ironically he has had an “original plan” in the
Borough lobby for over two years. It calls for either
open space, commercial and no residential units. Let me
quote Mr. Jegou again “I’d like to see Berger win this
suit.” For the record, Mr. Berger’s suit as outlined in
the court papers, calls for 550 residential units, none
of which are age restricted and contains no open space
or commercial. Mr. Berger’s proposal does not
contemplate any commercial space. Mr. Jegou’s “original
plan” is all open space and commercial. Seems to me the
two plans are in serious conflict. In addition, Mr.
Jegou stated that he is opposed to condemnation. If
title to the property for Mr. Jegou’s “ original plan”
can’t successfully be negotiated with the current
property owner I don’t know how in God’s name he expects
to get title to the property to develop his plan if he
doesn’t believe in condemnation? If he is opposed to the
concept of condemnation, because it represents giving
title to the property to developer Boraie, he would have
to be opposed to condemnation giving title to the
property to any developer including his, assuming a
developer exists for his “ original plan”. This just
doesn’t seem to make any sense at all.
His plan has not proven to be the “silver bullet” he
professes it to be. I know of no serious offers or for
that matter any offers to develop the site according to
their “original plan”. If they had any “real” offers
they would have been trumpeting them a long time ago.
So it is clear to all Milltown residents the Berger
proposal before the court does not include any
commercial or retail space, would have 550 residential
units, or approximately 25 units per acre and all the
residential units would be market based. There are no
and I emphasize no age restricted units, 55 years or
older in his plan that is before the court. If you do
the math the Berger plan of 25 units per acre represents
an approximately 45% increase in the density at the site
over the agency’s plan of 15 units per acre.
Furthermore, all and I state again all of the 550
residential units would be market based. Assuming that
only half of those units, and I am told by experts that
this is a conservative figure, have only one child, we
are talking about a potential influx of school age
children of approximately 225 children to be added to
the Milltown School system.
The leadership of the Milltown group now supports a plan
that increases the density at the site by 45% over the
agency’s plan, totally removes the age restricted
requirement and makes the 550 units market based. This
acknowledged support of the Berger proposal is in direct
conflict with their “original plan”. Is the leadership
now talking on behalf of all its alleged members? They
have been attacking and vilifying the members of the
agency and opposing the agency’s plan because the
agency’s plan proposes what they call high density
residential housing. However, they now embrace and
support an alternative plan that includes an even higher
density of residential housing than the agency’s plan.
It does not include any commercial or retail space the
cornerstone of the Jegou plan. Mr. Jegou’s statement is
a clear an unequivocal endorsement of the Berger plan
that is 180 degrees opposed to their “original plan”. He
went on to say… “If we only had commercial space there
to bring in the ratable too the borough.” I want to
state again for the record that there is no commercial
or retail space in the Berger filing with the court that
Mr. Jegou now endorses.
Having now been exposed Mr. Jegou tries to explain away
or justify his recent position to the press by saying in
a Sentinel press article dated February 8, 2007, almost
two weeks after his quote of support for the Berger
proposal in the Star Ledger article, the following. “If
Mr. Berger wins, now we have a chance to say ‘No this is
no good’. Mr. Jegou is not a lawyer nor does he have any
legal training to allow him to speculate or draw any
legal conclusions regarding the potential outcome of a
very complex case involving a serious constitutional
issue before the court. More importantly I for one would
not want to rely on his “legal” opinion as to the
potential outcome of the case and the options available
to the Borough.
The misstatements, inconsistencies and distortions
expressed recently by Mr. Jegou about the redevelopment
of Ford Avenue are troubling. When you examine many of
his statements it becomes exceeding clear that his
position has vacillated all over the lot and are clearly
contradictory. He appears to lack an understanding and
grasp of the complex process, issues and the legal
implications facing the Borough and the agency.
I pledge as Chairman to continue to be honest and
forthright with the residents of Milltown in discussing
the myriad of complex issues facing the redevelopment of
Ford Avenue. I am still hopeful that resolution of the
court proceeding will ultimately be in line with the
agency’s objectives and ultimately in the best interest
of the Borough of Milltown and its residents. As
Chairman I offer the services of the agency to assist
the Mayor and Council in helping find a reasonable and
responsible solution that will allow the Ford Avenue
redevelopment project to go forward as planned. I am
willing to discuss and bring before the agency
consideration of any and all responsible alternative
solutions that ultimately are in the best interests of
the Borough and its residents. At the end of the day it
is the best interests of the Borough and its residents
that we have been entrusted to serve.
I have stated on a number of occasions that this is a
very serious matter. The wrong decision could have dire
consequences on the Borough. Let us not get caught up in
either the “blame game” or politics in trying to solve
this critical problem. I firmly believe that all options
should be explored and left on the table. Mr. Jegou
there is an old saying, “Be careful over what you wish
for you may be surprised and get it.”
Milltown Ford Avenue
Redevelopment Agency
Anthony J. Zarillo - Chairman
|
Statement of Chairman Anthony
J. Zarillo Sr.
January 16,
2007 |
|
Delivered at the Milltown
Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency’s Reorganization
Meeting
I want to again thank the Mayor for nominating me to
another term on the agency, the Council’s confirmation
of my appointment and my colleagues for electing me
Chairman. My pledge to the governing body of Milltown
and to its residents is to do everything humanly
possible to complete the job the agency has undertaken
that is the redevelopment of Ford Avenue. The goals of
the agency in redeveloping Ford Avenue have not changed.
Ford Avenue will be redeveloped in an environmentally
sound manner in full accordance with state and federal
standards. The agency’s plan maintains the traditional
values and culture of the Borough. The plan is
economically viable in other words it will be marketable
and provide for a stand alone senior citizens facility,
maintain the $1,000,000 commitment toward the
consolidation of the Borough’s fire facilities and
finally ensure that the project, when fully built out
provides the maximum amount of property tax relief for
the Borough’s already overburdened property taxpayer.
From my perspective as Chairman these goals are
non-negotiable.
I still believed with full conviction that the Plan
approved by the agency is the right plan and direction
for the Borough and want to see it through to
completion. Yet, as I have expressed in the past, I am
suffering from the same sense of frustration over the
lack of progress of the project. I did envision the
project being further down the path of redevelopment.
However, for reasons beyond my control or that of the
agency we are where we are. However, I’d be less than
candid if I didn’t state that the over all progress of
the project to date continues to frustrate me. I began
questioning or wondering whether new leadership could
move the project to the next phase. As Chairman I have
been a very strong and outspoken advocate of the
agency’s plan. It therefore placed me in the crosshairs
of those opposed to the plan. That aspect has never
really bothered me. As they say it comes with the
territory. However, was the ancient Egyptian custom of
“If you don’t like the message kill the messenger”
unknowingly influencing the agency’s plan??
What motivated me to accept reappointment to the agency
was the need to move the redevelopment of the site which
has been the vehicle for facilitating the clean up and
environmental remediation of Ford Avenue. It is without
any doubt a critical issue facing Milltown. It was one
reason that motivated me to go before the Mayor and
Council some five years ago to suggest that they
consider the formation of the agency to address the Ford
Avenue challenge. Unfortunately, the attacks on the
merits of the agency’s plan where being clouded by
allegations that as Chairman I was acting in an arrogant
manner that precluded the public from a fair chance to
be heard on the issues. These allegations were and are
troublesome. I know in my heart of hearts that they are
without foundation.
While I have always been known as a worthy adversary I
likewise have a reputation of respecting contrary views
albeit at times very aggressively but yet very
respectfully. The allegation that is especially
troublesome is where a citizen has alleged that I said
to him quote “shut up and sit down.” This has been
stated on the floor of this chamber and in the press on
numerous occasions without substantiation. I can
honestly state publicly and have done so before that I
have no recollection of ever making such a statement.
But maybe it was said and I honestly don’t remember. So
to clear the air once and for all I have asked my
accusers to do what is only reasonable. Since they made
the accusation provide proof that I said what they claim
I said. I ask them again to present either a quote from
the newspaper account they are relying on or the video
tape of the meeting where I made such a statement. I
made this request literally some time back in an effort
back than to put this issue to bed once and for all. To
date my request has gone unanswered. Just in case the
request has been overlooked or forgotten I will
reiterate my request again tonight. If presented with
either documentation I will publicly apologize to my
accusers and the residents of Milltown for such a
disrespectful comment.
I want to put this charge of alleged “arrogance” behind
us and fine tune the more important aspects of the
agency’s plan. This current request is made with the
same objective of the past. My commitment is to do what
is right by the citizens of Milltown. There has been
enough personal vilification and acrimony of the agency
and its members. I have made a
decision and commitment to myself and the residents that
acceptance of reappointment to the agency would not
contribute, invite or be the cause for the public’s
concern in attending the agency’s meeting. The agency’s
deliberations and actions are too important to allow
this type of attempted distraction to occur.
My over all decision to accept reappointment was driven
by a very strong conviction that the public policy
initiative and the agency’s plan has the support of a
majority of the citizens of the Borough. I have seen no
tangible or reliable evidence over the past five years,
bearing in mind the countless meetings and outreach of
the agency to prove otherwise. The agency acknowledges
and I have stated that there are challenges presented by
the agency’s redevelopment of the site. We were accused
of being indifferent toward the cleanup of the site.
Opponents argued that we would compromise the
environmental cleanup to the benefit of the developer.
Those critics have been proven wrong. For the record
Ford Avenue has had the most extensive site
investigation and remediation of a Brownfield site its
size in DEP history. My fellow residents that just
didn’t happen it was planned and occurred because of the
agency’s actions working in cooperation with the State
DEP and the EPA. The agency’s concern in assuring that
all voices are heard on the environmental issues and
insure input into the remediation of the site, resulted
in the agency’s authorization of Mr. Chapin, the
opposition group’s environmental engineer to be part of
the TRIAD group. This resulted in his active
participation in all of the work of TRIAD involving the
extended site investigation and remediation
deliberations of the site.
Let me for a moment due a little revisionist history.
Some of our residents who were not around may not be
aware of and other residents who were around may have
forgotten about Milltown’s challenges of the past.
Milltown faced the same pubic policy challenges in it’s
recent past regarding the proper management of its
future growth and expansion that it now faces with the
redevelopment of Ford Avenue. I recall the same doom and
gloom being expressed when the Borough addressed the
much needed expansion of Joyce Kilmer School in the mid
70’s, the privatization of the library, the Borough’s
redevelopment plan of the Mill, the Washington Avenue
residential development, together with the Lindstrom
tract on Clay and Brook Drive. Remember the limited but
vocal opposition to the construction of the Borough Hall
and the Home Depot. These projects all presented
challenges no different than those presented by Ford
Avenue. All those perceived challenges were resolved in
the best interest of Milltown and its residents. At the
end of the day the life style, culture and tradition of
the Borough of Milltown was not changed one iota. Why
because Milltown has always been blessed with elected
and appointed officials who had the courage, commitment
and foresight to guide Milltown through these
challenges. In so doing they did not compromise the life
style or culture of the Borough or its residents. In
making those tough decisions our officials always saw
the glass half full not half empty. I’m convinced that
today Milltown enjoys that same caliber of public
official.
Let us remember that the Ford Avenue agency was created
and appointments made on a bipartisan basis. It was
taken out of the usual political arena of
procrastination that ultimately results in inaccurate,
confusing and self serving messages being conveyed to
the public. Both political parties in Milltown have put
the best interest of solving the problems at Ford Avenue
above partisan politics. I would argue further that the
diversity, growth and improved municipal services
resulting from the above projects have enhanced the
culture lifestyle and traditions of the Borough of
Milltown. The same will occur when the agency’s plan for
Ford Avenue becomes a reality. Make no mistake no major
change, especially the magnitude of the changes
necessary at Ford Avenue will come easily or without
challenges. If you look at the redevelopment plan of
Ford Avenue honestly and objectively and weigh the
benefits to the Borough and its resident/taxpayers the
pluses far outweigh any perceived minuses. What I do
believe is that at the end of the day when the project
is completed and finally implemented the environmental
nightmare and eyesore at Ford Avenue will be finally
solved. All of the challenges presented by redevelopment
of the site will be more than adequately remedied and
long forgotten just like the projects of the past.
So tonight I again publicly commit to the residents of
Milltown a continuation of the candid, open, honest and
factual dialogue of the redevelopment of Ford Avenue.
You have been and are more than welcome to come before
this agency at any time to express your views regarding
the agency’s plan of redevelopment. If there has been
any misunderstanding regarding this matter I take full
responsibility. You should not be concerned over your
participation and expressing your view points. Put aside
any fear or perception that appearance before the agency
will be met with intimidation by me or any member of the
agency. This has never been the case nor is it my style
or objective. The purpose and intention of this
statement is not to concede that it exists but to remove
any obstacles that may inhibit the public’s
participation at our meetings perceived or otherwise.
This is not and I repeat not to be considered as a new
policy or a change in course of the agency but a
reaffirmation of existing policy to publicly allay any
concerns that may exist in the minds of the public.
Let me express a note of caution however. In all the
years that I have served in either an elected or
appointed position, whether it be on Council, as
President of the Library Board or the Fourth of July
Committee and others I have always found Milltown
residents to be respectful of constituted authority and
that authority respectful of the rights of the public. I
have experienced this first hand. As they say I have
“walked the walk and talked the talk” and in doing so I
have never been accused of being arrogant. It is
critical for all sides to accept and exhibit mutual
respect for each other. While we may disagree we don’t
have to be disagreeable. I want to make clear that as
Chairman it is my responsibility to insure that our
meetings are conducted in a civil manner. There should
be no mistake or misunderstanding that civil
disobedience toward any legally constituted order or
ruling by this agency will be dealt with accordingly.
Furthermore, all too often in the past misinformation
and distorted facts have been brought out at our
meetings that as Chairman I could not allow to stand
without correction. The public has to understand also
that it is my responsibility as Chairman, to insure that
accurate data and factual information is brought before
the agency and is conveyed to the public. We have an
obligation to see that the public is provided with the
accurate facts about the agency’s plans for the
redevelopment of Ford Avenue. Only than can an informed
position on the future of Ford Avenue be made. As
Chairman this is my commitment to the residents of
Milltown.
Thank you for listening and a Happy and healthy New Year
to all.
Milltown Ford Avenue
Redevelopment Agency
Anthony J. Zarillo - Chairman
|
|
