Angry residents fight development in North Plainfield
Published on 10 Jun 2009 at 2:20 pm.
No Comments.
Filed under Local.
North Plainfield council votes in favor of plan
By MARK SPIVEY • STAFF WRITER • Courier News
NORTH PLAINFIELD — An angry group of residents collectively voiced its displeasure about the planned development of the borough’s last significant plot of open space Monday night, but municipal officials insisted they are powerless to stop it.
More than 75 residents appeared before the Borough Council and embattled developer Robert McNerney at West End Elementary School, with more than 20 of them unanimously speaking out against development of the Villa Maria property at 641 Somerset St. during a public hearing that lasted nearly two hours.
After the hearing, the council unanimously voted, 7-0, in favor of a rezoning ordinance that would allow McNerney and his firm Watchung Hills at North Plainfield LLC to build either age-restricted housing or about 50 single-family homes on the site. Drawing a chorus of boos from residents, most of whom then left en masse. Fewer than 10 remained after the decision was rendered, leaving officials to explain their actions before a mostly empty room.
“There were two things that were going to be built there, one or the other,” Mayor Michael Giordano said. “We chose what we thought would be best.”
The site, which sits on the foothills of the Watchung Mountains, was established as a sanitarium in 1879 before an order of nuns in 1938 converted it to a nursing home for women. Suffering from financial and staffing shortages, the nuns in 2002 announced they were merging their operation with that of another religious order in Pennsylvania, eventually selling the land to McNerney six years later.
Residents voiced concerns primarily over the potential for increased traffic and overpopulation stemming from future development at the site, but also spoke on the property’s history and its location in an area near the Stony Brook that traditionally has been prone to flooding. Other residents spoke of reports of graffiti and garbage on or near the property’s existing buildings and worried aloud about the ability of housing units to sell in a rocky economy or the potential worsening of overcrowding in public schools.
“Our children come first,” Shelley Moore told the council, “and you’re not thinking about them right now.”
The proceedings grew contentious when residents started accusing elected officials of impropriety in supporting the ordinance, with some suggesting council members may have accepted bribes and others alleging that officials were lying when they said the county was unwilling to help the borough purchase the land for conversion to parkland or open space before McNerney stepped in.
Robert Gatto, who ran for mayor last fall, called attention to a bill recently passed by the state that would allow developers to convert certain age-restricted developments to unrestricted ones under certain circumstances, suggesting that McNerney plans to take advantage of the legislation.
Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein said there was a “close to zero” possibility that the bill could affect the development and downplayed fears that the borough’s passed ordinance would allow McNerney to do whatever he wishes with the property; McNerney declined comment through his attorney before leaving the meeting.
“This is merely another zoning tool for that property,” Bernstein said. “It is not a rubber stamp.”
Midway through the public hearing, Borough Council President Frank “Skip” Stabile said the council would not engage in question-and-answer periods with any speakers, a move that led to an outcry over what residents called a lack of transparency. Stabile defended the decision after the vote, but before a sparse audience.
“I will not allow a council meeting to turn into a melee. I will not allow council members to be baited or targeted,” Stabile said. “Some (residents) would have gotten answers to some of their questions . . . but unfortunately, they’re not here, and I think that says a lot about the people who spoke.”
Stabile, Bernstein and other officials said after the vote they believe the seven-year saga surrounding the property is far from over, with demolition of existing buildings and construction of new ones still thought to be months or even years away. The age-restricted plan now permitted by the new ordinance — which also includes provisions for 36 lower-income units in a separate subdivision — is scaled back considerably from previous plans for 360,280 and 225 units, respectively.
Mark Spivey:
908-243-6607; mspivey@MyCentralJersey.com
Leave a Reply
Common XHTML tags allowed, which will be validated. Spam and trolling will not be tolerated.