A Superior Court judge will have several options in determining what plan is best for the redevelopment of Ford Avenue.

At Monday's Borough Council meeting, the governing body voted 5-0 to amend the Ford Avenue redevelopment plan in order to fulfill the town's affordable housing obligation to the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

Though the original plan for the 22.5-acre Ford Avenue tract called for 276 housing units, of which 50 would be set aside as rentals for affordable housing, the new plan is for 324 units. The borough is giving the judge two options— to include 61 affordable housing units, of which 16 would be age-restricted to those 55 and over; or to include 64 affordable units for purchase, with no rentals or age restrictions.

The judge will consider Milltown's plan and its two options; the proposal from the property owner, Lawrence Berger, for 550 housing units, which would not be age-restricted and would include more units dedicated to affordable housing; or a different plan devised by a court appointed special master.

Although more people than usual attended Monday's meeting, Councilman Larry Citro said he did not consider it to be a very large turnout. Approximately 10 people spoke during the public hearing, most of whom raising concerns in opposition to the borough's Ford Avenue proposal. Anthony Zarillo, former chairman of the Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency, spoke in favor of the new plan.

The borough's efforts to redevelop Ford Avenue, initiated eight years ago, have been plagued by both residential opposition regarding housing density and environmental issues, as well as ongoing litigation from property owner Lawrence Berger's SB Building Associates. In February, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in Milltown's favor on some of Berger's charges, dismissing the argument that the borough violated the landowner's rights and did not take the appropriate steps when moving forward with plans for the tract.

Officials said the town now had to file a realistic plan that will satisfy its COAH obligation and win the approval of a judge. Citro said the changes approved Monday are the least burdensome way to do that. Councilman Ron Dixon was not present at Monday's meeting.

Milltown officials are moving forward with plans to change the Ford Avenue redevelopment project in order to fulfill the town's affordable housing obligation to the state.

 
Though the original plan for the 22.5 acre tract called for 276 housing units, of which 50 would be set aside as rentals for affordable housing, the new plan is for 324 units, with two options. The first option would include 61 affordable housing units, of which 16 would be age-restricted to those 55 and over. The second option would include 64 affordable family units for purchase, with no rentals and no age restrictions.

 
Councilman Larry Citro said the changes, proposed in an ordinance scheduled for a public hearing June 8, are related to the litigation brought against Milltown by Lawrence Berger, owner of the Ford Avenue site, which long ago belonged to the Michelin Tire Co. Berger, who seeks to build 550 residential units on the site, accused the borough of failing to fulfill its affordable housing obligation to the state Council on Affordable Housing, among other allegations.

 
Citro said the town must file a realistic plan that will satisfy its COAH obligation and win the approval of a Superior Court judge. He said the proposed changes are the least burdensome way to do that. Citro said the municipality could not file a plan with a minimal amount of housing, because the court would dismiss that and possibly approve Berger's higher-density plan.

 
The borough's efforts to redevelop Ford Avenue, initiated eight years ago, have been plagued by both residential opposition regarding housing density and environmental issues, as well as the litigation from Berger's SB Building Associates. In February, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in Milltown's favor on some of Berger's charges, dismissing the argument that the borough violated the landowner's rights and did not take the appropriate steps when moving forward with plans for the tract. However, the federal court remanded Berger's state law claims, such as the allegation that Milltown failed to fulfill its affordable housing obligation, to state Superior Court.

 
Regarding the changes now proposed by the borough, council President Brian Harto said residents need to understand that much of the decision-making in the matter has been taken away from Milltown due to the lawsuit.

 
"Unfortunately, this council has been burdened with a lawsuit that has taken most of the options away," Harto said. In previous years, he added, the governing body did not make sure that the town's COAH certification was addressed. "Unfortunately," he said, "we can't undo what has happened, but [must] deal with the current cards given to us and try to make the best of it."

 
Harto said the court will make a ruling and approve either Milltown's plan, a court-appointed special master's plan, or Berger's plan, and there are no other options.

 
"If Milltown's plan is to be accepted, it must be seen as acceptable on certain criteria, including if it satisfies the town's COAH requirement and if it is economically viable for any developer," Harto said.

 
Borough officials previously sought to have the future housing be entirely age-restricted in order to avoid school-age children moving in and possibly causing an increase in school taxes. However, the redevelopment plan was changed in 2007 to make the development almost an even mix of age-restricted townhouses and "age-targeted" units, the latter description referring to condominium units geared toward seniors due to the layout and number of bedrooms, but open to buyers of any age.

 
The changes now in front of the council seem to mirror the recommendations that longtime Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency Chairman Anthony Zarillo recommended in November when he stepped down from his post. Zarillo, saying the borough will have to live up to its COAH obligations, suggested the plan be changed to call for a total of 324 townhouses and condominiums. Sixty-four of those would be set aside for affordable housing, including 16 designated for seniors only. Zarillo recommended that the balance of the housing, 260 units, all be owner-occupied, with a mix of age-restricted and age-targeted units.

 
The plan would continue to include retail and open space components, with a 100-foot buffer along the Mill Pond.

 
Harto said that although this new plan regretfully takes away much of the senior housing element, it is something that the governing body must recognize as necessary because the court-appointed master has indicated that senior housing is not a viable option for Ford Avenue. The judge, he said, would not rule in favor of a plan that is entirely senior housing.

 
The best option is for Milltown's plan to get approval from the judge, thereby awarding the town the ability to have some control over the number of units, as well as the number of bedrooms in those units, Harto said. The plan keeps the number of bedrooms per unit significantly lower than the builder's plan, thereby making it likely that the units will be attractive to seniors and younger people, and not large families.

 
Residents will be able to have their say on the ordinance at the June 8 council meeting.

The Sentinnel
by Jane Meggitt - Staff Writer

A federal court judge recently ruled in favor of Milltown in a lawsuit centered on the 22.5-acre Ford Avenue redevelopment property.

U.S. District Court Judge Anne E. Thompson dismissed the legal complaint from the property owner, SB Building Associates, which sued the borough and its redevelopment agency over its effort to have the property redeveloped. The suit was dismissed after both parties supplied briefs without oral argument.

"From a borough standpoint, this is great news," Milltown Borough Councilman Randy Farkas said. "… The borough certainly applauds Judge Thompson for her decision in this matter."

The legal decision came after the borough filed for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' case was not ripe and failed to exhaust all of the state remedies available to it, according to attorney David B. Himelman of Old Bridge, who represents Milltown's Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency.

The judge remanded the matter to state Superior Court for adjudication on the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, Himelman said in a message posted on the borough's Web site. A Superior Court judge will review legal claims by the property owner, including the allegation that Milltown has failed to fulfill its affordable housing obligation to the state Council of Affordable Housing.

The borough's plan to redevelop the site of the former Michelin Tire Co. with residential and commercial properties has been met with opposition since it surfaced several years ago. In addition to the legal action, there has been vocal opposition from some residents who are concerned about the proposed uses as well as the cleanup of contamination on the site and the adjacent Mill Pond.

But the recent federal court ruling means the borough has overcome at least one legal hurdle. The lawsuit argued that the town unlawfully moved forward with plans for the Ford Avenue tract before taking appropriate steps.

"... 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," Himelman said.

Since the federal court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any of the plaintiffs' state law claims, the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are now remanded to the state Superior Court, where the case is expected to be decided.

"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," Himelman wrote.

He noted that SB Building Associates could file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, but he said it is unlikely that any appeal would be decided before the state Superior Court rules on the pending litigation.

SB Building Associates' Lawrence Berger has proposed his own building plan for the site. His plan calls for 550 residential units, while the borough's plan, approved in 2004, calls for 276 townhouses and condominiums, 25,800 square feet of commercial space and several acres of open space. However, the recommendations of a court appointed special master could trump both plans.

The borough entered into an agreement with Boraie Development LLC to redevelop the site in 2004. The first lawsuit, filed in 2006 against the borough in Superior Court, was an attempt to block Milltown's efforts to redevelop the site, and that court ruled in the borough's favor in 2007.

A newcomer to the Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency has taken the head role in the group, filling the post left open by its longtime chairman, Anthony Zarillo.

 
Tom Harknett was appointed to the agency earlier this month and then was elected chairman by the agency's members during its reorganization meeting January 13.

 
"It's an area I have interest in, I practice in, and it's where I live," Harknett said. "So, I have a vested interest."

 
A professional engineer in New York City for 30 years, as well as a senior manager with his company, Harknett said his experience will be an asset to the agency. He is also no stranger to leadership positions.

Harknett is starting his second year of a three-year term on the borough Planning Board, for which he is vice chairman, and he previously served as chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for two years.

 
A Republican, Harknett ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Borough Council in 2000 and 2008.
"I think it's a good choice," Mayor Gloria Bradford said. "He's well qualified, and I think it's good to have somebody brand-new."

 
Bradford appointed Harknett as a member of the agency with input from the Borough Council, she said.

 
In recent years, the agency has found itself at the center of a growing controversy involving the site of the former Michelin Tire Co. The agency's and ultimately the borough's plans to redevelop the property with residential and commercial housing has faced opposition from residents over the proposed uses as well as the proposed cleanup of contamination on the property and the adjacent Mill Pond. Also, the proposal is now the subject of litigation by the property owner.

 
While Harknett, a resident of Milltown for the past 20 years, said he has no specific goals for the project as of now, he said it is important to take initiative and keep things moving as much as the litigation will allow.

 
"That kind of has us in handcuffs right now," Harknett said.

 
The legal battle began when Lawrence Berger, owner of the 22.5-acre Ford Avenue tract, filed a lawsuit last year accusing the borough of failing to fulfill its affordable housing obligations passed down from the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). Due to the builder's remedy lawsuit, Milltown was not subject to the December 31 COAH deadline faced by other towns, according to Councilman Randy Farkas. The suit also alleged that the town unlawfully moved forward with plans for the Ford Avenue property before taking appropriate steps, among other allegations lodged against the redevelopment agency and the Milltown Planning Board.

 
State Superior Court Judge James Hurley is expected to decide whether to rule in favor of the borough's redevelopment plan or Berger's plan, which calls for the highest number of residential units, at 550. The borough's plan for the site, first approved in 2004 but never built, calls for 276 townhouses and condominiums, 25,800 square feet of commercial space and several acres of open space. A third possibility is that the recommendations of a court-appointed special master will trump both plans.

 
Harknett said he is spending time bringing his knowledge of the issue up to snuff in order to be able to provide insight on steps to be taken.

 
One area in which he said improvements can be made is in the dissemination of information about the project to residents.

 
"A concern that I have is [that] there is a certain amount of misinformation going on out there," Harknett said. "Maybe we can take a more proactive role."

 
However, the long-running litigation surrounding the project, as well as the changes it has wrought, make it difficult to keep the public up to date on new developments, Harknett noted.

 
While he said he does not see a problem with transparency in the agency now, Harknett made note of the fact that some residents have called for more openness. One way to keep residents abreast of news regarding the project would be to have more information available online, he said.

 
The borough established the redevelopment agency in 2001 with the goal of devising a viable plan for redeveloping the Ford Avenue tract.

 
Zarillo was one of seven original members of the agency appointed by the council, and served as chairman until his resignation early in December.

Funding for the cleanup of contamination on Ford Avenue took center stage last week when state representatives met with the Milltown Borough Council.

 
Two representatives of the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) spoke at the council's Dec. 8 meeting. Project Manager William Lindner and Colleen Kokas, both of the DEP Office of Brownfield Reuse, said grant funding is available through the state agency for remediation of the 22.5- acre former industrial property. Since the redevelopment site is designated as a brownfield, the project would be eligible for monies from the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (BCSRA).

 
"We want to make sure the remediation that is selected is protective of the end use of that site," Kokas said.
Funding from the DEP would cover 75 percent of cleanup costs at a rate of $5 million per year. The other 25 percent would be paid by the firm redeveloping the property, which is slated for a mix of housing and retail uses. Kokas said the borough or DEP can pursue reimbursement for the cleanup from responsible parties, but that typically occurs after the cleanup has taken place.

 
According to Lindner, $9 million has been allocated to the project so far, but that number is not definite.
"It depends on the remedy that's selected," Kokas said. "Actually, the information is coming more from [the town] than from us."

 
The issue, like all of those surrounding the redevelopment, is not a simple one. Contaminants of various types remain at the site from decades of now-defunct industrial uses, including the Michelin Tire Co. It is yet to be seen whether the contamination will be cleaned up through soil capping or by complete removal.

 
While capping has been proposed by the Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency and approved by the DEP, some officials and residents say they do not see it as a sufficient means of dealing with the problem, especially since residences are planned there.

 
A lawsuit filed by the property owner, Lawrence Berger, against the borough and its redevelopment agency complicates matters further. The borough spent several years planning for a condemnation process that would allow for its chosen developer, Omar Boraie, to redevelop the tract. Berger alleged last year in the suit that the town moved illegally in making plans for the land, among other accusations.

 
As litigation wages on, it remains unclear which entity will have control over the property and how contaminants there are cleaned up. Until the lawsuit is decided, no cleanup plan is set in stone, also leaving funding considerations up in the air.

 
"The key to this is all wrapped up into one big ball," Lindner said.

 
While the borough, according to its own plans, would be eligible to receive funding for the majority of the cleanup, that would change if Berger wins the lawsuit and retains the property. The grants available through the DEP for private property owners are much smaller, Kokas said.

 
"Rarely is a private property owner eligible ... and not for that amount," Kokas said.

 
Mayor Gloria Bradford asked whether the DEP would be willing to fund a total cleanup, since the agency approved capping as a sufficient form of remediation for the site. Lindner said that if the cleanup plan was one that fostered the health of humans and the environment, it would be eligible for funding. He added that it is up to borough officials to determine the best plan of action, which the DEP would support.

 
Kokas pointed out the caveat, saying that if plans for the redevelopment ended up without housing as part of them, the DEP would not fund a total cleanup.

 
According to Lindner, the level of cleanup required depends on pollutants that exist in a given area. In parts of the site where chlorobenzine has been discovered, remediation must go beyond capping, as it is a volatile chemical. Areas that are approved for capping are those that contain contaminants that have become immobile within the ground, posing less of a threat.

 
While capping is not allowed as a means of remediation on properties that are to include single-family homes, the method is permitted for town homes and condominiums, which are proposed for this site. The reason for the difference is that homeowners' associations create rules for such developments, and residents there are not permitted to make improvements to their property at will, such as planting a tree, which would pose a possible threat due to underlying contaminants, Lindner said.

 
"The areas that would be capped would be direct contact issues," Lindner said.

 
The borough's redevelopment plan calls for 276 townhouses and condominiums, 25,800 square feet of commercial space, and several acres of open space. Berger, in court papers, has proposed 550 housing units, and it was not clear if he would include any commercial construction. In terms of density, Berger's plan is for about 25 residences per acre, as compared to 15 per acre in the borough's plan.

 
If Berger wins the lawsuit, he will not necessarily be required to clean up the property to meet residential standards. He might be permitted to use capping and still build homes there, or use partial capping and do a total cleanup of only some areas, according to Lindner.

 
"There are a lot of ways to skin a cat," Lindner said.

 
Monies already spent by Berger, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Middlesex County Improvement Authority (MCIA) for environmental testing could possibly be used to make up the 25 percent of the project's costs that will not come from the DEP, Kokas said.

 
Though testing has been done at the site by various entities, there is still more to be done. An area where testing has not been completed is one that affects all of the town's residents.

 
"The Ford Avenue site is an unusual situation, as our water supply is actually on the property," resident Carol Jegou said, referring to the Mill Pond.

 
Any contaminants in the pond would impact residents' drinking water. Lindner said DEP officials are in the process of testing water there to determine whether additional cleanup measures will be necessary. Monitoring wells are also being installed near the powerhouse on the site, he said.

 
While results have yet to be determined in terms of the water supply, Lindner said it is likely that, if contaminants were to seep into the groundwater, it would have happened already, over the last 100 years.
Milltowners for a Sensible Ford Avenue Redevelopment, a citizens' group, are against capping as a plan of remediation. They have been pushing for a total cleanup since the redevelopment agency came forth with plans for capping.

 
"If you change the remedy to 100 percent cleanup, one thing that needs to be made clear to everybody — not that I'm for or against it either way — it could, or would, prolong the cleanup," Lindner said.

The Sentinnel
by Jessica Smith - Staff Writer

"The Ford Avenue redevelopment project is not about Tony Zarillo, chairman, as some people have wrongly made it out to be," Zarillo said. "It is more important to look at the ramifications and [the] effect on the borough of the court ordering the implementation of the master's report." He was referring to the possibility that a court-appointed master will allow the construction of a more dense development than local officials have sought.

The borough established the agency in 2001 with the goal of devising a viable plan for redeveloping the 22.5-acre tract on Ford Avenue that was formerly home to the Michelin Tire Co., among a number of other industrial uses. The plan, first approved in 2004 but never built, calls for 276 townhouses and condominiums, 25,800 square feet of commercial space, and several acres of open space.

Zarillo was one of seven original members appointed by the council and has served as chairman throughout the agency's seven years.

The contention surrounding the redevelopment, a long controversial project, heated up when the property's owner, Lawrence Berger, filed a lawsuit last year accusing the borough of failing to fulfill its affordable housing obligations passed down from the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

"The borough has avoided both its round-one and round-two [COAH] obligations," Zarillo said. "We've got to accept that responsibility and we've got to move forward with that responsibility."

The suit also alleged that the town unlawfully moved forward with plans for the tract before taking appropriate steps, among other allegations lodged against the agency and Milltown Planning Board.

As litigation wages on almost exactly a year later, the questions loom large: Will state Superior Court Judge James Hurley rule in favor of the borough's redevelopment plan to be carried out by Boraie Development LLC, or will Berger's plan, which comes in the form of a "builder's remedy" and calls for the greatest number of residential units, at 550, be chosen. A third possibility is that the recommendations of a court-appointed special master will trump both plans.

Zarillo resigned during the agency's Nov. 11 meeting, but left it with his own recommendations, as well as words of warning.

"Now it's up to the mayor and council and the agency to work toward some type of solution," Zarillo said. "I believe something needs to be done, that the borough is in serious trouble if the master's report is adopted by the court. … I think that would be a travesty."

After a resignation speech that expressed "deep regret" over leaving the agency while keeping the reasons for doing so private, Zarillo outlined his suggestions for striking a compromise. He also asked members of the agency to authorize their legal counsel, David Himmelman, to present the alternatives to Mayor Gloria Bradford and the council in a letter. That letter, dated Nov. 20, calls upon the council to follow recommendations set forth by Zarillo and the agency's members, and consider adopting an ordinance allowing for the following"

• A total of 324 mixed-use residential units consisting of townhomes and condominiums.

• A 20 percent set aside for affordable housing, for a total of 64 units, of which 16 would be designated for seniors only.

• The balance of the 260 mixed-use residential units would be constructed and sold at full market value.

• There would be no rental units on the Ford Avenue site; and as such, all would be owner occupied.

• There would be an agreed-upon allocation between the borough and its designated redeveloper, Boraie Development, of the remaining 260 units between age-restricted housing for the townhouse units, and age-targeted for the condominium units.

• Retail commercial space should be included in the redevelopment plan to provide for such commercial uses as a restaurant and/or retail shops.

• The borough should consider locating a health care facility at the Ford Avenue site, as it would be beneficial to those who reside in the community.

• The contribution of $1 million by the designated redeveloper toward the construction and development of a new borough firehouse should be included as part of the redevelopment agreement.

• There should be a continuation of the 100-foot buffer, which is part of the commitment by Middlesex County to acquire about 4 acres along Mill Pond for open space preservation.

"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," Zarillo said. "Rather, it is intended to suggest to the borough a vehicle where the borough can advise the court of its concerns over the potential adverse impact certain elements of the master's report may have on the borough and its residents."

Zarillo stressed the importance of the agency and borough officials working together to be proactive on the matter, and expressed confidence in the leadership of Bradford and the council. In his resignation speech, he specifically addressed Bradford among those he thanked, praising her unmoving support of the agency's plan over the years, as well as her commitment to making the redevelopment come to fruition.

"Mr. Zarillo is to be commended for his work and his dedication," Bradford said, noting she is sorry to see him go. Bradford also expressed openness to Zarillo's suggestions, though she did not go into detail regarding any course of action on them.

Borough Council President Randy Farkas voiced mixed feelings about Zarillo's parting recommendations.

"In all honesty, well, where were you three years ago?" Farkas said. "To walk out the door and present this might be a little counterproductive — but point taken, and I agree with some of the things he said."

Farkas, for example, said he agrees with the push for a senior housing component in the adopted plan.

"There's a little tweaking that's going to go on, and then we're going to present it to the judge, as quickly as possible, but …when you're in litigation, one wrong step, and you're in a minefield," Farkas said.

Resident Charlie Jegou, who has long been a vocal opponent of residential development at the site, questioned the timing of Zarillo's offered alternatives.

According to Jegou, Zarillo was obstinately against considering changes suggested by residents during his time with the agency, saying Boraie would sue if the borough attempted to alter the existing plan. At the same time, he noted, when county Freeholder Director David B. Crabiel suggested alternatives, they were duly noted by Zarillo.

In addition, Jegou said it would not make sense for Milltown officials to go to the court with affordable housing plans for the site, since the borough has joined a number of towns in a lawsuit that challenges new COAH regulations. If officials are saying the town cannot fulfill the new obligations, they would be contradicting themselves by providing input on an affordable housing plan for the site, he said.

"He just resigned — now he's talking about [how] he's going to give us a new plan," Jegou said.

Jegou said he hopes Zarillo's replacement will be more receptive to residents' concerns. He would also support the disbanding of the agency.

"No housing over there would be the best plan," he said.

Jegou and other residents who oppose a large-scale housing development at Ford Avenue cite what they believe will be negative impacts on residents due to increased traffic, infrastructure costs and an influx of school aged children into the district.

Although many in the town have said Berger's plan, with double the residential units, would be the worst alternative, Jegou said the poor economic climate could work in the borough's favor if Berger won the suit. It is unlikely that it would be economically feasible to follow through with building 550 units any time in the next few years, he said.

Jegou has suggested that officials seek a state Green Acres matching grant in order to acquire the land and preserve it as open space.

In efforts to let voices of the opposition be heard in court, Jegou and others have approached the Board of Education and requested a letter that would outline per-student costs in the borough. The costs are now about $11,000 annually in the grammar and middle school, he said, but increase in high school, as Milltown sends those students to Spotswood.

Jegou said he is waiting to speak with Superintendent of Schools Linda Madison on the issue, in hopes to get a letter from the district that would illustrate the schools' inability to take on the number of students that would come with such a large-scale development.

Many who stand against the project also take issue with the proposed plan for cleaning up the site, which is contaminated after decades of industrial use. The agency has proposed soil capping to deal with pollution there, but some residents have said the method is faulty and hazardous. Jegou cited Zarillo's endorsement of capping as another way in which he is turning a deaf ear to residents, while giving the go-ahead to a less costly cleanup.

"Who are you looking out for," Jegou said. "Are you looking out for the residents of Milltown, or are you looking out for the developer?"

Zarillo and the agency's engineering firm have said the capping is a safe procedure, ensuring that future occupants of the site will not be exposed to any harm, and that contaminants will not leach into Mill Pond.

In general, Zarillo said his intentions have been pure.

"I have no vested interest in the outcome of Ford Avenue, other than I want a plan that is responsible and economically viable, and once and for all deals with the environmental degradation at the site."

The agency has not yet selected a chairman to succeed Zarillo, and the council has yet to fill the vacant seat.

With so many conflicting viewpoints and so much at stake, the tensions surrounding the redevelopment site's outcome continue to mount.

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.

 
The Milltowners for a Sensible Ford Avenue Redevelopment, in conjunction with its environmental advisor, the Edison Wetlands Association (EWA), according to the article, invited the public to a meeting that was "aimed at answering questions regarding the Ford Avenue redevelopment project, and how long-standing contamination on the oldMichelin tire factory site will be handled."

 
The Milltown Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency fully supports the right of any individuals or groups to express their views and meet with any agency involved in the process. That is not the issue or reason for this response.

 
Over the past sixplus years, the agency has spent an inordinate amount of time clarifying its position as to all aspects of the Ford Avenue project. This is what is troubling, not the fact that a public forum has been scheduled.

 
As a result, the statements in the Feb. 28 article cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. These comments are either inconsistent with earlier statements or positions of the individual quoted or are not borne out by any scientific data to support the conclusions reached.

 
The agency has constantly gone out of its way at every meeting to make the public aware of its actions and to present factual updates on the environmental work being performed at the site from both the state and federal perspective. In addition, the public can access information on the Internet at www.MilltownVoice.com or www.MilltownFordAvenue.com and read up-to-date factual reports from the agency's environmental expert. They highlight the aggressive steps already taken to identify the level of contamination, reported by the triad group - the local agency, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - as being minimal in more than 85 percent of the site.

 
The real issue is not being raised in the article. It is not "capping" of the site or the host of other "straw-man issues" raised by the Milltown group over the past six years. It has stated publicly that it does not want residential development at the site because, as a leader of the group stated at an agency meeting, he wasn't against low-income people but the problems they represent (from the minutes of agency meeting dated Sept. 18). This statement speaks volumes regarding the efforts by this group to undermine the agency's commitment to clean up the site and restore it back as a productive and aesthetically acceptable part of the borough's landscape.

 
I am troubled by the misleading comments reported in the article and the fact that no one from the agency or its environmental experts was contacted to respond or comment before going to press.

 
A comment attributed to David Wheeler of the EWA - "According to Wheeler, instances of capping throughout the state have resulted in toxic chemicals and vapors seeping through the floor of homes" - is not supported by any credible evidence. I challenge Mr. Wheeler to come forth with the backup data from the files at the DEP to substantiate his claim. I invite Mr. Wheeler to come to the agency's meeting and present that backup data so we can have our environmental experts investigate his claims.

 
The statements of Richard Chapin, an engineer providing technical assistance to theMilltowners' group under the auspices of the EWA, are contrary to the findings and recommendation of the triad group at their meeting of Nov. 2, 2006, and contained in the minutes of that meeting. It should be noted that Mr. Chapin actively participated in that meeting, where under the caption of "Section 2. Remediation and Capping Plan: Entire MIA" is the following statement: "Conceptually, the capping plan presented met the approval of all attendees." The meeting minutes also contain a figure that presents very specific details of the proposed capping plan for the site. More detailed engineering plans pertaining to the capping will be contained in the proposed Remedial Action Work (RAW) plan to be prepared once final Planning Board approval is obtained for the project.

 
At the triad meeting, Mr. Chapin clearly approved of capping of the site. At the above meeting, at no time did he object to the content of the minutes regarding the capping issue, even after a draft of the minutes was provided to him for comment before final release of the minutes.

 
In summary, all the stakeholders involved in the Ford Avenue Project, which includes the DEP, the EPA and Mr. Chapin, have agreed that "engineering and institutional controls" (i.e., capping) is the recommended remedial option for addressing environmental contamination at the site. The agency has been advised by its environmental expert that remediation of 90 percent of brownfields sites in New Jersey employ the capping technology.

 
With respect to Mill Pond, the redevelopment agency has obtained funds from the DEP for developing a work plan to investigate the pond. In fact the case team, including Mr. Chapin, had meetings, including a comprehensive field investigation of the pond and its tributaries, toward developing such a work plan. Upon the DEP's approval of the work plan, sampling of the Mill Pond is targeted to commence in the spring.

An environmental engineering firm working for the Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency says contamination at the controversial Ford Avenue redevelopment site in Milltown should be capped off.

 
Opponents of the project, however, contend that a cap is only a temporary fix and would not make the site safe enough for future residents.

 
"That's all hysteria," said Vajira Gunawardana, of Eatontown-based Najarian Associates, which conducted the investigation for the borough's redevelopment agency. "I am a professional engineer. I don't want to sign off on a plan that's not going to work. My license is at stake."

 
Gunawardana said a 2-foot-deep cap consisting of clean soil would prove sufficient to remediate the contamination, since there are only marginal levels of some metals in the soil there. The site investigation and remediation is being conducted jointly by the local agency, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in what is known as the triad approach.
In using this approach, Gunawardana said, significantly more locations at the site were tested.

 
"You want to make sure that you don't miss any contaminated hot spots," Gunawardana said. "This way, we get input from everybody, and no stone is left unturned."

 
Bob Spiegel, executive director of the Edison Wetlands Association (EWA), said caps only contain the contamination onsite. Often, the technique fails, Spiegel said, noting also that the caps are not typically maintained and checked as is prescribed.

 
"We've had nothing but problems with sites the DEP has allowed to be capped, especially at sites with residential development," Spiegel said. "They're going to clean up the site to an industrial standard, to a commercial standard, not a residential standard."

 
The site, once home to the Michelin Tire Co.'s first plant, is still zoned for commercial and light industrial uses, though a zoning overlay for residential was approved by the borough in order for the redevelopment project to be considered. The borough's redevelopment plan calls for 276 housing units, which may be all or partly age-restricted.

 
Despite protests from Milltowners for a $ensible Ford Avenue Redevelopment, a citizens group long opposed to the current plans, Redevelopment Agency Chairman Anthony Zarillo insisted that capping is a reliable and prudent way of dealing with the contamination.

 
"The site is referred to as a minimally impacted area," Zarillo said. "The capping of the site is a safe technology to remediate the contamination. As a result, anyone who would occupy the site would not be exposed to any harm, and more importantly, it would ensure that there would be no leaching into the Mill Pond as a result of the capping."

 
When the redevelopment tract was designated as a brownfields site by the DEP, it allowed the borough and agency to qualify for funding to cover costs of the site investigation and remedial action work plan (RAW), as well as for the cleanup itself, Zarillo said. The DEP approved the plan that calls for capping.

 
"The people who are opposed to the capping are going against what their own engineer is saying," Zarillo said. "The people who are opposing this are activists. Mr. [Charlie] Jegou and the Milltown group are entitled to their opinion, but the public must know that it's only an opinion."

 
Zarillo pointed out that Richard Chapin, an engineer who provides technical assistance to the Milltowners' group under the auspices of the EWA, has been working along with the triad group as an active participant.
Chapin told Greater Media Newspapers that he is not on board with plans for capping of the site.

 
"Capping of a contaminated site is an acceptable measure in the DEP's world," Chapin said. "I believe a residential property should be cleaned up to the residential standards. I think in the long term, it's going to be a problem."

 
Defending the practice, Gunawardana said residents would not be affected by the contamination. He said testing has revealed that groundwater is not impacted. He also pointed out that below the 2-foot soil cap, plastic orange fencing would be put in to serve as a barrier in case anyone digs there.

 
"What are the chances of a kid digging 2 feet, and then eating that soil - not likely, right?" Gunawardana said.

 
Spiegel said that since plastic breaks down over time, the barrier in the ground is not a reliable method of alerting residents to the contamination there.

 
Gunawardana refuted Spiegel's claim that capped sites are not checked and maintained, saying the DEP requires, by law, that such sites are inspected every two years to ensure that they are safe.

 
"Once the state allows capping, they rarely, if ever, go back to the site," Spiegel said. "The people who suffer are going to be the families that live there."

 
According to Spiegel, even when the sites are inspected, it is done by those who have a financial stake in the property. In this case, he said, it would be the redevelopment agency that would be held responsible for conducting inspections there.

 
Jegou also expressed little to no confidence in capping as a remediation technique, saying it is unsafe.
"They're going by the minimum that has to be done," Jegou said. "Whatever's the cheapest, that's what they're going to do."

 
According to Jegou, the redevelopment agency can only be made to clean the property to the standard of its zoning specifications, which are still light industrial and commercial.

 
Both Gunawardana and Zarillo addressed Jegou's statement from a December 19 Star-Ledger article, in which he said residents at the site would not become aware of the contamination until after they had moved into homes there.

 
"For Mr. Jegou to suggest that the residents of the site will not be informed that the area has been capped is ludicrous," Zarillo said.

 
Jegou stood by his claim.

 
"Most of the time, they won't find out until during the closing," Jegou said. "We will let the people know what's there."

 
According to Gunawardana, other options for remediating the contamination are simply not feasible. One example he mentioned was removing it completely, which he said would require about a dozen landfills in which to place the polluted soil.

 
"If it was in a landfill, at least it wouldn't be near people," Spiegel said. "At least children wouldn't be playing on it."

 
Spiegel said thermal treatment of the contamination would be a viable option. Such treatment involves bringing the contaminated soil to high temperatures to remove contaminants.

 
In any case, Spiegel remained staunchly against the capping method.

 
"It's like putting a giant pool cover on a giant toxic bathtub," Spiegel said.

 
This is not the first controversy sparked over the Ford Avenue redevelopment. Since the project's inception, it has been met with resistance from the Milltowners citizens group. More recently, a lawsuit lodged by Lawrence Berger, the owner of the Ford Avenue property, has threatened to thwart the plans of the redevelopment agency because of the town and agency's failure to address affordable housing obligations.

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.

 
"This is not going to go away," Bradford said. "COAH is here to stay and we can't turn our backs on the situation."

Mayor: Hold Off on Ford Avenue Plan, OK
October 23, 2007

The Ford Avenue redevelopment plan may have hit a new snag Monday night as Mayor Gloria Bradford called on the Borough Council to vote down a proposal calling for 276 mixed and affordable units on the 22-acre site.

During a hearing in which the council was to vote on the proposal, Bradford announced that state officials had granted the borough a 60-day extension of a deadline for submitting an affordable-housing plan.

The vote had not taken place by press time (the proposal was voted down unanimously). In the first two hours of the meeting, about two dozen residents had stated their opinions of the plan, most expressing opposition and with many raising concerns about the impact on the school system.

The plan previously called for 276 age-restricted units. It was amended by the Planning Board last month to comply with state affordable-housing requirements.

The council voted to introduce an ordinance approving the mixed-unit plan on Oct. 9 in order to open it to public debate.

But the future of the Ford Avenue site has remained unclear since then, with some council members who voted for the introduction leaning toward voting it down at last night's meeting.

Significant opposition continued from community members who wanted a reduction in the scope of the development plan or even leaving it as open space.

Some council members also expressed concerns about the possible impact on the school system.

Milltown to Vote on Ford Avenue Plan
October 21, 2007

The future of the Ford Avenue redevelopment site continues to be mired in uncertainty as the Borough Council prepares to consider the latest proposal Monday night.
 
The plan, which was recently amended to satisfy state affordable-housing requirements, still faces opposition by borough officials and community members who favor a predominance of age-restricted housing in the former Michelin site.

 
The change to 276 mixed units from 276 age-restricted units was recommended by the borough Planning Board last month, and is to be voted on at the upcoming council meeting.

 
Among the opponents of this latest plan is Councilman Michael Skarzynski, the Democratic candidate for mayor, who at an election forum Wednesday night proposed a return to the original age-restricted housing model. He said he will vote against the plan on Monday night, citing concerns about an overburdened school system that could result from the addition of school-aged children.

 
"I'm challenging my other council members to vote no and send it back to the planning board," he said.

 
Skarzynski's alternative proposal calls for Milltown to find a way under state regulations to transfer its affordable-housing obligations to other municipalities. He wants as many of the affordable units as possible to be designated as age-restricted.

 
Meanwhile, the site's owner Lawrence Berger has recently filed a federal lawsuit against the borough to stop development plans, according to John Hoffman, the borough's special counsel for the redevelopment project. This comes even as similar litigation is pending at the state level.

 
"What he's saying in the federal court is that his civil rights have been denied by not being able to redevelop his property," Hoffman said.

 
After Berger filed a lawsuit last year claiming Milltown would not be fulfilling its state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) obligations, a state Superior Court judge asked the borough to submit an amended plan by November 30.

 
Berger, president of SB Building Associates and SB Milltown Industrial Realty Holdings Corp., wants to build 550 nonage-restricted units on the 22-acre parcel.

 
The borough and redeveloper Boraie Development LLC, however, are looking to move forward with their plan for the Ford Avenue site, which also calls for 30,000 square feet of office and retail space.

 
But there are no guarantees as Milltown considers the latest incarnation of the proposal, which the council voted to introduce as an ordinance on Oct. 9. With Skarzynski stating his intention to vote against a mixed-unit plan on Monday, other council members have also expressed their reservations.

 
"I don't think there's ever going to be a plan anywhere that I'm going to agree with 100 percent," said Councilman Joseph Cruz. He also stated his concern about overwhelming the borough school system.

 
Both Cruz and Skarzynski said they voted to introduce the ordinance, despite their reservations, so that it could still be open to public comment.

 
Councilman Randy Farkas, who voted against the amended plan as a member of the Planning Board and against introducing it on Oct. 9, said definitively that the borough needed more time to change the plan.

 
"I believe that this plan is in a state of flux right now. I think there are changes coming," Farkas said. "Whether or not it's going to be too little too late, that remains to be seen."

 
Farkas said he has twice voted against the latest plan because he does not want to put the borough on a time limit to make a decision.

 
"We need to do it once, and we need it right," he said.

 
On the other hand, Mayor Gloria Bradford — who is being challenged by Skarzynski in the upcoming election — said it is "basically a sound plan" with some concerns that need to be addressed, but that the borough is under some pressure with the pending litigation.

 
"We must come to a decision, or Judge Hurley is going to come to a decision for us," she said.
 

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.

As a resident of who intends to make Milltown my home for decades to come, and raise a child here, it is with a mixture of fear and surprise that I view the ever-changing and increasingly murky landscape that is the Ford Avenue redevelopment plan.

In the face of ongoing litigation, Milltown officials have formulated a plan that would fulfill affordable housing obligations at the Ford Avenue site.

Proponents of the Ford Avenue redevelopment project in Milltown were pleased with a court decision Monday that allows the project to move forward despite an ongoing legal challenge.

The decision by state Superior Court Judge James Hurley refused the continuation of an injunction that prohibited Milltown and its chosen developer, Boraie, from taking actions related to the redevelopment of the 22.4-acre site.

Hurley also ruled that the developer's agreement to contribute $1 million to the borough for consolidation of its firehouses and other improvements is permitted under the law.

"While I'm not ready to break open the champagne bottles, I'm very encouraged by the decision of the judge," said Redevelopment Agency Chairman Anthony Zarillo.

In response to the lawsuit filed against the borough by Ford Avenue property owner Lawrence Berger, Hurley in January entered a consent order for a 90-day stay of activities that would move along the redevelopment plan, according to David Himmelman, attorney for the redevelopment agency. Though the 90 days had passed, Zarillo said Berger requested another freeze on the project's activities.

"The court did not see the basis to impose those restraints," Himmelman said.

One of the criteria for imposing the temporary restraint is the likelihood, in the judge's eyes, of the plaintiff's success with his claims, Himmelman said.

Now, Boraie is free to seek approval from the Milltown Planning Board, and the agency can pursue ownership of the property through negotiations or the condemnation process. The plan is to replace the old factory buildings on Ford Avenue with 276 age-restricted housing units along with commercial and open space.

Berger alleged that the developer's $1 million contribution to the borough is illegal, and Zarillo said it appears unlikely that the landowner would make such a contribution if he were to prevail in the courtroom and proceed with his own development plan instead of the borough's.

According to Zarillo, not enough residents are informed about the ongoing litigation with the site's owner, along with possible impacts on the town if the court rules in the landowner's favor.

"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," Zarillo said in a statement at an April 17 agency meeting. "Should the court uphold the owner's suit, I believe that the will of the majority of the borough's residents would be frustrated."

The lawsuit, filed in November, names the borough, its planning board and redevelopment agency; Boraie Development; and Middlesex County and the county freeholders as defendants.

Berger is alleging that the borough is not in compliance with the New Jersey Constitution or the Fair Housing Act of 1985, because it has failed to provide opportunities for the construction of affordable housing.

The suit also seeks to have the site rezoned to remove restrictions that limit residential development to age-restricted, and to increase the number of residences allowed on the tract. Berger's proposed 550 housing units is nearly double the number in the borough's plan, and translates to about 25 residences per acre, as compared to 15 per acre, Zarillo said.

Due to the higher density if the owner's plan is followed, Zarillo said the agency is assuming the 100-foot buffer around Mill Pond stated in the agreement would be done away with if the owner prevails. The purpose of the buffer would be to prevent contamination from reaching the pond. Zarillo said it is difficult to imagine how double the number of housing units could be constructed there without eliminating the buffer.

"The land area ... can't accommodate it," Zarillo said.

The market-based housing would attract a large number of families, thereby bringing an influx of new students into the school district, and increasing property taxes, according to Zarillo.

"In my opinion, it will blow the doors off Joyce Kilmer School," Zarillo said.

In the agency's plan, approximately 28,000 square feet of commercial development is proposed, but in the court documents, Berger did not mention pursuing commercial development for the site, according to Zarillo.

Berger's lawsuit asserts that the agency, along with Boraie and the town, acted illegally by seeking preliminary and final site plan approvals without having his permission to do so.

The project has been steeped in controversy since the plan's inception in 2001. Residents have voiced concerns regarding environmental impacts, as well as possible tax increases and historic preservation at the site. 

"This agency, in developing our redevelopment plan, has been both responsive and responsible to the residents," Zarillo said. "Our decision to redevelop Ford Avenue has been guided by what we believe the public wants."

Among the more vocal critics of the borough's redevelopment plan are Charlie and Carol Jegou, who told the Sentinel in February they oppose both the town's and the land owner's proposals, as they consider both to be "high-density housing."

Jegou said the infrastructure in that area cannot handle the proposals, and will wind up costing taxpayers millions of dollars. He would prefer to see the zoning on Ford Avenue returned to allow only light industrial and commercial uses.

Zarillo said it is important for the town to work together to bring a positive end to the court matter.

"We need to move away from the blame game and the politics of the issue," Zarillo said. "This issue needs to be resolved in a level-headed way, in a non-partisan way. 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."

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.

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.”

Ford Ave. owner says Milltown falls short on affordable housing

The long-controversial Ford Avenue Redevelopment Plan is on hold pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by the owner of the site.

 
Lawrence Berger, president of SB Building Associates and SB Milltown Industrial Realty Holdings, has alleged that Milltown is not fulfilling its affordable housing obligation, among other assertions made toward the borough's redevelopment agency and Planning Board. Berger owns the former Michelin Tire Co. property, which the borough wants to acquire for redevelopment as age-restricted housing and retail space.

 
"It is a very, very serious claim that has been made," redevelopment agency chairman Anthony Zarillo said of Berger's lawsuit. "My expectation is that a reasonable solution will be the end result."

 
On Jan. 18, a consent order was entered by state Superior Court Judge James Hurley for a 90-day stay of any activities that would move along the redevelopment plan, according to redevelopment agency attorney David Himmelman. The Planning Board began hearing testimony on the plan in December, but the court decision has placed future hearings on hold.

 
The lawsuit, filed in November, names the borough and Planning Board; Ford Avenue redeveloper Boraie Development; the redevelopment agency; Middlesex County and the Board of Chosen Freeholders as defendants.

 
The land in question is a 22.5-acre tract consisting mainly of old industrial buildings. The redevelopment plans call for 276 age-restricted housing units, about 25,800 square feet of retail and commercial space, and 8 acres of open space, 4 of which were to be purchased by the county.

 
About 16 units of affordable housing are included in the plan, although the suit claims the redevelopment would not have provided for any low- to moderate- income housing.

 
Those 16 units have also made their way into the argument of a citizens' group that is opposed to the redevelopment.

 
"[Zarillo] lied to the people when he said there aren't going to be any more schoolchildren involved," said Charlie Jegou, founder of Milltowners for a Sensible Ford Avenue Redevelopment.

 
Although the 16 affordable housing units would possibly bring students into the borough's school system, the age restriction on the other 260 units is meant to ensure that no additional students would add to residents' school taxes.

 
Jegou, along with his wife, Carol, feels that neither the existing plan nor Berger's plan would be good for the town. Despite this, he said he is pulling for Berger to prevail in the case.

 
"If Mr. Berger wins, now we have a chance to say, 'No, this is no good,'" Charlie Jegou said.

 
Berger is proposing 550 housing units, which would not be age-restricted. A larger portion of Berger's units would be dedicated to meeting the borough's affordable housing obligation.

 
The site was previously zoned for commercial and light industrial use, but borough officials determined that residential use would be permitted as long as it was kept age-restricted for seniors. Berger would need to obtain permission from the borough to go forth with non-age-restricted housing if he wins the lawsuit.

 
Involved parties declined to comment specifically on the litigation and what it could mean for the town.

 
The plans for Ford Avenue first began to take shape in 2001 when the Borough Council established the redevelopment agency. As the plans were formulated and a redeveloper chosen in the years since, there has been much debate among residents and borough officials about whether the plans are good for the community.

 
"Both plans are high-density housing," Carol Jegou said. "They're both terrible plans. It's a bad situation."

 
The Jegous said they disagree with the town's plan to purchase or possibly condemn Berger's property only to pass it on to Boraie, another private owner.

 
Charlie Jegou also stated that, under either plan, the existing sewer lines would not be able to handle the new development. Necessary additions to the sewage system would cost taxpayers millions, he said, which is why his group is hoping for a chance to turn the plans around to align with the original zoning of light industrial and commercial.

 
Borough officials and proponents of the plan feel the redevelopment would clean up the property, improve the aesthetics of the area and bring tax relief to residents. Boraie's firm has estimated that the new uses on the site would generate more than $1.5 million in annual property tax revenue, as opposed to the $200,000 currently paid on the property.

 
"We'll just work for the good of the people, that's all we can do," Mayor Gloria Bradford said when asked to comment on Berger's lawsuit. "It's very disappointing, but we'll still go on."

 
The case is scheduled to be heard April 11 in Superior Court, New Brunswick.

 
Berger has previously complained that the borough and Boraie want to purchase his property based on its value as an industrial site, whereas the price would be much higher based on the future residential use.

 
Berger wrote a letter to Zarillo last May stating that Boraie did not intend to pay fair market value for the property and as a result should be dropped from the project. Boraie in turn said he was willing to negotiate with Berger at any time, but that Berger's concept of fair market value was far too high, even considering the residential use.

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.

At our last agency meeting I had suggested that the agency not schedule any meetings during the summer. However, in the interim I participated in a number of meetings involving the DEP and the environmental issues at the site. As I have indicated the activity at the power house under the auspices of the Federal EPA will intensify and the TRIAD group is in the process of mobilizing at the site to complete Stage 3 of the SI/RI report which hopefully will be followed by a work plan and approval of a Remedial Action Work Plan. (Commonly referred to as the RAW).

In addition, there have been recent discussions regarding an updated site plan and acquisition of the property together with a number of conversations with our Special and In House Counsel. It was during those discussions that the current status of the project and the strategy necessary to move the project was discussed. All of the foregoing is very encouraging and positive steps toward the implementation of the currently approved developer’s agreement. However, it is quite obvious that more needs to be accomplished by the end of the year. The question we must all ask ourselves is--- How do we move the Ford Avenue redevelopment project to the next stage?

 
As a result of the foregoing it became very clear to me that we have reached the point where the project’s future requires finality. I came to the conclusion that the project had to move aggressively over the next five months. Therefore, not only was an August meeting necessary, but monthly meetings through the end of the year and possibly special meetings if the need arises.

Shortly, I will ask the agency for permission to go into closed session to be briefed by our professionals to discuss this strategy. In as much as those discussions could involve contract negotiations and potential litigation I have been advised by our legal counsel it is proper for the agency to discuss those matters in closed session.

 
Earlier I mentioned that much has been accomplished to date which is a credit to the hard work and cooperation of many, including the Mayor and Council, Freeholder Director Crabiel and the Middlesex County Freeholder Board, the Middlesex County Improvement Authority, the Milltown Planning Board and last but not least my colleagues on the agency. I am very comfortable with the progress that has been made on the environmental side of the ledger, all by the way to the benefit of Milltown’s residents.

Yet, in recognition of all that has been accomplished I would be less than candid if I did not express my frustration that the totality of the project should be further advanced than we are today. Even though much of the delay was beyond the control of the agency, as Chairman I accept full responsibility. As Chair, you rise and fall with the ebb and flow of the project. It is now time as they say to “fish or cut bait”.

 
After months if not years of discussion, debate and compromise we approved an amended developer’s agreement that fully complies with the approvals granted to date by the Mayor and Council and the Planning Board. We have provided to Boraie one extension of the predevelopment period which expires on December 1, 2006. Under the current framework within the developer’s agreement there is more than adequate time to put in place the necessary action required to bring the project to the next very critical stage---acquisition of the property either through negotiation or condemnation.

I have stated and I will reiterate my hope that we can avoid time consuming and costly condemnation through negotiation of a reasonable price for the site between the seller and the buyer. The agreement obligates the developer to use reasonable efforts to acquire the property from the owner. If the developer cannot acquire the property from the owner the agency will use good faith efforts to attempt to negotiate the acquisition of the property. However, should that process fail I am prepared to recommend to the agency that condemnation be instituted. In the meantime we will work with the developer to assure that the agency has the resources to acquire the property. A critical component to the agency’s condemnation option is the full cooperation and involvement of the developer.

 
As Chairman I want to make clear my commitment to the agency, the residents of Milltown and Boraie Development that by the end of the year 2006, I will do everything humanly possible, within the law, to acquire the property and bring to closure this phase of the redevelopment plan for Ford Avenue. In my opinion we as an agency owe it to the residents of Milltown to bring this project to closure.

I am still committed and convinced that from all aspects the current approved developer’s agreement is the best plan for the Borough and its residents. Most importantly the plan will assure the total and complete environmental remediation of the site in full compliance with federal and state standards, the construction of a much needed stand alone senior citizens home, a sizeable contribution of $1,000,000 to be used by the Mayor and Council in the consolidation of our fire facilities and most of all substantial property tax relief to an over burdened Milltown property taxpayer.

Contrary to what has been indicated there is every indication supported by strong empirical data that a vast majority of Milltown residents support the amended plan of redevelopment for Ford Avenue.

 
It’s about time to finally move the project to the next stage and begin to remove the blight on Main Street and Ford Avenue. The Star Ledger said it best when it stated and I quote “ After Michelin closed the factory (around 1917) the 22 acre industrial tract begun its slow deterioration to its current state, a decaying, contaminated eye sore in the heart of Milltown’s downtown.”

 
I would be happy to answer any of the member’s questions keeping in mind the need to avoid discussion on any matter that could be involved in future litigation.

 
Finally, since I believe this statement could be very important to any future action of the agency and the project I would ask that my statement be included as part of the minutes of tonight’s meeting without objection.

Also Mayor I would ask that you work with Mr. Rystrom to see that this statement appears on the Borough’s web site. I will also send a copy to the “Milltown’s Voice” and ask that they also print the statement and the e-mail from the EPA.

 
Thank you and I would be happy to answer any of your questions.