Save Paramus Wetlands
By Mel Fabrikant Saturday, May 08, 2010, 02:23 PM EDT
Ed and I attended last week’s meeting of the Paramus Mayor and Council. I read the below statement during the public session. We once again would like to remind everybody that the first public hearing pertaining to “Enchantment at Paramus” will take place on Thursday, June 10th. This Board of Adjustment Meeting will be held inside the council chambers at 7:30PM. The property owner/developer is expected to introduce at least four witnesses who are expected to testify. A second date has already been scheduled (Thursday, June 24th), and additional dates may be scheduled in the future. We are requesting that people show up in force to voice their opposition to this amended application. Please continue to spread the word and tell your family members, neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc. to attend. Although it is unknown at what point, or if, we will be able to speak, we have heard that we will be able to ask those that testify questions. There should be a point where the public can comment.
We pointed out that the property owner describes trash and debris on their property. They have “volunteered” to clean it only if they are allowed to build/profit. Why are they not in violation of borough code?
We have been advised that a stop work order was issued for unauthorized site work and that the borough may be seeking restitution for the downed trees. Why wasn’t a summons issued? They should be forced to pay restitution for clear-cutting the area. Unfortunately damage has been done.
Prior drawings of the proposed “Enchantment” development that we saw showed a beautiful stream crossing the property in blue. It is interesting how this area of beauty that was so prominently depicted transformed into a hard to read pencil marking. While they appear to reference 150 foot buffers, they seem to ignore the 300 foot buffers afforded to category one bodies of water (such as Soldier Hill Brook) and/or feel that they do not apply.
The old application referenced an “age-restricted” housing complex. They promoted how occupancy would not add to our school populations. Surprise, surprise… this appears to have changed as well. They now describe it as market rate units. Interesting, especially in light of the Record’s recent article (Builders seek to lift age limits, facing a glut of 55-and-up communities), of April 25th.
Former Mayor Gennarelli spoke during the public comment section. Even he referenced Soldier Hill, stating that they are “not supposed to build on that property”.
We understand that our adversary remains active. We have discovered a Save Paramus Wetlands page on Facebook. We did not create it and do not know if it is friend or foe. We cannot add to it and/or change or post any of the information. We do hope that it is supportive to our cause.
We apologize as it has been a while since we updated our website. We are not very computer savvy. Although it contains some basic information, some details and information are old. We have been sending out frequent e-mails and hope to add new information to the site in the near future.
WE ONCE AGAIN ASK THAT YOU ALL TAKE THE TIME TO SHOW UP IN FORCE AT THE MEETINGS AND SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. PLEASE CONTINUE TO SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP US SAVE AND PROTECT THIS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PARCEL OF LAND AS WAS INTENDED!!!
“We attended the Board of Adjustment meeting on April 22nd, Earth Day, where in a 3-2 vote the “Enchantment” application was deemed complete. Although this may be described as a technicality, we were disappointed.
Ever since learning of a proposal (now an amended application) to build an over-sized, high density housing complex on a 35 acre parcel of environmentally sensitive land off of Soldier Hill Road, Ed Onorato and I have been conducting extensive research. We were invited to attend an informational meeting hosted by the “Enchantment at Paramus” developer in early 2006, and have been leading the fight against it ever since.
Residents in the Soldier Hill community had purchased homes in this area in the late 90’s believing that the remaining parcel of land would remain undevelopable, would serve as a buffer, be left in its natural state, and be preserved as open space. While the property owner claims to be an innocent third-party purchaser, we were informed and led to believe that nothing more could be built when we bought our homes. In fact, during a Planning Board meeting on April 5, 2007, an attorney referenced the Soldier Hill property. Stuart Liebman addressed Chairman Pucci stating in part “I looked into it a little bit many, many years ago when someone had come to me and asked me to represent them to develop that property and I elected not to”. I looked at the prior approvals. I looked at what the conditions were. I looked at the fact it was a Mount Laurel builder’s remedy piece of litigation. I looked at the fact it was settled. I looked at the fact that there was density bonuses that were granted and clustering of houses and an added construction bonus that was given to the property owner who then agreed in exchange to limit the density, to limit the quantity of its development, to limit its development activities on the remainder of the property. It got something in exchange for what- it gave up something in exchange for what it got. Theirs is a recorded agreement, development agreement signed by both parties agreeing to limitations, a specific number of units to be built, right, on that property and they are almost at that max. Now they are asking to blow that out of the water. We’re not doing anything like that. We don’t have any agreements like that. There’s no quid pro quo here.”
This property appears to be one of the largest remaining in Paramus if not all of Bergen County. It is surrounded by single family homes, a nature trail, municipal land, county roads, Reid Park, and a cemetery, and is home to many wildlife species. It consists of wetlands, forested/wooded areas, and tributaries (including Soldier Hill Brook, a category one) that are part of the Hackensack River Watershed, feeding the Musquapsink Brook and Oradell Reservoir. This in turn supplies nearly 1 million people with their drinking water.
Much to our dismay, we learned that this land had not been properly protected and was purchased for a mere $90,000 by a party apparently attempting to profit on an oversight. While the “sales pitch” meeting was cancelled, it was suggested that we appear before the Mayor and Council. We did, and decided to do all in our power to serve as a voice for the people and save this land. Signs were designed and distributed and a website was created. SAVEPARAMUSWETLANDS.com was born and suddenly “Paramus Wetlands” became a household name. While the developer continues to lead you to believe that this is simply a NIMBY issue we say that it clearly is not. We soon realized that what was proposed for our backyards could impact the backyards of many. We were fortunate to gain bipartisan support. Politicians on the local, county, and state levels have stated that they are against this development. The Borough of Paramus filed a lawsuit against the property owner/developer to stop any development forever on Soldier Hill Road as they too believed that it was the intent to preserve this parcel of environmentally sensitive land. They stated that they wanted to make the protection of wetlands, open space, and pristine property one of the highest priorities of their administration. Oradell and Emerson, two neighboring towns, passed resolutions in support of this position and against development on this property.
While the developer waged public relations and propaganda campaigns, Ed and I took the high road and continue to do so. We opted to make appearances, educate, and advocate for this important cause, speaking before a number of groups, bodies, and organizations. Seniors from the High School filmed a documentary pertaining to the importance of this land, the environment, and open space. Other local students stated that they were going to complete reports on the Paramus wetlands and clean the areas near their homes. A group of fifth graders was so concerned about the wetlands and wildlife that they completed a letter/petition requesting that it be saved. Recently high school students in an environmental club did the same. We continue to reach out as we feel that this is an extremely important issue, one that cannot be ignored, as it would have an affect on Paramus, the surrounding communities, Bergen County, and the State of New Jersey.
To date, nearly 4 years later, we are still going strong. Our cause recently received honorable mention from ANJEC and we were named Grassroot Activists of the Year in 2008 by the Hackensack Riverkeeper. Nearly 13,000 hits have been recorded on our website. We have received hundreds of petitions and favorable comments from as far away as Los Angeles, California. The NJDEP denied the developer’s permit and waiver requests after a public hearing and we are hoping that this important ruling is reaffirmed.
We believe in sensible development, not sprawl or overdevelopment. The NJ DEP Smart Growth site mentions that New Jersey is “the nation’s most densely populated state, and most developed”. Projects such as these add to this problem and create others. Smart growth goes on to state that “ill-conceived land use has the potential of threatening our drinking-water supplies, devouring open space, spoiling our landscape, and creating additional traffic congestion that in turn pollutes our air.” We are fortunate to have you and others on our side and have such allies as Captain Bill Sheehan and the Hackensack Riverkeeper and countless environmental groups. .
We believe in the Riverkeeper’s philosophy and focus and will continue to do all that we can to make a difference in our watershed and in our community. I remember Captain Bill saying, "When people like Mark and Ed step up and take a stand for clean water and for the good of their communities, good things happen. If they hadn't sounded the alarm, it's very possible that this ridiculous project would have slipped under the radar. No one would have known until it was too late."
We were informed that unauthorized site work has been performed on this property and that the project was stopped. Perhaps this was in violation of 371-5.1 or other applicable code. We would like to know if summonses were issued and what restitution the Borough is seeking for the clearing of trees.
In an April 8th Town News article, a rep indicated that his company would clean up the garbage-infested property at no cost to the taxpayer, if only Shamrock Creek could build on part of it. An article in the Record dated November 29, 2007 mentioned that the “developer would not remediate the land without the promise of being able to develop” and “without the funding we’re not going to clean it up”. Mention was made to old tires, concrete slabs and metal containers. Is this not in violation of 339-12 or 13 or other applicable Borough code?
Board of Adjustment hearings are scheduled for June 10th and June 24th. We ask that you assign an attorney and/or public advocate, as previously mentioned, to represent the Borough’s interests and those of the residents.
Besides the legal, zoning, and environmental concerns we have now learned that the age-restricted component has been dropped. It has been reported that this will increase the school population, increase traffic and increase pollution. We thank you again for your efforts and ask that you continue to fight. We are hoping that variances, permits, and waivers are turned down on a local, county and state level and that this parcel is saved as we believe was initially intended and protected for future generations”.
We pointed out that the property owner describes trash and debris on their property. They have “volunteered” to clean it only if they are allowed to build/profit. Why are they not in violation of borough code?
We have been advised that a stop work order was issued for unauthorized site work and that the borough may be seeking restitution for the downed trees. Why wasn’t a summons issued? They should be forced to pay restitution for clear-cutting the area. Unfortunately damage has been done.
Prior drawings of the proposed “Enchantment” development that we saw showed a beautiful stream crossing the property in blue. It is interesting how this area of beauty that was so prominently depicted transformed into a hard to read pencil marking. While they appear to reference 150 foot buffers, they seem to ignore the 300 foot buffers afforded to category one bodies of water (such as Soldier Hill Brook) and/or feel that they do not apply.
The old application referenced an “age-restricted” housing complex. They promoted how occupancy would not add to our school populations. Surprise, surprise… this appears to have changed as well. They now describe it as market rate units. Interesting, especially in light of the Record’s recent article (Builders seek to lift age limits, facing a glut of 55-and-up communities), of April 25th.
Former Mayor Gennarelli spoke during the public comment section. Even he referenced Soldier Hill, stating that they are “not supposed to build on that property”.
We understand that our adversary remains active. We have discovered a Save Paramus Wetlands page on Facebook. We did not create it and do not know if it is friend or foe. We cannot add to it and/or change or post any of the information. We do hope that it is supportive to our cause.
We apologize as it has been a while since we updated our website. We are not very computer savvy. Although it contains some basic information, some details and information are old. We have been sending out frequent e-mails and hope to add new information to the site in the near future.
WE ONCE AGAIN ASK THAT YOU ALL TAKE THE TIME TO SHOW UP IN FORCE AT THE MEETINGS AND SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. PLEASE CONTINUE TO SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP US SAVE AND PROTECT THIS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PARCEL OF LAND AS WAS INTENDED!!!
“We attended the Board of Adjustment meeting on April 22nd, Earth Day, where in a 3-2 vote the “Enchantment” application was deemed complete. Although this may be described as a technicality, we were disappointed.
Ever since learning of a proposal (now an amended application) to build an over-sized, high density housing complex on a 35 acre parcel of environmentally sensitive land off of Soldier Hill Road, Ed Onorato and I have been conducting extensive research. We were invited to attend an informational meeting hosted by the “Enchantment at Paramus” developer in early 2006, and have been leading the fight against it ever since.
Residents in the Soldier Hill community had purchased homes in this area in the late 90’s believing that the remaining parcel of land would remain undevelopable, would serve as a buffer, be left in its natural state, and be preserved as open space. While the property owner claims to be an innocent third-party purchaser, we were informed and led to believe that nothing more could be built when we bought our homes. In fact, during a Planning Board meeting on April 5, 2007, an attorney referenced the Soldier Hill property. Stuart Liebman addressed Chairman Pucci stating in part “I looked into it a little bit many, many years ago when someone had come to me and asked me to represent them to develop that property and I elected not to”. I looked at the prior approvals. I looked at what the conditions were. I looked at the fact it was a Mount Laurel builder’s remedy piece of litigation. I looked at the fact it was settled. I looked at the fact that there was density bonuses that were granted and clustering of houses and an added construction bonus that was given to the property owner who then agreed in exchange to limit the density, to limit the quantity of its development, to limit its development activities on the remainder of the property. It got something in exchange for what- it gave up something in exchange for what it got. Theirs is a recorded agreement, development agreement signed by both parties agreeing to limitations, a specific number of units to be built, right, on that property and they are almost at that max. Now they are asking to blow that out of the water. We’re not doing anything like that. We don’t have any agreements like that. There’s no quid pro quo here.”
This property appears to be one of the largest remaining in Paramus if not all of Bergen County. It is surrounded by single family homes, a nature trail, municipal land, county roads, Reid Park, and a cemetery, and is home to many wildlife species. It consists of wetlands, forested/wooded areas, and tributaries (including Soldier Hill Brook, a category one) that are part of the Hackensack River Watershed, feeding the Musquapsink Brook and Oradell Reservoir. This in turn supplies nearly 1 million people with their drinking water.
Much to our dismay, we learned that this land had not been properly protected and was purchased for a mere $90,000 by a party apparently attempting to profit on an oversight. While the “sales pitch” meeting was cancelled, it was suggested that we appear before the Mayor and Council. We did, and decided to do all in our power to serve as a voice for the people and save this land. Signs were designed and distributed and a website was created. SAVEPARAMUSWETLANDS.com was born and suddenly “Paramus Wetlands” became a household name. While the developer continues to lead you to believe that this is simply a NIMBY issue we say that it clearly is not. We soon realized that what was proposed for our backyards could impact the backyards of many. We were fortunate to gain bipartisan support. Politicians on the local, county, and state levels have stated that they are against this development. The Borough of Paramus filed a lawsuit against the property owner/developer to stop any development forever on Soldier Hill Road as they too believed that it was the intent to preserve this parcel of environmentally sensitive land. They stated that they wanted to make the protection of wetlands, open space, and pristine property one of the highest priorities of their administration. Oradell and Emerson, two neighboring towns, passed resolutions in support of this position and against development on this property.
While the developer waged public relations and propaganda campaigns, Ed and I took the high road and continue to do so. We opted to make appearances, educate, and advocate for this important cause, speaking before a number of groups, bodies, and organizations. Seniors from the High School filmed a documentary pertaining to the importance of this land, the environment, and open space. Other local students stated that they were going to complete reports on the Paramus wetlands and clean the areas near their homes. A group of fifth graders was so concerned about the wetlands and wildlife that they completed a letter/petition requesting that it be saved. Recently high school students in an environmental club did the same. We continue to reach out as we feel that this is an extremely important issue, one that cannot be ignored, as it would have an affect on Paramus, the surrounding communities, Bergen County, and the State of New Jersey.
To date, nearly 4 years later, we are still going strong. Our cause recently received honorable mention from ANJEC and we were named Grassroot Activists of the Year in 2008 by the Hackensack Riverkeeper. Nearly 13,000 hits have been recorded on our website. We have received hundreds of petitions and favorable comments from as far away as Los Angeles, California. The NJDEP denied the developer’s permit and waiver requests after a public hearing and we are hoping that this important ruling is reaffirmed.
We believe in sensible development, not sprawl or overdevelopment. The NJ DEP Smart Growth site mentions that New Jersey is “the nation’s most densely populated state, and most developed”. Projects such as these add to this problem and create others. Smart growth goes on to state that “ill-conceived land use has the potential of threatening our drinking-water supplies, devouring open space, spoiling our landscape, and creating additional traffic congestion that in turn pollutes our air.” We are fortunate to have you and others on our side and have such allies as Captain Bill Sheehan and the Hackensack Riverkeeper and countless environmental groups. .
We believe in the Riverkeeper’s philosophy and focus and will continue to do all that we can to make a difference in our watershed and in our community. I remember Captain Bill saying, "When people like Mark and Ed step up and take a stand for clean water and for the good of their communities, good things happen. If they hadn't sounded the alarm, it's very possible that this ridiculous project would have slipped under the radar. No one would have known until it was too late."
We were informed that unauthorized site work has been performed on this property and that the project was stopped. Perhaps this was in violation of 371-5.1 or other applicable code. We would like to know if summonses were issued and what restitution the Borough is seeking for the clearing of trees.
In an April 8th Town News article, a rep indicated that his company would clean up the garbage-infested property at no cost to the taxpayer, if only Shamrock Creek could build on part of it. An article in the Record dated November 29, 2007 mentioned that the “developer would not remediate the land without the promise of being able to develop” and “without the funding we’re not going to clean it up”. Mention was made to old tires, concrete slabs and metal containers. Is this not in violation of 339-12 or 13 or other applicable Borough code?
Board of Adjustment hearings are scheduled for June 10th and June 24th. We ask that you assign an attorney and/or public advocate, as previously mentioned, to represent the Borough’s interests and those of the residents.
Besides the legal, zoning, and environmental concerns we have now learned that the age-restricted component has been dropped. It has been reported that this will increase the school population, increase traffic and increase pollution. We thank you again for your efforts and ask that you continue to fight. We are hoping that variances, permits, and waivers are turned down on a local, county and state level and that this parcel is saved as we believe was initially intended and protected for future generations”.
