More traffic at Parker & Valley-proposed 46 units at Gleason site

Didn't everyone think the apartment building built on the site of the old police station was going to flood? Did they have any flooding during Ida?


Here's the problem with the redevelopment plans.

Mother Nature gave us two messages about this land in 1999 and 2021 with Her rampaging flooding hurricanes.  She wants her wetlands back.  Instead of paying attention to this history, the Planning Board and Township Committee approved property as being “in need of redevelopment” in October 2021, despite seeing the destruction from Ida two months before.

This land does not need "redevelopment", but should be returned to wetlands status.  Gleason's was built long before we even understood what a wetland is.  The building exists where it does not belong, and should not be rebuilt.  The river is giving us a clear message that the land will be reclaimed.  It's not smart to go against Mother Nature.


The Gleason family will just accept being out a few million?


Better yet, build the 46 unit building, and then go along the river and knock down 46 single family homes.  No net gain in traffic, but tremendous increase in wetland areas.  


Dan, 

First of all the Gleason property has been already sold to the developer.  And assuming that your post is a serious proposal, here is what you personally should do:

1) Identify the 46 individual properties to be destroyed.  Then pay to "knock them down".

2)  Pay the owners what is calculated to be their fair market value.

3)  Pay the township in perpetuity the fair tax value lost on all of these each year.  (Remember, these properties do not get PILOT tax reductions that the proposed property will certainly get.)  Arrange to exchange the new building's PILOTed payments remitted to you instead in fair compensation.

Or if your post is not serious, please do not trivialize this thread any further.

Where is the "dislike" button?


kthnry said:

Didn't everyone think the apartment building built on the site of the old police station was going to flood? Did they have any flooding during Ida?

The bottom level of that building is a parking garage.  Apartments start on the second floor because of the flooding risk.  I know the street in front of the building flooded, I'm not sure if the water reached the garage.


Here is a picture of the Gleason's site with the flood hazard zones overlaid.


Definition of Zone AE:
AE flood zones are areas that present a 1% annual chance of flooding(opens in new window) and a 26% chance over the life of a 30-year mortgage, according to FEMA. These regions are clearly defined in Flood Insurance Rate Maps and are paired with detailed information about base flood elevations. Most AE flood zones are located in close proximity to floodplains, rivers and lakes, though low-lying regions without large bodies of water may also be classified under this designation. Since these areas are prone to flooding, homeowners with mortgages from federally regulated lenders are required to purchase flood insurance through the NFIP.

Definition of Base Flood Elevation:
The elevation of surface water resulting from a flood that has a 1% chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year. 


Will the developer AND the town notify prospective residents (before they commit) of the flood risk and include a warning that they should move their car to higher ground any time there is a flood warning?  And will the town identify a permissable location for cars to be parked in that situation? And will all of this be in writing in their purchase or rental agreement?  If so, then perhaps it is OK, but I wonder how hard it will be to attract residents there.  I am not opposed to these developments in general, but I do think that there should be full disclosure of the risk to prospective residents.


mrmaplewood said:

Dan, 

First of all the Gleason property has been already sold to the developer.  And assuming that your post is a serious proposal, here is what you personally should do:

1) Identify the 46 individual properties to be destroyed.  Then pay to "knock them down".

2)  Pay the owners what is calculated to be their fair market value.

3)  Pay the township in perpetuity the fair tax value lost on all of these each year.  (Remember, these properties do not get PILOT tax reductions that the proposed property will certainly get.)  Arrange to exchange the new building's PILOTed payments remitted to you instead in fair compensation.

Or if your post is not serious, please do not trivialize this thread any further.

Where is the "dislike" button?

so you are okay with taking the property from developers.  And where will the town get the revenue it will lose in perpetuity, as you point out.  I'm not trivializing anything.  I think people who are opposed to any development are trying to make up any reason that they can to oppose this, when the best environmental practices include housing people in dense development near public transportation.


Just FYI, there is a site in Morris County I know of that had been a dry cleaners for decades. When they went to “redevelop,” the land/soil were so contaminated the building was never even knocked down. Entire plan fell through. Dry cleaners used to use some nasty chemicals. 


Heynj said:

Just FYI, there is a site in Morris County I know of that had been a dry cleaners for decades. When they went to “redevelop,” the land/soil were so contaminated the building was never even knocked down. Entire plan fell through. Dry cleaners used to use some nasty chemicals. 

I know of one in Livingston. I hope that Gleason was not illegally discharging toxic chemicals. The river is right there. I don’t think Gleason’s site is contaminated, I’m sure they tested before the sale went through.

In Morris county there are two cleaner’s sites that are contaminated. Which one are you referring to?


Jaytee said:

I know of one in Livingston. I hope that Gleason was not illegally discharging toxic chemicals. The river is right there. I don’t think Gleason’s site is contaminated, I’m sure they tested before the sale went through.

In Morris county there are two cleaner’s sites that are contaminated. Which one are you referring to?

The old Columbia Cleaners on Chatham Road, on the Summit-Chatham line. 


sac said:

Will the developer AND the town notify prospective residents (before they commit) of the flood risk and include a warning that they should move their car to higher ground any time there is a flood warning?  And will the town identify a permissable location for cars to be parked in that situation? And will all of this be in writing in their purchase or rental agreement?  If so, then perhaps it is OK, but I wonder how hard it will be to attract residents there.  I am not opposed to these developments in general, but I do think that there should be full disclosure of the risk to prospective residents.

How about you don't rent there and let other adults use their own judgement. 


upthecreek said:

How about you don't rent there and let other adults use their own judgement. 

---and the adverse conditions a real estate seller must list on a disclosure form shouldn't apply to a renter? The tenant doesn't need to know that he might lose his property? 


--- and regarding the 1% and 23% chance of flooding, that "likelihood" increases every year, along with and in proportion to the increase in global warming.

How many times, did the stream overflow its banks in the 1950's?


Formerlyjerseyjack said:

upthecreek said:

How about you don't rent there and let other adults use their own judgement. 

---and the adverse conditions a real estate seller must list on a disclosure form shouldn't apply to a renter? The tenant doesn't need to know that he might lose his property? 

NJ has no law that mandates sellers to disclose that a property is in a flood zone, has flooded in the past or that the property requires flood insurance.  


Other states do require this disclosure from sellers and it's shameful that NJ has not corrected this deficiency. 


Jaytee said:

Heynj said:

Just FYI, there is a site in Morris County I know of that had been a dry cleaners for decades. When they went to “redevelop,” the land/soil were so contaminated the building was never even knocked down. Entire plan fell through. Dry cleaners used to use some nasty chemicals. 

I know of one in Livingston. I hope that Gleason was not illegally discharging toxic chemicals. The river is right there. I don’t think Gleason’s site is contaminated, I’m sure they tested before the sale went through.

In Morris county there are two cleaner’s sites that are contaminated. Which one are you referring to?

The site definitely has environmental issues.  I think there is groundwater contamination.


Komarovsky said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

upthecreek said:

How about you don't rent there and let other adults use their own judgement. 

---and the adverse conditions a real estate seller must list on a disclosure form shouldn't apply to a renter? The tenant doesn't need to know that he might lose his property? 

NJ has no law that mandates sellers to disclose that a property is in a flood zone, has flooded in the past or that the property requires flood insurance.  


Other states do require this disclosure from sellers and landlords and it's shameful that NJ has not corrected this deficiency. 

46:8-50. Notification to tenants if property is in flood zone
1. Every landlord shall notify each of the landlord's tenants upon the event that the
rental property which is the subject of a lease has been determined to be located in a flood zone
or area. Each new tenant shall be notified prior to the time that occupancy of the rental unit is
assumed.

TRUTH-IN-RENTING ACT N.J.S.A. 46:8-43 through 50(state.nj.us)


One thing goes without saying,  This development will have zero impact (negative in fact) on school aged population and if you even ask a question like that, well, you’re probably a racist and a transphobe.


BarneyGumble said:

One thing goes without saying,  This development will have zero impact (negative in fact) on school aged population and if you even ask a question like that, well, you’re probably a racist and a transphobe.

There's nothing wrong with asking.  At this point, there have been a lot of rental units added over the last 10 years, in both municipalities, so there will be information on the impact of those units.


I’m just gonna sell my house to Blackstone. Two can play this game.

nohero said:

Komarovsky said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

upthecreek said:

How about you don't rent there and let other adults use their own judgement. 

---and the adverse conditions a real estate seller must list on a disclosure form shouldn't apply to a renter? The tenant doesn't need to know that he might lose his property? 

NJ has no law that mandates sellers to disclose that a property is in a flood zone, has flooded in the past or that the property requires flood insurance.  


Other states do require this disclosure from sellers and landlords and it's shameful that NJ has not corrected this deficiency. 

46:8-50. Notification to tenants if property is in flood zone
1. Every landlord shall notify each of the landlord's tenants upon the event that the
rental property which is the subject of a lease has been determined to be located in a flood zone
or area. Each new tenant shall be notified prior to the time that occupancy of the rental unit is
assumed.

TRUTH-IN-RENTING ACT N.J.S.A. 46:8-43 through 50(state.nj.us)

Didn't know that the law protects renters, thank you for bringing it to my attention.  I've edited my post to remove the reference to renters.


10 West Parker Avenue is right across the street from Gleason's and about where the South Mountain Y is today.It  was Sillcocks-Miller from the early 1900's, a chemical plant. When I walked to Columbia High School I passed this plastic factory. The smell was terrible. The Rahway River was right there . In those days probably testing was ignored. Its

main office was there as was the plant. At one time it had about 75 employees. In researching this it looks like they may still be in business in Berkeley Heights. Just mentioning this because of its proximity to Gleason's and the Y.


BarneyGumble said:

One thing goes without saying,  This development will have zero impact (negative in fact) on school aged population and if you even ask a question like that, well, you’re probably a racist and a transphobe.


I hadn't thought about the schools. Thanks for the reminder.

Will the development impact the school aged population? If so, how?

And what da f..k is a transfobe.  Is it a club? Can I join?


Formerlyjerseyjack said:

BarneyGumble said:

One thing goes without saying,  This development will have zero impact (negative in fact) on school aged population and if you even ask a question like that, well, you’re probably a racist and a transphobe.

I hadn't thought about the schools. Thanks for the reminder.

Will the development impact the school aged population? If so, how?

And what da f..k is a transfobe.  Is it a club? Can I join?

If you question whether any new buildings will add to the school population, you will be mocked.


Just musing about this -- in connection to the Greenway supposedly being built along the Rahway, leading from SO into Maplewood.  What if the developer was required to build a breakwater along the river, with space for the pedestrian footpath/bike path on the side?  It would have to be a joint project with the town, as the people on the other side of the river would experience a heavy impact if their side isn't protected by a breakwater as well.  It would be a big project requiring careful design, but it might be advantageous to the town from more than one perspective.  


Elle_Cee said:

Just musing about this -- in connection to the Greenway supposedly being built along the Rahway, leading from SO into Maplewood.  What if the developer was required to build a breakwater along the river, with space for the pedestrian footpath/bike path on the side?  It would have to be a joint project with the town, as the people on the other side of the river would experience a heavy impact if their side isn't protected by a breakwater as well.  It would be a big project requiring careful design, but it might be advantageous to the town from more than one perspective.  

anything like that has to go through years and years of reviews by the state and federal government, which alone would cost millions by the time all of the engineers were paid and the environmental impact studies were done.  In fact the construction of river confinement walls has led to a great deal of the flooding issues down river.  If the river could overflow it's banks everywhere it would probably be better.


The proposed Greenway will be on the Chyzowych side of the river in that area.


What Greenway?  I don't think that has anything to do with the concept of wetlands, does it?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.