Letters to the editor

For the week of January 31

By:
Committee owes

explanation on report
To the editor:
   Considering the political tensions that abound in Millstone, when the Millstone Township Committee announced it was having not only the Monmouth County prosecutor’s office look into allegations made by a resident against then-Committeeman Bill Kastning (in September 2000), but also hiring an independant investigator to look into the same allegations at a cost of approximately $7,000, one had to wonder if the committee’s decision was prudent, or motivated by other reasons.
   In January 2001, the prosecutor’s office reported it found no evidence of any wrongdoing, case closed. What is difficult to believe is that Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer, the independent investigators, paid for by our tax dollars have been, to date, unable to submit their report. We were told initially by Mayor Maltz that the report would be completed in August 2001, then December 2001, then the middle of January. At the Jan. 16 committee meeting, we were told the report, already delayed three times, is to be concluded by the end of January.
   Let’s hope that it is, and along with the results, an explanation for the delays from the Township Committee, who are responsible for hiring a firm unable to complete its work in a timely manner, is also due the residents of Millstone, who are the ones footing the bill.
Joann Kelty
Millstone
Web site fell short

of full potential
To the editor:
   Sir Walter Scott wrote, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" I find the quote rather descriptive about Millstone Township’s Web site.
   At last week’s Township Committee meeting, some residents expressed concerns about the accuracy of the township Web site. Committeeman Pfefferkorn, who recently took responsibility for the Web site from Committeeman Wingerter, concurred. He indicated that there were significant problems and he is taking the appropriate steps to rectify this indefensible situation as part of his promise for open government.
   As the initiator of the idea that Millstone Township should have a Web site when I ran unsuccessfully a few years back, I was happy when Mr. Wingerter latched on to my idea and started the site. I’ve watched with special interest as the site was initiated and transformed over the years to what it has become.
   Unfortunately, the Web site fell far short of its full potential. Some of the blame lies with the lack of skill or carelessness by those responsible for maintaining the Web site. However, there is a more disturbing side that I’ve observed and experienced firsthand: the mindful and calculated omissions that display a total disregard for the dissemination of accurate and timely public information. This is inexcusable! Given my genuine interest in conveying accurate information through the Web site (my brainchild) and that I was a committeeman with firsthand knowledge, I knew what was genuine and what was not. I spent countless hours while in office reviewing the site’s accuracy and working with township personnel and volunteers to identify errors and misinformation, only to observe that not one iota of my corrective input was ever addressed. I can only assume that someone either didn’t care or had ulterior motives. Whatever the reason, neither is a good one.
   Mr. Wingerter had responsibility for the Web site’s condition and should be held accountable. He denies the assertions and pointed to the fact that Millstone Township won a League of Municipalities Award for its Web site. I claim the recognition was ill-deserved due to the fact that much of the Web site information was inaccurate, incomplete and out of date — something the league personnel were unable to evaluate, but had they known I’m sure their award would have gone elsewhere. In my opinion, too much of the Web site is "all sizzle with little or no steak." I do not blame the township employees or volunteers for the Web site’s problems. They obviously took direction well as illustrated by completing those tasks Mr. Wingerter wanted done, whereas requests from elsewhere were left undone.
   As author Paul Eldridge, once said, "In the spider web of facts, many a truth is strangled." So it was with the Millstone Township Web site of the past. I am sure that Mr. Pfefferkorn will undertake the necessary corrective action, but it may take some time for the inexcusable to be undone.
Bill Kastning
Millstone
Committeemen are

not telling full truth
To the editor:
   If Dave Fried and Doug Tindall spent as much time addressing issues in Washington Township as they do defending their inactivities, maybe the reason for my letter would not have been necessary. Mr. Tindall says I write with the pen of ignorance, but both he and Mr. Fried write with the pen of deception. In that respect, they make a perfect team.
   Residents of Washington Township should know that it isn’t necessarily what Fried and Tindall say that is noteworthy, but rather it is what they don’t state that is most telling. Doug Tindall talks about "fully" funding the indoor batting facility, as if I had no role whatsoever in its creation. Those who know the real story, know better. But the real truth is that a resolution authorizing construction of this facility was approved in December 1999 with me in office and voting in the affirmative. That fact is irrefutable, and a trip to the municipal clerk’s office will prove it. That is unless Doug had those resolutions destroyed because it might show someone other than he and Mr. Fried in a favorable light.
   And if Mr. Tindall read carefully, he would have seen that I was not taking sole credit for the Northeast Business Park. Rather I was making the point that Town Center will not evolve on its own, but rather its development as a commercial center requires due diligence by the Township Committee. In fact Doug proves my point by stating that the Northeast Business Park ordinance was adopted under HIS leadership (notice a theme here) in 1993. Then why was it Doug that no construction occurred in the park until several years later!?
   Mr. Land Preservation also refuses to discuss his role in a lawsuit with a developer to sue West Windsor for greater housing density on property he owned. Also, Tindall makes up an outright fabrication when he states that I never attended a Planning Board meeting. Since there are no records of who simply attends these meeting, how would we know? But to refresh his faulty memory, I was in attendance at many separate meetings of the Planning Board before and during my term in office. I supported my fellow citizens when the Sikh Association application was discussed. I was there during the Town Center debate, and regularly attended when the township’s capital budget was before the board. In fact one year we had funds in the capital budget for an indoor batting facility, but apparently we did not "fully" fund it.
   Isn’t it ironic that Tindall in his 1999 campaign piece writes, "almost one new home is added to our town daily." He wrote that having just served on the Planning Board for a number of years, and apparently assumed no responsibility for this overdevelopment. Now as a member of the Township Committee, he praises the work of the Planning Board. Who do we believe? Committeeman Doug, or candidate Doug. And by including that comment in your campaign piece, weren’t you criticizing the volunteers in town?
   I also find it peculiar that neither Mr. Fried nor Mr. Tindall address the expansion to the Senior Center. Apparently personal attacks on me are more important than addressing the space problem over there. Dave, you should be ashamed of yourself for bringing up the Municipal Utility Authority appointment. The orchestrated removal, of which I am sure you were party to, was caused by the board changing meeting dates to accommodate Nancy Tindall’s and Connie Carey’s schedule. Unfortunately, I had conflicts including Little League games and other matters. You see no one would change the meeting dates for me. I guess my next step should be to review the MUA meeting minutes to see just how differently I was treated than the other members, thus causing me to be "punished" for supporting Mark Tobias last year.
   Dave, in the future, keep your personal advise to yourself, it is neither warranted nor necessary. And Doug, I have copies of your campaign pieces from 1999, I’m interested to see how well you did. Mine may be the pen of ignorance, only time will tell. Fried and Tindall write with the pen of deception. I have known ignorant men to become educated, I haven’t found that deceptive people become honest.
Curt Macysyn
Washington
Mr. Macysyn is a former member of the Washington Township Committee.
Proposed zoning change

is to whose benefit?
To the editor:
   An application was denied in the spring of 2001 for a commercial soccer academy in a residential zone in Washington Township. The zoning board denial noted that the application "does not promote the general welfare and is not particularly suited to the location for which it is sought" and "that the proposed facility serves no special needs to the community." As stated by the applicant, the facility was not intended for the general public in Washington, but rather to draw people from 30 to 40 miles away.
   The applicants for the proposed facility have taken a challenge to that decision to court. Before the matter is scheduled for oral arguments with a judge, Washington has started procedures to consider changing the ordinance to permit commercial recreation in the residential zone. The proposed ordinance change euphemistically refers to commercial recreation as "public recreation area shall include privately owned athletic fields."
   The proposed change cannot apply to the original site alone or it would be challenged as spot zoning, which is illegal. The proposed change is therefore being designated for the entire rural residential zone in the township.
   The zoning board noted in its decision that there was testimony that "Washington Township permits commercial recreation in the PCD (Planned Commercial Development ) zone, which contains several hundreds of acres of undeveloped land and that the Applicant has not even addressed the question of whether he might establish his facility in the PCD zone. Therefore, he cannot claim that the proposed site (the site on Potts Road), which prohibits his proposed use, is particularly suited to that use."
   The issue of a suitable location in the township for indoor or outdoor commercial recreation use is best answered by looking at the development regulations and the zoning map. The ordinance for Planned Commercial Development zone lists under principal permitted uses — public purpose recreation use and health clubs and racquet clubs.
   The development standards stipulates that "the maximum limitation on Floor Area Ratio and Maximum Improvement Coverage set forth in the regulations for the Planned Commercial Development Option may be increased in accordance with the Preservation Ordinance Section of the Land Use Development Ordinance."
   Obviously a commercial zone designation with a permitted use of indoor recreation and creating a bonus density for preserving outdoor recreation would provide an appropriate location in terms of building size and scale. The applicant’s original plan for a 24,900-square-foot building set in an area of other similar buildings and parking for 203 vehicles in a commerce park, where shared parking facilities would offset weekend peak parking demands, would provide an ideal environment.
   One more benefit of locating an indoor soccer facility in a PCD zone is that it allows a maximum building height of three stories or 45 feet. The height is very important in indoor soccer as most indoor rules call for a stoppage of play and a restart each time the ball hits an object above the playing field such as a light or the ceiling. This limitation would preclude competitive play in a practice or game.
   The building, originally proposed, was never described, nor were architectural drawings provided, (an ordinance requirement). This is critical for the review of a commercial application and particularly in this application since the business plan submitted to the zoning board includes a notation under the Timeline of Events Phase 2 for building an inflatable structure.
   On the issue of lights, the applicant started out by stating that there would be portable gasoline generator driven lights and then taking the lights out when the discussion turned to lighting but stated that play will extend to 9:30 at night (well after sunset). The applicant engineer’s last response to lighting was that "we are proposing no lights in the field at this time." The only type of portable generator driven lights that I am familiar with are the floodlights that are used to pave highways with at night.
   On the issue of traffic, the initial application has a parking lot for 203 vehicles. The business plan calls for four sessions of summer camp. This alone without the additional sessions, tournaments, and rentals noted in the business plan, would generate more than 800 vehicle trips. If some of the drivers did not stay on site, but ran errands during the session, the number of trips could increase by 50 percent or more.
   The primary access to the site is Potts Road — a narrow poorly maintained road. The road narrows to a width of 13.5 feet at a rest point where visibility of oncoming traffic is limited. The width of a single lane of road is 12 feet. The condition of the 4,458 feet of road is very poor with rutting, numerous potholes, and widespread cracking of the pavement due to inadequate drainage, a poor sub-base and a lack of an adequate pavement thickness. The deterioration of the road has progressed to a point where the only suitable repair is a complete reconstruction of the entire length of the road with the exception of 650 feet, which was reconstructed some six years ago.
   The Washington Township Land Development Ordinance calls for a minimum width of 30 pavement or 15 feet for the Washington Township side. The equivalent price of this work or the road, minus the 650 feet already done, would be $300,488 based on the 1996 contract amount. The applicant’s portion for any pavement and drainage improvements was stated as $17,470. That will leave the remaining portion up to Washington. The reference to the commercial taxes that the facility would pay is interesting in that it would consist of a grass field and a brick rest room.
Jack Menchin
Robbinsville
Residential zones

not for business
To the editor:
   After reading the article "Washington mulls zoning change" I find myself very disappointed with Mayor Fried that he asked the township planning committee to consider recreational facilities. While this issue may need addressing, would it not make sense to address these needs within the PCD (commercial) zones? While Washington Township does desire the tax ratable commercial facilities create, need this be at the expense of RR zones? Does what little additional tax revenue that would be generated by fields justify the changing of the RR zone? Need a commercial enterprise only file a lawsuit when denied a variance to get Washington Township to make changes to fit their needs?
   The township may indeed place certain restrictions on these commercial facilities but that can easily be circumvented by applying for a variance. The original application to the township for the Mid-Atlantic Soccer Academy included a 24,900 square foot building, a parking lot for 203 cars, and lights for the fields. Although the application was later amended, it does not take a rocket scientist to see where their intentions lie. Do these commercial facilities belong in the residential zone? I think not!
Doreen Nowicki
Robbinsville