Oceanport debates impacts of fort reuse plan

Mahon: Boro will keep focus on less housing, no train station

BY VINCENT TODARO Staff Writer

OCEANPORT – Shared services and the borough’s future were debated at the March 20 Borough Councilmeeting the day after plans for the reuse of Fort Monmouth lands were revealed to the public.

The Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization and Planning Authority (FMERPA) introduced a preliminary master plan for the fort property that includes 419 acres within Oceanport onMarch 19.

Oceanport Mayor Michael Mahon confirmed that about 90 percent of the plan submitted by Oceanport and planners retained by the borough had been incorporated into FMERPA plans.

Councilman Joseph Irace said hewas pleased about the reduction in housing from 1,800 to 700 units and the elimination of the controversial plan to relocate the Little Silver train station to Oceanport that was reflected in FMERPA’s plan.

“[The 700 homes] represents a reduction of over 55 percent,” Irace said. “In fact, the entire plan envisions less than 1,500 residences on the fort in its entirety. It is clear that FMERPA sees the need to replace jobs and industry and not burden the communities of Eatontown, Tinton Falls and Oceanport with massive housing developments. For this, FMERPA should be commended.”

Irace went on to say at themeeting that, in spite of reports to the contrary,Oceanport had not agreed to any revenue sharing agreements between Oceanport, Tinton Falls and Eatontown.

The three Fort Monmouth host towns are being encouraged to look into sharing services and revenues on Fort Monmouth lands, which are not well served by current infrastructure.

“I am not in favor of sharing revenues with Eatontown or Tinton Falls,” Irace said. “Last month, Mayor Mahon and I attended a meeting with Mayors [Gerald] Tarantolo [of Eatontown] and [Peter] MacLearie [of Tinton Falls] where we voiced our concerns regarding revenue sharing and shared services with Eatontown and Tinton Falls.

“Our communities are clearly unequal partners, with unequal demands for services by our populations,” he said. “While I support the idea of shared services, I want to make sure that in any arrangement, Oceanport maintains the character of our small community.”

Borough resident and former Economic Development Committee member Jay Coffey addressed this concern during the public portion of the meeting.

“I know you’re against it,” Coffey said, “but howare you going to defeat it? The bottom line is we don’t have the ability to control the Legislature.”

Coffey said that the original plan for 1,800 housing units would have generated close to $6 million per year in revenues, while the potential surplus fromthe reduced plan was between $180,000 and $2 million.

“If we don’t have the money to be independent of these other municipalities, we’re not going to be independent of them,” Coffey said.

Irace disagreed. “EDAW [planners for FMERPA] and FMERPAsay the numberswork,” Irace said. “I believe that when all is said and done, Oceanport will remain independent and we are fighting to keep it that way, FMERPA hasn’t jammed anything down our throat yet, I don’t think they will…in the future.”

Coffey replied that Oceanport would have to deal with certain fiscal realities.

“You can’t ignore the fact that this is coming down the pipe,” Coffey said. “Eighteen hundred homes provide you with the fiscal wherewithal to withstand the state’s onslaught to force us into a cooperation agreement becausewe can stand on our own two feet.”

Mahon said that Coffey’s assessment was accurate.

“But where we disagree is that I don’t in my wildest imagination see where 1,800 homes fit on a land area that is

physically 1/6th the size of the

rest of our community,”

Mahon said.

Mahon said he had

found much of the Oceanport

community in support

of a plan with less housing

and without a train station.

“The pressure is intense, pressure from all corners to go along with this. But it is not what I feel is right for the future of Oceanport and so that’s where the struggle begins,” Mahon said.

Coffey said that profit would be a factor in the fate of Fort Monmouth land.

“The federal government owns that property and they are going to sell it for as much money as they can,” Coffey said.

Mahon said that the plan would change over time, but hoped that the smaller housing componentwould place the borough in a better bargaining position.

“This will evolve no matter what we start,” Mahon said. “And we may end up with those 1,800 homes, but it will be over my dead body.”

JohnM. Bonforte Sr., ofHorseneck Point Road, suggested that borough officials list the pros and cons of the various shared services in order to inform the electorate about what shared services mean.

Bonforte, who lead the opposition to the train station, was also in support of lower density housing in the fort re-use plan.

“High density is going to be a negative for us,” Bonforte said. “So you gowith as low a density as you can and you fight it all the way with the citizens of the town backing the council and backing each other.”

Councilman Jay Briscione said that while no one really wants 700 homes, there is another side to the argument.

“At least three people gotup lastnight and said they have petitioned FMERPA through [Notices of Interest] that they think that there should not only be more housing but that there should be at least 1,500 units of affordable housing on the base,” Briscione said.

He added that the current plan would place themunicipal complexes for the three FortMonmouth towns within shouting distance of one another.

“We’re going to have 200,000 square feet of municipal complexes within a three-mile radius which, to me, is absolutely ridiculous,” Briscione said.

Fort Monmouth is scheduled to close in September 2011, at which point planners anticipate 40 percent of the master plan to be realized within 10 years.

FMERPAwill give planning boards from each of the three municipalities an opportunity to comment on the plans during presentations to be held betweenApril 21 and 25.