TINTON FALLS — Advocates for a second community garden in the borough will have to be satisfied with just one garden, following a lengthy and divisive meeting last week.
Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera announced that there are no plans to pursue a second garden, following the Borough Council Nov. 9 meeting, which featured dueling presentations and an hour-plus public hearing that virtually split the room.
The additional garden was proposed by the Community Garden Committee, which last year established a garden at the Crawford House and is seeking another at Riverdale Avenue West, drawing criticism from many neighbors surrounding the park.
Following the contentious public hearing, Borough Attorney Brian Nelson explained that due to certain requirements relating to the park’s funding, the borough would have to gain approval from the state for the new garden.
Nelson read from the borough’s agreement with the state Green Acres Program for the Riverdale Avenue West passive park.
“Generally speaking, Green Acres may allow for a site for active uses such as a community garden; however, in this particular site the agreement that the borough entered with Green Acres has two provisions,” he said. “One that specifies ‘future use for environmental education with limited active recreation along the roadside.’
“Environmental incentive grants are limited to projects which shall remain in a natural state. Future development is prohibited unless specifically approved by the state prior to the disturbance of the environment.’ ”
Last year a community group began the borough’s first garden at the historic Crawford House located on Tinton Avenue.
Earlier this fall, resident Denise Catalano made a public presentation on a proposal for a second garden to be developed at the park, located on 400 Riverdale Ave.
Skudera was critical of the proposal in an interview Nov. 10, saying that the Community Garden Committee members did not go through the correct channels to present their idea.
“Nothing was directed toward the administration until the presentation,” he said. “No one in the administration ever saw this presentation, and then things got out of hand.
“We didn’t know until that night; we found out last minute. Everyone was up in arms, but it really was the wrong way to do it.”
Skudera said following the original presentation on Sept. 7, he told Nelson to research the feasibility of the garden since the park was built with Green Acres funding and he said the administration did not know about the stipulations on the development of the park until just before the Nov. 9 meeting.
During her presentation, Catalano said she had endorsements from the Open Space Committee and Environmental Commission, which drew the ire of Skudera.
“When I find out various committees endorsed it without the administration knowing, that’s what gets me,” Skudera said. “This proposal came without any homework.
“I am not in favor of the community garden at this site, and I’m not really sure how this got endorsed by the Environmental Commission,” he added. “I’m not sure how the Open Space Committee endorsed this.”
Duane Morrill, council liaison to the Open Space Committee, defended the committee’s support of the garden.
“We do exactly what we are supposed to do; we recommend,” he said.
Morrill went on to say that the committee never promised any funding for the garden, only recommendations on where it could go.
Councilman Andrew Mayer, who regularly gives reports on the Environmental Commission, was also critical of Skudera for not being aware of the garden.
“These meetings were open to everybody,” he said. “I believe the Community Garden Subcommittee has open meetings.”
Skudera, who would have to allocate funds for any use on borough property, said he wants to take a look at how some of the borough’s committees are operating.
“Until I review this process, there will be no more talk about community gardens,” he said. “The one at the Crawford House, that’s fine, but until I can iron out this process on what is going on with these committees, this ends.”
Earlier in the meeting Catalano gave the presentation, explaining the need for the garden.
“The Crawford House plots are already sold out; we need more growing space,” she said. “We have more inquiries still coming in.
“We have had at least 20 residents who have requested a plot, including at least one family in the Riverdale area.”
She also said some of the produce from the garden will be used for charitable donations to local food banks.
She said she was in favor of using Riverdale Avenue West because it is already owned by the borough, already has a watering source and has additional parking that would be used.
After Catalano, a group of residents who call themselves “Let Us Grow In Smart Places,” made a presentation opposing the garden.
Carl Callender opposed locating the garden in a residential neighborhood.
“We are not a ‘not in my backyard’ group,” he said. “I think it would describe us more as a ‘not in any backyard’ group.
“A community garden belongs in the many places in Tinton Falls that don’t impact residential neighborhoods.”
Callender also said the garden would have negative impacts on the Riverdale neighborhood’s property value.
Nicole Klatsky, who is also part of the group, said she was worried about bringing strangers into the neighborhood.
“I don’t know who they are; I don’t know if any background checks have been done,” she said. “This is all run by volunteers; who is going to control it?”
Jody Callender closed out the opposition’s presentation by predicting additional impact to the neighborhood from the extra traffic the garden would produce.
She also said that she was in favor of a garden outside the neighborhood and would help find a more appropriate place.
“I do not want this to be adversarial. These are my neighbors, these are my friends,” she said.
Council President Gary Baldwin then opened the meeting to the public and attempted to alternate speakers opposing the garden with speakers in favor of it.
The speakers in opposition to the garden outnumbered those in favor.
Some of the reasons given by opponents included the garden’s attraction of animals and insects; traffic concerns; concerns that current uses of the park, such as golfing, would be eliminated; and aesthetics of the garden.
The speakers in favor of the new garden included gardeners from outside the borough, including Red Bank and Rumson.
Some of the reasons given in support of the proposal included: the garden would bring the community together; benefit local charities; and it would not result in much more traffic or animals at the site.
At times both sides booed and interrupted as proponents of the other side were speaking.
Councilman Mayer said it was unfortunate the meeting went the way it did.
“This is just an idea that germinated out of the Crawford House community garden, which is really a success,” he said. “I really hate to see the polarization that I’ve seen tonight.
“I don’t want to point fingers. I don’t think that’s what this should be about,” he added. “This is about doing something that will have a positive impact on our borough.”
To close out the discussion Councilwoman NancyAnn Fama requested that council members put on record their position on the garden.
Before voting on a resolution, Fama explained her own position.
“I think the idea is fantastic, but I would never support it in any residential area,” she said.
Fama, Baldwin, Mayer and Councilman Scott Larkin also voted to oppose the garden at the park.
Morrill abstained from the vote and explained his reasoning.
“I don’t understand why we are doing this if we don’t have to,” he said. “I support a community garden, but I don’t support it in this neighborhood.
“I’m going to abstain because it doesn’t matter,” he added. “We don’t have the choice.”
Contact Kenny Walter at