...serving up your daily dish.
Bloomfield Development Halted
Forest triumphs over condomania? The story from EcoRealty...
The five acres of pristine "forest" along Liongate Drive off of Broad Street, which the landowners Tilter Realty (Patty Copek and her sister Marie Ruvo), through their developer, DeSimone, dreamed of turning into another chock-full instant neighborhood, received a reprieve from falling under the developer's earthmovers.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reviewed DeSimone's plans to
build 42 townhomes on a flood plain of Spring Brook and the Third River and denied him approval to build. We haven't received the formal letter detailing the reasons for the denial. We will pass it along when we get it.
May 8, 2006 in Controversy | Permalink
Denying the right to *build* based upon codes and ordinances (including environemental) is the proper use of zoning and environmental protection laws.
Posted by: Right of Center | May 8, 2006 12:59:56 PM
Good news for Bloomfield. We have enough development, and enough flooding.
Posted by: mauigirl52 | May 8, 2006 2:24:36 PM
Simeone should know better- his house is in that area - when hurricane Floyd struck - his basement was flooded at least 5 feet deep.
How do I know? He told me so - he was doing landscaping for us at the time.
That area floods and will flood more since there's development going on up stream near the 3rd river in Paterson.
Congratulations to the Third River Association!
here's an old article from the Barista that shows flooding in the area during hurricane Floyd
Posted by: Pat Gilleran | May 8, 2006 2:45:13 PM
I am so confused between the development plans, the actually plans, things being halted, etc.
Other then Willie's diner is anything new for Bloomfield center in the works? It’s obvious that no one bought Nicole’s Closet, but is there any word on what will occupy that space? I'd love to see the empty store fronts changed into busy businesses.
Posted by: hrhppg | May 8, 2006 3:07:29 PM
Posted by: lasermike026 | May 8, 2006 3:27:18 PM
Bravo is right - a bad idea whose time did not come. At this Thursday night's Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting (5/11) a new date will be set to continue hearing the application to build the 28-unit apartment house next to Brookdale School. No testimony will be heard at the 5/11 meeting -- only scheduling. I will let everyone know when the next special meeting is scheduled.
Posted by: Conan the Grammarian | May 8, 2006 3:34:48 PM
Can't blame you for being confused.
Bloomfield has an amazing amount of proposed condo developments.
The best map I've seen was Geoff Gove's and it doesn't list the 320 or so condos on the East Orange/Bloomfield border (700 or so divided between the two towns).
check it out from the Barista's archives
Proposed Bloomfield Condo Developments
Posted by: Pat Gilleran | May 8, 2006 3:35:07 PM
And for the second time today, AMEN! My first 'amen' went to the former residents of 4 Duryea for their pro-preservation letter. What a red letter day for preservation in the (ever decreasing) 'wilds' of Baristanet!
Posted by: fussyhostess | May 8, 2006 3:37:32 PM
No condom store for Bloomfield?
Posted by: kevin Lee Allen | May 8, 2006 6:02:17 PM
why would you like to open one?
Posted by: cheeze | May 8, 2006 7:19:37 PM
Just to clarify.
The developer of the 5 acre project turned down by the NJDEP was a John DeSimone who is based out of Boonton. The landscaper Simeone has nothing to do with it, except he leases the old building in a corner of the lot and may have to move whenever the landowners make a decision.
Posted by: goldfinch | May 8, 2006 8:04:57 PM
Geoff in his post on EcoRealty also wrote, "We do not know what the landowners will do now. It would, of course be great, if they would consider offering the property to the town."
Although I am generally opposed to the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment, in this case I think it would be entirely appropriate, so to preserve a parcel of natural woodland in a floodplain for the enjoyment, protection, and preservation of quality of life of the community. Such a taking I think would meet the standard of "public use" for which eminent domain was originally intended.
Finding the money for the township to purchase the parcel is another story, but would seem to be well worth it. Too bad Green Acres is tapped out.
Posted by: Gregasys | May 8, 2006 9:54:19 PM
Thanks for the correction. I obviously got the two of them mixed up.
Posted by: Pat Gilleran | May 8, 2006 10:35:22 PM
To all the people who oppose this sale, let me remind you that we live in America. My mother-in-law and her sister have every right to sell their property and benefit from it - that's the American way. Everyone knows that building on this property will not be an issue. You all need to deal with the fact that your property borders on property that can and should be developed. I've seen this town approve 5 houses where 2 should go and 2 houses where 1 should go so this is a no brainer. In the end the correct decision will be made to develop. And one last point to all of you who have personally attacked my Mother-in-law and her sister - get a REAL cause to fight for!! You should focus your time and energy on the homeless people wandering around Bloomfield Center.
Posted by: Mark Macaluso | May 12, 2006 11:51:37 PM
so since you've seen 5 houses go where 2 should- your mother-in-law and her sister should be allowed to develop this way.
the fact that this is a flood plain and the houses will flood means nothing to them.
GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY
in the end the DEP has spoken- and correctly!
Posted by: pissant | May 13, 2006 12:06:34 AM
What you all fail to understand it that PART of the property is in a 100 yr flood zone and the only time it has flooded since the 40's is during Floyd a storm during which many, many homes flooded that never have before and never may again.
If you consider the drainage and retention system that is being installed by the developer, any flooding issues will be alleviated.
This is classic NIMBY behavior and you are all entitled to your OPINIONS what you aren't entitled to is to slander & libel my mother and my aunt. For this we have mountains of physical evidence and when the time is right and the sale of the property, to whomever it may be sold to, is signed, sealed and delivered, my siblings and my cousins will make it our mission to get our mothers to proceed with these law suits.
So, to those of you who sent emails or distributed flyers with libelous material, you should be VERY nervous!
Posted by: maryanne macaluso | May 14, 2006 3:02:56 PM
What's libelous about reporting on the DEP's denial of approval? We may have a first here! Can't remember the last time any individual -- or a group of civic minded folks--has been threatened on a Barista thread.
Posted by: Woody | May 26, 2006 12:39:02 PM
isn't it against the law to threaten people, even on the internet.
Ms Macaluso - you and Mark (above) should check yourselves.
Obviously the DEP didn't think the drainage system that was going to be installed as "all that".
Posted by: pissant | May 27, 2006 8:36:17 AM
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's April 7 five page letter of denial sent to Desimone offers details for problems the DEP found with the project. To read the letter, go to www.geocities.com/thirdriverbank.
Posted by: goldfinch | May 27, 2006 11:33:10 AM