Bernardsville Residents Continue to Question School Athletic Fields

Editor's Note: The following is a letter from Jeanne and David DePodwin, who say a proposal to build athletic fields that would extend into trees behind their homes is "flawed."

To the Editor,

Over the last three months, the Board of Education’s desire to push-through the proposed tree cutting / “regrading” project of the BHS/Olcott pocket woodlands appears to have overshadowed their ability to perform the due diligence required of a project of this scope.

To date, as taxpayers and property owners, we believe we have not been well-served by our Borough Council, our Board of Education nor the Board of Education’s (BOE) engineering consultants, T&M Associates. Despite repeated attempts by the public to insure thoroughness and transparency, serious questions still remain.  

1. How could our Borough Council approve a tree waiver to any applicant, allowing the cutting of hundreds of trees, without a clear understanding of all the environmental ramifications of their decision, including drainage and flooding issues?

2. Why is it that individual property owners need a tree permit to cut down a small number of trees, yet the BOE is virtually absolved from meeting any of the shade tree ordinance requirements?  In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, why is our town supporting cutting more trees?

3. Almost six years ago, on September 12, 2007 The Bernardsville News wrote “…the shortage of playing fields available in the borough and regional district goes beyond Olcott Field. A comprehensive assessment of all recreational needs is long overdue.”  Isn’t it time for our community, once and for all, to demand an independent and objective field utilization study with input from all stakeholders, culminating in a five to ten year strategic plan?

The Bernardsville News went on to say “our general assessment is that this issue epitomizes what's so often gone wrong in this community in recent years: A lack of leadership and a general inability of strong-minded individuals to work towards a compromise.”  Sound eerily familiar?

4. Why is the BOE trying to push through a plan, at significant expense to taxpayers, that does not fully address nor remedy ongoing lower field drainage issues and further degrades the existing baseball outfields by increased utilization?

Furthermore, why charge taxpayers for a new field with an east-west orientation when multiple experts recommend a north-south orientation?

5. Why has the BOE allowed the selling of a plan to the public that is poorly communicated and misleading?  Is it an attempt to meet a broader agenda for a future, multi-million dollar, field turf stadium referendum on the BHS lower field? The BOE’s consultant submitted a proposal on both 2/10/2012 and 2/7/2013 entitled “BHS Lower Field-Phase 1 Improvements.”

6. Why has the documented stream been omitted from all submissions by the BOE’s consultant, despite the fact that the Bernardsville’s own 2009 “Watershed Analysis” referred to this feature as a stream?  The BOE’s consultant refers to the onsite tributary to Penn’s Brook as a “man-made ditch.” This classification is inaccurate based on observations, historical maps and the 1976 Soil Survey for Somerset County.  Streams are state regulated and require a riparian buffer.

7. Why did the BOE’s consultant charge the BOE a fee to review the “Watershed Analysis” then choose to omit the stream from their Flood Hazard Area Applicability Determination? Perhaps the “Watershed Analysis” stream classification did not suit their objectives?!

 8. Whose agenda is being met and why are taxpayers being told the disturbance area is 1.1 acres when in fact it is double in size (2.12 acres), as indicated on the County Soil Application?  Since 80% of the site would be disturbed, this misrepresentation demands further clarification.

9. Why did the BOE’s consultants choose to ignore historical presence of wetlands? There is the presence of numerous physical indicators of freshwater wetlands on the BHS/Olcott pocket woodlands project site as documented by: 2012 NJDEP online interactive mapping, 1976 Soil Survey for Somerset County, 2010 Environmental Resources Inventory, and 2002 Open Space and Recreation Plan.

10. Why did the BOE’s consultants conduct only two soil borings for their NJDEP Letter of Interpretation (LOI) application on the 2.61 acre site, neither of which was near the onsite stream?  The very limited sampling of the soil is incomplete and insufficient to conclude that there are no wetlands on the site. Therefore, the BOE’s LOI application is incomplete.

11. What will be the additional cost to taxpayers since the BOE’s consultants had to re-notify property owners due to their own inaccuracies in the original LOI application?

12. Why did the BOE’s consultants choose to reinterpret stormwater runoff rates and volumes? Thonet Associates, an environmental engineering company, indicates that the proposed clearing, filling, and re-grading of the 2.61 acre site will result in runoff rates and volumes that do not meet NJ Stormwater Management Rules. Therefore, the BOE will need to construct stormwater management facilities such as a detention basin, which is not currently in their plans.

Our taxpayer dollars are being spent on a project that is ill-conceived, ill-advised and riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. We believe our elected officials owe us, their constituents, a review process and plan that is transparent, thorough and cost-effective.  It is time for answers!

Active Citizens for Responsible Sustainability, Inc. (ACRES) website www.acresinfo.org contains a complete chronology.

Protecting pocket woodlands…one acre at a time,

Jeanne and David DePodwin

Co-Founders

Active Citizens for Responsible Sustainability, Inc. (ACRES)

Bernardsville, NJ