I haven't been on this site in months and I am completely floored by what I am reading regarding the fire house. I attended the committee meetings where the plans were discussed. I distinctly remember seeing members of the fire department in attendance and showing their support for approving the development plan.
I recall Joe Cortright getting up and speaking about how this would enable the fire house to be relocated out of a flood zone. The supporters of the plan - including those on the township committee - were clearly pitching the new fire house as one of the benefits of the plan. I even remember Mayor Francioli stating that this would save the town from having the expense of building the fire house on its own.
Tom, the fact that this is not reflected in the contract between the town and the developer does negate the fact that members of the committee used this as one of the reasons to approve the plan. Actually, it means that the committe is either totally incompetent because they didn't ensure there was language in the contract, OR, they purposely lied about it. I was ultimately in favor of this development - and now that construction has begun, I am even more supportive of it. But this is completely unacceptable and someone needs to be held accountable for it
I haven't been on this site in months and I am completely floored by what I am reading regarding the fire house. I attended the committee meetings where the plans were discussed. I distinctly remember seeing members of the fire department in attendance and showing their support for approving the development plan.
I recall Joe Cortright getting up and speaking about how this would enable the fire house to be relocated out of a flood zone. The supporters of the plan - including those on the township committee - were clearly pitching the new fire house as one of the benefits of the plan. I even remember Mayor Francioli stating that this would save the town from having the expense of building the fire house on its own.
Tom, the fact that this is not reflected in the contract between the town and the developer does negate the fact that members of the committee used this as one of the reasons to approve the plan. Actually, it means that the committe is either totally incompetent because they didn't ensure there was language in the contract, OR, they purposely lied about it. I was ultimately in favor of this development - and now that construction has begun, I am even more supportive of it. But this is completely unacceptable and someone needs to be held accountable for it
I knew I wasn't dreaming. On this very site there is a post by Mayor Fariello dated Jan 25, 2009 in which he details the changes to the ordinance, including the following statement, "The ordinance now provides for enough extra development yield to help provide the incentive and cost to build a new firehouse for the Whippany Fire Company." That is pretty unambiguous language. I am certain there were other messages and letters from then Mayor Francioli advocating for this development, in part, because it would provide a new home for the fire department. Again, this is not acceptable.
The fire company has been looking to relocate for years in a way that would minimize the impact on the taxpayers.They actually wanted to purchase the property from the directly from the owners years before Whippany Village was even being discussed.They didn’t because they couldn’t afford it.
The final ordinance which allowed the developer to proceed with the Whippany Village project was approved under a Township Committee that was controlled by then Mayor Fariello, Deputy Mayor Iradi, and Committeeman Coppola.Committeeman Scheliefer had recused himself since he was on the fire department.There were many delays but Mayor Fariello (using his words) “improved the ordinance” and it was finally passed.The details of that ordinance represent the legal obligations of the Developer and there is no land swap or building.The Developer never offered to provide anything more than a Butler building (sheet metal construction).I don’t believe anyone was lying to the public nor do I think anyone intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Not being a supporter of Fariello, it would be easy for me to make that allegation based on the outcome, but I’m not going down that road.
What exists at the moment is the willingness of the developer to swap the property where the present fire house is located with a parcel that is just north of the CVS building that is under construction.That is still a viable option.The developer has prepared the site assuming this will happen and in doing so has already spent money on the site in the form of drainage, utility services, curbing and access from Troy Hills Road, etc.
What is most disturbing to me is that the very same people that previously made the claim that they improved the ordinance are now trying to distance themselves for the actual decision.Also, the perception on the part of the very same people that you can make unreasonable and unrealistic demands on developers to somehow coerce them into doing things that are not cost effective, to me represents a naïve understanding of basic negotiations. How long do you think it would take the developer to recoup a 3-4 million dollars outlay without any income to offset it?
This naïve approach is precisely the tact that was used time and again by those who say that they are for “reasonable development” when in fact their actions prove otherwise. It is also the same behavior of the “no development crowd” that has cause our commercial tax base to stagnate over the years.
So if you are looking for accountability I would start with those that were in control of the committee at the time, Fariello, Iradi & Coppola.
Lenny gauged the amount of profit being enough to build a firehouse based [on] what experience?
By the time he was done with mulch beds and setbacks, the builder had a far smaller footprint to work with. How do you reduce the size of a commercial site and increase it's profitability? Maybe there's some Obama math at play here. By reducing the number of the apartments the developer could build, those in control eliminated any excess profits that may have gone to the fire company.
By Lenny dragging his feet and tweaking HIS ordinance, the builder now has an economic down turn and a much reduced ability to borrow money to deal to deal with. Hopefully the bad penny will not return.
Best Kept Secret. If what you say is accurate, this is the best kept “secret in town”. The public and the Planning Board were given the impression that that a firehouse was to be built by the developer. It was like a carrot on a string. Had the Commissioners made this information public, the outcome might have been quite different! Was everyone duped, even the Township Committee?
I agree - it does seem like a contradiction given all the press over many-many months, but I stand by what I wrote - show us the portion of the builders agreement that legally obligates the developer to build a firehouse. In fact, I'm not even convinced at this point that they are obligated to swap the properties.
Schliefer's comments confirm this. His comments are also accurate when he says "others" are trying to to create the impression that the matter was mis-handled by the two people, Francioli & Schleifer, that are now running for re-election.
As I wrote, Fariello was the mayor at the time and in a position to reject this plan without a legally binding contract; one in which the developer would have to build a Firehouse to the standards set forth by Hanover Township. Fariello admits to drafting a compromise and being uncomfortable about, but nevertheless going forward. His judgment was probably compromised because he was up for re-election and was under a lot of pressure with this issue in the news just about every week.
His question: "Why was the township pressured into making so many concessions for Whippany Village if all the fire company was getting in return was nothing but a land swap?" is a good one.
Instead of trying to create the impression that others are responsible for misleading the public, Fariello really needs to ask himself the question; why he was duped?
Are you saying that the construction of the firehouse was agreed to when Francioli was the Mayor but removed when Fariello became the Mayor? Or are you saying that it was never part of the deal and therefore does not appear in the contract?
I don’t want to read into what Fariello meant in his January 2009 statement, although that statement is hard to misinterpret. At one point the developer wanted to take possession of the cell tower that was owned (and still is) owned by the Fire Company. The income stream from that tower was equivalent to X dollars which translated into the value the fire company would have received from the developer for the tower. Again, the amount would have been sufficient to construct a Butler building (sheet metal) but considerably less than the amount required to construct a brick-n-mortar structure.
The fire company decided that they wanted to keep the tower for its income stream which was sure going to increase over the year and therefore become more valuable. This was a good decision on their part and represented one that was in the best interest of the taxpayers. It would help in the eventual financing of the structure they wanted.
Fariello would have been correct about the construction of a building, but it would have been the Butler type building and probably one that would not have been permitted in the Township. Again none of this is in writing, in the form of a binding contract, and any variance that was granted was not contingent on any of these “goodwill” considerations.
So my point is still the fact that Fariello, Copolla, & Iradi are misleading the public by insisting on the position that all along, the Developer was going to pay for a new building of design that would have been acceptable to Hanover – That was never the case. Furthermore if they want to take that position, which is a purely political one in my view, they have to explain why they didn’t make it part of a binding contract between the developer and Hanover Township – they were in control weren’t they?
The fire company will be presenting the fact and figures along with their plans for a new firehouse and this will be done in the public forum through open public meetings. They want to make sure that they have all the facts, figures, timelines, and site design references completed before doing this so that the public finally gets the straight story – not one that is being politicized by certain elected government officials.
Fariello never wanted the Whippany Village to materialized and only put his “blessing” on it as a result of political pressure during an election year. He had control of the committee and failed not only to stop the Whippany Village development, but also lost his bid for re-election to a large degree over the way he handled the ordinance. He has not forgotten that and it is my prediction that, if the rumors of his reemergence back onto the political stage as an independent candidate for Township Committee / 2010 are correct, he will once again try to make this into a political football which could very well result in delays in the construction of the firehouse.
Perhaps this is a completely naive question but do not understand why a town the size of Hanover requires two fire departments? Is there really a need we have only one Police department.
Kenneth Gaby-Biegel
Cedar Knolls
(06/21/10 4:21pm) REPLY
