Oceanport revises reuse vision for fort property
New plan calls for less housing, no train station
BY JENNA O'DONNELL Staff Writer
Oceanport has submitted a plan for reuse of Fort Monmouth land, calling for 600-800 units of housing, an additional borough school and eliminating a controversial proposal for a train station.

PHOTOS BY JENNA O'DONNELL Top to bottom: John P. Clarke, of planning firm Clarke Caton Hintz, explains the proposed Fort Monmouth Redevelopment Plan for Oceanport. At the third and final charette, John M Bonforte Sr. opposes the new train station planned for Horseneck Point Road.

Borough officials unanimously approved a revised plan to submit to the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Planning Authority (FMERPA) at the March 6 Borough Council meeting.

After hearing the public input from three charettes, culminating with the final presentation March 4 at Maple Place School, planners from Clarke Caton Hintz submitted a final plan to council to be approved at last Thursday's council meeting.

Three factors were altered from the original plan submitted for the borough's 419 acres within Fort Monmouth, including a 50- percent reduction of residential development on the Oceanport portion of fort property.

The revised plan also calls for a footprint for a second school on the borough's portion of the fort property and the removal of the train station proposed off Oceanport Avenue.

While most residents were in favor of less density in residential development in the fort plan, others were concerned with the economic basis for minimizing development.

Jay Coffey, a resident and formermember of the Economic Development Committee, asked what incentive FMERPA would have to turn down the extra money that a developer would offer for the right to developmore housing on the fort property.

"Why would a developer choose to develop at 700 [units] when he could develop at 1,400?" Coffey asked at the charette. "My concern is I spent 18 months on this Economic Development Committee and we came to an economic reality at one point. I just would like someone to tell me what the economic basis is for reducing the numbers."

A resident at the meeting responded that the quality of life in Oceanport was the basis.

Coffey was still skeptical about using a low, and what he said is an unrealistic, number and having FMERPA opt for a developer proposing higher density.

"You're going to see control over the quality of life from the federal government if you don't give them something that's economically feasible," Coffey said.

Another resident thought that Coffey might have been giving up unnecessarily, stating the quality of life in Oceanport had to be fought for.

Mayor Michael Mahon said that the chance of the borough's plan being approved by FMERPA is strong.

"We are in themiddle of a balancing act between trying to create economic value at one end of the spectrum, which the Department of Defense wants to recover through this property, and quality of life and consistency that Oceanport is known for, the character of this town and maintaining that," Mahon said. "And this gets us economically to the point where it's attractive but it doesn't get beyond the density where it will change the character of our community adversely."

Mahon added that he still felt that a higher number of housing units, around 800, was too much for Oceanport, saying that he would rather see the property developed with 300 units.

"But that's not reality," Mahon said. "I really believe that the decision to bring in somebody that had the technical expertise to guide Oceanport through this process and put the best possible scenario for the future of this community on the table, I think it was the right decision."

Under the previous administration, the plan for reuse of the fort property called for 1,800 homes.

The borough's planners were quick to remove a proposed train station from the Fort Monmouth redevelopment plan after overwhelmingly negative response from the community at the final charette March 4.

The idea for a relocated train station on FortMonmouth property, particularly unpopular with residents of Horseneck Point, was taken off the table two days later at the council meeting.

"Based on the presentation Tuesday night, their perception was that the public did not support a train station," said Mahon, who outlined the revisions to the plan.

"They have revised their plan as the only plan for us to consider tonight and that is with a jitney stop and open space where the parking structure had previously been."

The proposed plan includes a Village Center for the borough that includes about 600 to 700 condominiums, a new municipal complex and a jitney stop that takes the place of the former footprint for a train station that would have moved the existing Little Silver station 4,000 feet south to Horseneck Point.

The plan also calls for the reuse of existing structures such as the Patterson Army Health Clinic, the McAfee Center and the historic structures and open space of the parade ground. About 60-70 single-family town homes are proposed for space near the clinic.

"If [the train station] is feasible, there is a positive benefit that would come to this development," said John P. Clarke, of Clarke Caton Hintz, the design firmthat was retained by the borough as part of the design team for the project.

JohnM. Bonforte Sr., a resident of Horseneck Point, opposed the train station and was concerned by the infrastructure costs for the new roads and bridges that he felt would ultimately result from the move of the train station and become the burden of taxpayers.

"We're very concerned," Bonforte said. "We live here."

Clarke acknowledged that, while there were positives that could result from the move of the station, specifically the alleviation of the traffic situation in Little Silver, there were still many questions.

In light of questionable aspects of the train station move, Bonforte requested at the charette that Clarke and his associates remove the train station from the plan to be submitted to FMERPA.

"Let FMERPA deal with us as to whether they want to put it back in," Bonforte said. "Let it come back on itsmerits rather than as part of our plan."

At the council meeting two days later,Mahon said that as most of the comments had been in opposition to the train station, it would not be part of the plan submitted to FMERPA.

"The space is there if the future demand in this region needs it and it will be an issue for future councils to take up,"Mahon said. "At this point our plan supports the vision and the will of our residents."

Another aspect of the proposed plan includes footprints for two new schools, an idea that was questioned by residents concerned with taxes.

This addition marked a change from an earlier version of the plan that had only contained one school.

Mahon responded that adding schools and a municipal complex to the plan was more a way to reduce the housing component.

"The original plan called for one school," Mahon said. " It is unlikely that two schools will remain in the plan as it goes to FMERPA, but that's subject to modification along the road…What's key is that this space is reserved for the school.

"The addition of these public uses as reservations serve one purpose: to reduce the footprint that's available for residential or retail construction," Mahon said.

Councilman Jay Briscione said he understands the reasoning behind reducing the footprint, but urged council to consider that building the schools and municipal complex could lead to ramifications in other areas of the borough.

"There's a delicate balance here and one of the reasons that I think this is the direction to take is the issue of control over future development," Mahon responded. "Placing these uses within the Fort Monmouth development area where it's a legitimate use, it has a better than average chance of approval, it is in an area where our zoning control is limited and if we choose to make that transition and we have the ability to do so down the road, it leaves behind a property where we have total control and there's no higher power that can supercede our zoning or our local desires.

"So it's an issue of control and at the same time it's a look at what the community will need, the plan is drawn in a 10-year cycle and a 20-year cycle, and quite honestly we don't know where we'll be."

Mahon added that one of the schools in Oceanport was older and would need renovation or replacement down the road, which the plans for the fort property would allow the borough to be prepared for.

"This is just anticipating thosemoves and putting us in a position where we have control,"Mahon repeated. "That's the simple reason for doing that and hopefully it's just being prepared."

The three towns that encompass the 1,126 acres of Fort Monmouth each submitted reuse plans for their portion of the fort property to be considered by FMERPAin the overall plan for the site after the base closes.

Oceanport, Tinton Falls and Eatontown will see where their ideas fall in the larger plan when FMERPA and its planners, EDAW Inc., present The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for the Reuse of Fort Monmouth.

The public meeting will be at 6:30 p.m. on March 19 at Monmouth Regional High School, One Norman J. Field Way in Tinton Falls.