Attacks arent personal

Perhaps the core of the story recounted in "Personal attack makes developer reconsider" has been lost?

The issue surrounding Mr. Frank Haimbachs pending application is not whether he is wealthy or a member of the Board of Adjustment; it is whether anyone can guarantee that the plan is safe? The other question that lingers is whether this is another "Watchung/Marlboro Inn" development, albeit on a smaller scale?

As a member of the board, could he honestly be shocked by the frustration of his "neighbors" who knew nothing about his plans? This is far from a story about mean neighbors not wanting folks to retire comfortably. That is indeed a laughable angle.

Our friendly (really) neighborhood is unique. While worthy of a fight on the sustainable development issue alone, serious safety concerns attach specifically and uniquely to the parcel of land at issue, which has no direct public access. These concerns are heightened by the sheer size of the 4,500-square-foot home to be built on a wooded lot that slopes down to a creek and is home to owls, hawks and other wildlife.

Can anyone explain the effectively three business days notice of the hearing right before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend? Or why families that live literally 6 feet from the proposed house apparently knew nothing of it?

If the board deems that the variances are warranted and substantially outweigh any public and environmental detriment, and that is clearly its right, then let this serve as a public record that we will hold it responsible should a fire break out, our homes or families be harmed, and the green space that Montclair has committed to preserving via "Certified Sustainable Jersey" is lost due to overdevelopment.

Thank you for airing both sides publicly.

Anne Caldas

Montclair

Originally posted here:
Letter to the Editor: Attacks on developer aren't personal, they're about safety