Oceanport plan for Ft. Monmouth land excludes train station
By Carol Gorga Williams of APP

COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU • March 10, 2008

OCEANPORT — The borough's plan for the 419 acres of Fort Monmouth property that lie within its boundaries will not include a provision for the relocation of the Little Silver train station as the key element for a transit village downtown.

Councilman Joseph Irace said Thursday's vote on the borough's vision for what should be done with the fort's property went on without the train station after planners evaluated the degree of community opposition to that aspect of the proposal at a meeting Tuesday at the Maple Place School.

Initially, the plan was to include two alternatives, one with the train station relocation and one with a jitney service that would take potential dwellers of a new borough transit village to the train station in nearby Little Silver.

Irace said the jitney alternative is now the only one included in the proposal that will be referred to the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Planning Authority which has control over the zoning of the land.

The authority's own proposal for the land, which includes acreage in Tinton Falls and Eatontown as well, should be released within the next several weeks, Mayor Michael J. Mahon has said.

The other key element of the borough's plan is the reduction in the number of homes, from a one-time high of 1,800 to a proposed high of 700, a number which planners and the mayor have acknowledged may be "on the fringes" of profitability for any potential developer.

But Irace disagrees with that characterization. He said the planners have assured officials the number is viable.
"This planner is paid to tell us the truth, not just what we want to hear," he said Thursday, according to a prepared copy of his remarks. "I want to maintain our small-town feel. For that, I am willing to go to the mat to protect Oceanport and our residents."

Irace said officials still are looking "outside the box" for ways to develop the Fort Monmouth land without residences, including the potential location of a thoroughbred training facility near Monmouth Park racetrack.

The fort is scheduled to close in 2011 and what to do with the land and facilities the army leaves behind is a central question in the communities that share boundaries with the federal facility.

In Oceanport, in addition to the homes, there is a proposal to relocate the municipal complex and build two new schools in the "400 Area" of the fort, which officials believe will comprise the heart of the community in several decades, and also to locate a resort hotel on Parker's Creek.

Because Oceanport does not have easy access to a regional highway system, planners believe commercial and retail development would be limited, instead maintaining the most viable development for the borough is residential.

Oceanport debates impacts of fort reuse plan

Mahon: Boro will keep focus on less housing, no train station

BY VINCENT TODARO Staff Writer

OCEANPORT - Shared services and the borough's future were debated at the March 20 Borough Councilmeeting the day after plans for the reuse of Fort Monmouth lands were revealed to the public.

The Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization and Planning Authority (FMERPA) introduced a preliminary master plan for the fort property that includes 419 acres within Oceanport on March 19.

Oceanport Mayor Michael Mahon confirmed that about 90 percent of the plan submitted by Oceanport and planners retained by the borough had been incorporated into FMERPA plans.

Councilman Joseph Irace said he was pleased about the reduction in housing from 1,800 to 700 units and the elimination of the controversial plan to relocate the Little Silver train station to Oceanport that was reflected in FMERPA's plan.

"[The 700 homes] represents a reduction of over 55 percent," Irace said. "In fact, the entire plan envisions less than 1,500 residences on the fort in its entirety. It is clear that FMERPA sees the need to replace jobs and industry and not burden the communities of Eatontown, Tinton Falls and Oceanport with massive housing developments. For this, FMERPA should be commended."

Irace went on to say at the meeting that, in spite of reports to the contrary, Oceanport had not agreed to any revenue sharing agreements between Oceanport, Tinton Falls and Eatontown.

The three Fort Monmouth host towns are being encouraged to look into sharing services and revenues on Fort Monmouth lands, which are not well served by current infrastructure.

"I am not in favor of sharing revenues with Eatontown or Tinton Falls," Irace said. "Last month, Mayor Mahon and I attended a meeting with Mayors [Gerald] Tarantolo [of Eatontown] and [Peter] MacLearie [of Tinton Falls] where we voiced our concerns regarding revenue sharing and shared services with Eatontown and Tinton Falls.

"Our communities are clearly unequal partners, with unequal demands for services by our populations," he said. "While I support the idea of shared services, I want to make sure that in any arrangement, Oceanport maintains the character of our small community."

Borough resident and former Economic Development Committee member Jay Coffey addressed this concern during the public portion of the meeting.

"I know you're against it," Coffey said, "but how are you going to defeat it? The bottom line is we don't have the ability to control the Legislature."

Read more......