Rec advisory committee weighs in on park plan

The Recreation Advisory Committee has indicated support for a revised plan for Husky Brook Park despite the Borough Council's opposition.

"I'd rather not see it sit there, and drive past it and have weeds and trees, and still have to go in and maintain it and mow it," Recreation Advisory Committee Chairwoman Annmarie Bell said at the committee's Nov. 13 meeting.

The project plan, which is expected to be heard again during an upcoming Borough Council meeting, was initially rejected Nov. 4 by an informal 4-to-2 vote along party lines. The decision was made after Mayor Gerald Tarantolo, who has been pushing for the park plan, called for a vote on the revised plan.

Several council members cited the fact that a proposed multipurpose field at the park was to be constructed in an east-west orientation rather than the optimal northsouth orientation as their reason for rejecting the park plan.

The plan was then presented to the recreation committee during its Nov. 13 meeting at the request of several committee members who felt that the council should have allowed the committee to review the new plan before taking a vote on it.

Although the recreation committee does not have voting power, the council has looked to it for advice on the park project multiple times since the debate began.

Edward Broberg, an engineer with T&M Associates, the borough's former engineering firm, presented the plan to the council during its Nov. 4 meeting and to the committee during the Nov. 13 meeting.

"The big question that was raised … was the field has an east-west orientation and what does that mean," Broberg said during the Nov. 13 meeting.

"The optimum orientation for most playing fields, including tennis courts, is in a north-south, north-east, south-west direction," Broberg said. "This is almost due east-west so it's not an optimum orientation."

Yet, Broberg said, several fields in Eatontown and other towns have been developed with east-west orientations.

"I guess what I am telling you is, this is not optimum, but it's not uncommon and it certainly is playable," Broberg said. "Other than that, everything else is essentially the same. The layout is different."

In addition to the orientation of the multipurpose field, several council members and the recreation committee took issue with previous plans for the park that included a smaller field than originally envisioned. Previous plans for the park called for the field to measure 190 by 330 feet. A revised version saw the field size shrink in length and width by 10 feet. The revision was developed following the discovery of a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) violation at the site that required the park to be reduced in size. The violation in question had to do with a misplaced wetlands boundary, which was developed under the original plans for the park.

Under state law, a wetlands boundary has to be recognized by the DEP through the issuance of permits. Prior to receiving the boundary permits from the DEP, T&M Associates began work on the park. Once the misplaced boundary was discovered, the park project was put on indefinite hold.

According to Broberg, subsequent discussions between T&M Associates and the DEP resulted in the agency granting the borough the ability to construct the field at the size originally proposed.

It was that revelation coupled with the fact that T&M Associates had agreed to redesign the park project at its own cost that led several members of the recreation committee to say they would like to see the park project move forward.

"So you are going to re-engineer it at your cost, not our cost?" recreation committee member Linda Thatcher asked Broberg during the Nov. 14 meeting. "Then why, can you answer me because I don't seem to know, why at council was it voted down before you even engineered it? Does anyone know?"

Like Thatcher, Bell also saw the fact that the field would be developed to its originally proposed size as a reason to move forward with the project.

"My personal opinion is as long as we have the 330 by 190 [feet], I don't have a problem with this concept," Bell said.

According to Broberg, if the council chooses to formally ratify its vote to reject the park plan, the borough would have to officially terminate its contract with the contractor it appointed for the project.

"If we stop now and do nothing, there may not be any more cost," Broberg said. "But that doesn't mean that there weren't any costs incurred already.

"We paid the contractor $70,000. I think my firm probably has been paid $100,000 for design and construction," he said. "So there may be $170,000 to $200,000 already into this, not to mention that you bought the land, which is a cost we haven't talked about. But the land is the land that stays there."

Should the council choose to move forward with the project based on the recreation committee's advice, Broberg said he would seek the proper permits and begin reengineering the plan, with construction expected to begin by winter 2010.

Broberg said he would work to ensure that the contractor for the project would hold to the original prices.

"Our objective would be to have this contractor complete this park at this layout for the same price that he has already on the contract," Broberg said.

"There is around a $780,000 to $790,000 construction contract that is in effect and about 10 percent of it has been paid," Broberg said. "We are hoping that this can be completed at the same price, where there would be no increase in cost to the borough for construction.

"But I won't know that and I won't do that until I know the park is going to go ahead," he said. "There is a lot of work involved in re-engineering this and making sure that we get the original price."

While several members of the recreation committee voiced their approval of the park, a few members questioned the plan.

Vice Chairman Kevin Gonzalez, who was elected to the council Nov. 3, expressed his concern over the proximity of the proposed field to Route 36 and the park's parking lot.

Gonzalez said his concerns had to do with the possibility of having a lacrosse game so close to the parking lot, which is some 15 to 20 feet away from the field, as well as the fear that the ball could get away from the players and reach Route 36.

Yet, according to Broberg, a 3- to 4-foothigh berm and a distance of roughly 130 feet separate the field and Route 36.

Contact Daniel Howley at dhowley@

gmnews.com.