Dozzi92

Dozzi92 t1_j6kuyun wrote

So in your mind, is it just undevelopable land in perpetuity? Would you put it on the same level as John's Manville and American Cyanamid? You raised a point and I felt there needed to be some clarification, because it isn't so cut and dried.

So yeah, just in general, are you opposed to building on top of contaminated sites blanketly? And if that's the case it's obviously fine, I just like to know where someone is coming from when they say things.

1

Dozzi92 t1_j6kq0np wrote

Yeah, my understanding of the site (and I'm going back a number of years to the planning board meetings for the development) basically broke the site into two parts, one that acted as the landfill, and the other that was more open space where dumping occurred of mainly construction debris and whatnot.

I am hopeful that standards for developing on sites like this have improved since the early 2000s and 1990s. I say hopeful because I can't say 100% yes, because I don't know what the standards were back then, but for this site, with cutting it in half, and then remediation efforts on the residential portion, removing fill, adding screens, and capping entirely, outside of radioactive waste, exposure potential is practically zero.

And the areas that still are functioning landfill are not even being disturbed, but for some roads to access the solar panels. The panels won't even be in the ground, they're sitting on top of the lawn essentially, with ballast of course.

I understand concern with it, but it comes down to either using or not using the site. Exclude the fact that it was a landfill and it's a great location between two major thoroughfares to travel in all directions. I believe the LSRP process the DEP utilizes now is much more effective at monitoring remediation efforts.

Also, I'm pretty sure half the units are for ownership too, which IMO is better than just offering rentals. Giving folks an opportunity to get equity is always a good thing.

0

Dozzi92 t1_j6iqxr1 wrote

Apartments, solar field for a community solar project, and "green seam" walking paths. Kind of hits all the needs of a community, totally making use of an otherwise unusable site.

7

Dozzi92 t1_j2f6g1i wrote

12

Dozzi92 t1_ixh5pe8 wrote

A rear-end hit will almost certainly result in liability going 100% to the car in the rear, unless there's some incontrovertible proof that OP did something ridiculous, and then even then it'd only shift partially.

That being said, driver fled, hopefully OP has UM/UIM.

3

Dozzi92 t1_istpirj wrote

I emailed them because I did the same exact thing. I had them send me two tags, in fact, and both went to an address I moved out of 12+ years ago. After that they kindly told me to fuck off, and that if I want a new tag they're charging me for it.

2