They haven't been remediated, but NJDEP did a cancer survey over several years and did not see an increase in any areas in proximity to known sites in Jersey City. For whatever that's worth.

This seems to be an updated list (from http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/siteinfo/chrome/) :

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/siteinfo/chrome/list.pdf

There are two known chromium sites on that block; #76 on 379-381 Eight street and #77 on 383 Eight Street.

This list is from 2009 - I wonder what their current respective status is. Hopefully they will be part of any new development and dealt with in the right manner (if they haven't been remediated already).

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/siteinfo/chrome/statusrpt2007.pdf

If they're developing the lot behind the firehouse, you can be sure stuff will get built on the better side of Newark Ave. I hear Ziggy is in the process of selling off his properties, and the lot next to Legal Beans is also going to be developed. It's fine with me, that whole area is kind of sad.

Quote:

Thanks for this map! I don't understand the logic of the [obvious NIMBY] on this one. There are many existing residences near this contaminated site. The real estate market is healthy enough that a private developer is willing to do the costly soil remediation, as is required by NJ DEP and EPA, and develop the site. Rather than be thankful that existing residents no longer have to live next to this contaminated site, [obvious NIMBY] poorly tries to obscure his NIMBYism around a thinly veiled concern for the environment and future residents.

[obvious NIMBY] appears oblivious to the concept of soil remediation and the fact that much of downtown was once contaminated due to Jersey City's industrial past. (Now, wouldn't be ironic if [obvious NIMBY]'s home or office was located on lands once contaminated?). [obvious NIMBY] then goes on a misguided rant and attempts to justify his illogical statements by showing a deep concern for future homeowners and tenants by asking about what types disclosures they will get and declaring his intention not to live there. [obvious NIMBY] then suggest shady dealings and tries to frighten people by mentioning Flint and Michigan DEP. Booo!

I don't plan to live here nor would want to because the location next to I-78 is less than ideal. Yet, as an area resident, I would be extremely thankful that one less contaminated site will be remediated and developed. As a taxpayer, I'm also thankful that private, not public, funds are used in the environmental cleanup.

I'm thankful there are enough sane residents, planning staff, and city councilpersons in Jersey City to sniff out obvious NIMBYism and support high quality development for our city. I would have more respect if [obvious NIMBY] just flatly came out and stated he is against this development because it would make parking worse for the area or that he doesn't want more millennials/minorities moving into the neighborhood.

There is a known history of chromium contamination in that neighborhood:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/chromium/map.htm

Are you advocating the lands remained unremediated and undeveloped? Strange. Much of Jersey City has an industrial past. Soil remediation to clean up contaminated lands is not a new concept. How much of Newport and downtown was once contaminated.

NIMBYs trying to hide their opposition to development behind illiogical environmental concerns. Nothing new

Quote:

I understand you believe it's a "great idea these contaminated sites are being developed", but there's no way I'd ever live in a building over a site contaminated by gasoline.... And I wouldn't ask anyone else to either without letting them know about the history of that site on Newark and Division.

The developer was asked a series of questions by one of the Zoning Board members who is an environmental law attorney. The Zoning Board also spoke about long-term monitoring of the inside of the building, after construction. It sounded as though they're not certain they've removed all the hydrocarbon pollutant. It didn't do anything for my confidence in the effectiveness of the remediation efforts, notwithstanding DEP involvement. I wonder if the NJ DEP is any better than the Michigan DEP? You know those were the experts who tested the water in Flint for lead and said it was fine.

Oddly, when you go to the City web-site for the minutes of that meeting (Oct 29th, 2015) to see what transpired they're not available - the link takes you to the September minutes instead.

In any event, according to the public notice appearing November 5th, the application was ultimately approved ?with conditions?. I wonder what those conditions might have been...? Would be on file with the City. And I'm still very curious what disclosure requirements apply for prospective renters / purchasers when the development is completed. When I have a spare moment I might do a little work trying to find more out. I'll post if I learn anything of interest, so stay tuned.

The whole thing makes me wonder about that part of downtown and just why it stayed so "under-developed." What is the history of land use there? So much of Jersey City has some history of industrial use at one point or other.

It's great these contaminated sites are being developed. DEP regulation require the soil to be remediated prior to residential development. Had it not been for the strength of our realty market, these sites may have remained contaminated for a very long time because there is no public funds for cleaning up, especially on private lands.

That development proposal must be close to the development at 380 Newark Ave, almost under the Turnpike overpass, on the corner of Division St. It was interesting at the Zoning Board meeting, October 29th, to learn the site was an old gas station with soil contamination to be remediated. As well, the train tracks are right behind. Not appealing to me for all three reasons ? turnpike, railway and contamination issues. Also see page 9, items ?o? and ?p? of the Feb 29th Council meeting minutes: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... nda%20Document%284%29.pdf

Could this other Division St development, so close by, be impacted as well? Would they need to do some testing to determine? I wonder what disclosures need to be made to prospective renters or purchasers (at both sites) about this kind of issue? The train tracks and turnpike are easy to see, but the soil issues aren't in plain view.

imo, the city should require developers to send out a b/w image of the rendering/s when mailing out notices to neighbors so more people have a better sense of what is being proposed

Yeah, I heard something was going in the same general area but on the 7th St., but it could be the same project.

Just poking. I hear other projects are also in the works in that immediate area. If people actually want to live in that thing on Newark Ave sandwiched between the fire house and the turnpike, they'll build elsewhere as well.

Quote:

It's kind of a thing. YIMBYism, pre-emptively taking the chance to support something reasonably worthy that is normally a target for strident NIMBYism, so as not to let the latter have the first 10,000 words on every subject.

Not that opposing various changes in one's neighborhood is necessarily wrong, but it is often louder and more passionate than arguments for those same changes, which can end up in a very unbalanced debate.

Quote:

Give it time...

Not a single NIMBY complaint in this thread, but 75% of the thread replies are complaining about NIMBYs.

Quote:

Great to hear! Make sure you email Candice Osborne your support and show up at the planning board meeting to let your voice be heard. I too am tired of NIMBY that would rather have the city look like it did in the 70s. Let's fill in these voids around town with high quality urban development.

Quote:

Agreed! To oppose development in that area is silly. That area could use some new development, instead of empty spaces. A block away is the new Hamilton House, and you have White Star and Carmine's nearby. Great way to improve density without much impact: heck, it even comes with a parking garage! Way too many NIMBY types in JC opposed to any sort of development.

Is that the lot closer to Brunswick or Division? Given the size I would think it has to be the lot by Brunswick. It would be hard to fit 60 units in the tiny lot fronting Division.

This is a block from my apartment, so I'm thrilled for the opportunity to support it and not be a NIMBY.

It's close to the bus lines and a Citi Bike JC dock on Newark, and it takes a scrappy space at the edge of my elegant old neighborhood without razing anything memorable or sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of it.

All hail urban infill.

Just posting this here because the hearing notices coming from the attorney are sent Certified Mail, and it looks like many of these notices go unclaimed. Just wanted to spread the word for any folks who are concerned:

6 story/60 unit story condo building (plus parking garage) proposed at 387 8th street by Jones Park, in the current AmCare lot.

An application has been filed with the JC Zoning Board for:
-Use variance to permit a 6 story over garage and mezzazine multi-family residential units along with 43 parking spaces in the R-1, One and Two Family Housing District
-Variance from relief from the maximum permitted stories and height of a principal structure in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) and the R-1, One and Two Family Housing District

The next Zoning Board meeting is scheduled for March 3 at City Hall for all neighbors who wish to attend and express any concerns.

The attorney for this project is:
Charles J Harrington, III
Connell Foley, Jersey City