Deflecting through Rhetoric: Why Berkeley Heights Residents are Wary of the 4/8 Planning Board Meeting

Discussion on the Lower Columbia [insert one of a half-dozen different names] project can best be summarized by a back-and-forth interaction between Councilwoman Poage and a resident from the 4/8/26 Planning Board meeting. 

“Why would anyone be against a project that is good for the town.” – Poage

“I’m not against the project, by nature, it’s about how we got to this point.” – a resident

This type of rhetorical response from elected representatives, acting in their official capacity,  is an often used tactic Berkeley Heights residents have seen time and time again, that many believe, is an effort to avoid providing direct answers or acknowledging facts.

After multiple unanswered inquiries to the Township Administrator, the livestream of the Planning Board meeting was made available to the public 9 days following the meeting.

The Township Planning Board website that holds its meetings in the same location as Council Meetings (which are live-streamed and uploaded immediately) maintains meetings are not live-streamed, “in order to preserve the integrity of our meetings, we will no longer stream the meetings live via Zoom, due to recent hacking incidents.” 

The highlight of the meeting was a “courtesy review” of the project presented by The Recreation Project Manager (Varnerin) and Harbor Consultant (Vinegra).

There was a bit of a contradiction between Ms. Varnerin and Mr. Vinegra (Harbor) regarding the pivot from Turf Field to Natural Grass (aka sod) from ‘we can’t’ to ‘we won’t’.

Varnerin stated it was due to the high cost of turf and the desire to have additional funds in order to provide multiple upgrades to existing structures.  

The consultant stated the change to natural turf was because the state and DEP regard turf fields as ‘a structure,’ similar to installing a parking lot – therefore, an impervious surface.

Given the high water table, state and DEP permit requirements, the installation of a turf field would not only take at least 2 years to start but be costly.   In addition to the time and cost, a retention basin would be required for an impervious structure (i.e. turf) and with the high water table throughout the proposed area, the only viable option would have resulted in the removal of trees. 

Missing from the presentation was any consultation with the Environmental Commission who previously recommended against a turf field (back when when the Township was pushing hard for installing a turf field) due to many environmental and health concerns.  

The consultant from Harbour made it patently clear that nothing currently proposed within this project requires DEP consideration, approval or permits.  He went on to say that he has been checking DEP regulations throughout the process to ensure no permits or approval are needed, even offering that he had checked earlier in the day ahead of this meeting. 

In terms of maintenance and life of the sod, play time and annual re-sodding of high-use areas (like soccer goals) is being recommended.  However there was detail surrounding the potential costs associated with this annual maintenance or how it would be funded in the long-term. 

BHPS schools, specifically Columbia Middle School, was the primary user of the multi-use sports field.

Another discussion point involved lights. If the bids for lights at the multi-use field come in too high, then the Project Manager will inquire about lighting just the baseball field. 

A question about drainage was raised and the consultants reported that the proposed drainage would tie into the existing storm sewer system at the Columbia Avenue caul-de-sac and eventually lead into the creek.  Concerns were raised about creek drainage but everyone was assured there would be no problems as this is where the water already drains. 

A resident, who served on the Recreation Commission (2009-2024), raised multiple concerns ranging from the legality of this project changing hands from Recreation Commission to Township with no documentation citing the transfer, jurisdiction of the Recreation Commission in terms of existing municipal code to water run off negatively effecting residents on the perimeter of the park. The predominant concern was the fact that this project has not yet been formally reviewed, approved or recommended by the Recreation Commission – the very entity that will be responsible for the maintenance of this project.  

When questioned by Viana about the relevance of the Commission who citing the lease as being between the Township and the BOE, the resident stated that  the Lease Agreement recognizes designates three parties as ‘part of the project’ – the Board of Education, the Township and the Recreation Commission. 

Poage made a odd comment about the residents relevance of citing the Municipal code for the Recreation Commission as it has not been reviewed or updated since 1957 (the year the Recreation Commission was started).  The updating of Municipal codes are the responsibly of the Township and Council.  The opinion that municipal codes are irrelevant from lack of updating came across as another attempt to evade the substance of the resident’s points in the eyes of residents we spoke to who saw the meeting. It also has a tinge of irony as Ms. Poage sits on the body responsible for updating the code. Lastly, the age of a code does not automatically make it irrelevant and Ms. Poage did not cite any specifics to support her characterization.

Kingsley remarked that she wanted the project plans to remove the replacement of asphalt at Lower Columbia parking lot, since the BHPS referendum addressed all parking lots in addition to obtaining formal Recreation Commission approval before moving forward. 

The tone of the meeting felt combative, as if a few key players were going to great lengths to protect something sacred.  

My takeaway will likely be different than most, as I have been living and breathing this project for years, because something, since this all became public, has felt ‘off.’ And with each hurdle, I find myself having more questions than what I started off with.

A new multi-use sports field and upgrades to current facilities maybe a win depending on the costs.  Unaddressed environmental concerns cannot be mitigated by taking pictures or taking a stroll by the field on a rainy day.  The lack of analysis on condensed foot and vehicular traffic on Columbia Avenue and surrounding neighbors appears to be a concerning indication on the level of oversight over a project of this scope.  Statements that the water run off will easily be sustained by our current infrastructure clearly does not consider the problems many residents have reported facing with the simplest of rain storms.  Feasibility studies and analysis on the current project model for the plans was all but absent.

The Recreation Project Manager stated, multiple times, that throughout private conversations between the Mayor, Township Administrator and current Recreation Commission chair that the commission was in full support of the project.  However minutes do not reflect that and it I am not clear whether the chair, by themselves, can legitimately communicate the support of an entire body.

NJ21st reached out to the following individuals involved with the Lower Columbia project to inquire about recent rumors that Harbor Consultants are no longer managing the project:

Victor Vinegra, Harbor Consultants

Liza Viana, Township Administrator

Debbie Varnerin, Township Recreation Project Manager

Angela Lazzari, Township Clerk

Sean McDonnell, Chair BH Recreation Commission

At the time this article was published, no responses have been received. 

Update -842am- Soon after this article was published Ms. Viana confirmed Harbor Consultants was still the lead on the project.

Also see..