We do need parking and sacrifices will need to be made. But the Short Hills train station and its surroundings is one of the prettiest around. Standing at the train station with all the trees is quite a sight. It would be a shame to lose that.

Since commuters will pay any costs, one thought I would have would be with regard to the SMG property. They have withdrawn their application. Have they given up on the idea of expanding? If so could the parking authority purchase the former gas station property? If they move ahead with the expansion could commuter parking be worked into the plan as a condition for any variances they would receive? Just a thought off the top of my head.

I have an idea....walk or carpool instead of cutting down trees for more blacktop. I see more and more people taking for the same train arriving one person per car. In the alternative, raise the parking rates so people think twice about driving.

This is a terrible idea. And, to be honest, there is no reason to even have a train station in Short Hills. It's very nice, but given how close other stations are, if we could ensure enough parking in Millburn, additional parking in SH and the SH train station itself, would be superfluous.

I think it would be a real shame to turn the entirety of Chatham Road - which is residential - into one large parking lot. It is a beautiful area over there by the arboretum and the school, and removal of the trees will literally turn the entire stretch of road from the train station down to the arboretum into a parking lot. And the net result at the end: 20 parking spaces. The end does not justify the means.

If this will save us from having to spend a ton of tax money on a parking garage, then it is a great idea. Short Hill residents should be able to park in Short Hills, rather than having to drive downtown because there is no parking. Increasing parking there will cut down on cross town traffic, saving energy, reducing congestion, and increasing safety.

Getting rid of a dozen trees is not that big a deal, it isn't like we are clear cutting things. This many trees are cut down for every new Short Hills McMansion regularly. Sacrificing these to help save energy, money, and congestion is a no-brainer.

J Doe, the parking proposal for Chatham is not proposed to be in lieu of the parking garage in downtown Millburn. It is in addition to it. And turning a quiet tree-lined street by a large number of residential homes into a parking lot is a shame.

It still amazes me how many people from Millburn proper become agitated and have visible inferiority complexes when the word "Short Hills" is cited.

That may be true, but I've lived here long enough to remember this infamous line....

"Go back to your Millburn hovels."

I've also seen - on this website BTW, posters stating that people in Millburn don't carry their fair share, that we paying less for the same schools as the residents of Short Hills and that we are essentially gaming the system. It goes both ways and it is disingenuous to state that it is all one-sided.

Put a parking garage in Lot 2 and all will be well. Put it in Lot 7 and there will be an outcry and well there should be.

Ouch. I have never heard that and have lived here [since 1991.

It goes back to the bond referendum. A very nasty time.

Certainly that is not the attitude of most people in Short Hills and most people in Millburn don't have an inferiority complex about Short Hills, but there is a division in this town. To say there isn't or to wish it away by saying we all live in Millburn Township isn't going to make it go away. As I said, if the parking garage is built in downtown Millburn that is one thing, but Lot 7 is not in downtown Millburn, it is in a residential area - not as pretty as Chatham Road - but people still live there. I don't blame them for being angry and fighting it in any way they can.

But the deck would go where the large, existing lot is presently located, so the "view" and aesthetics have already been adversely affected.

Frankly, let the commuters walk, carpool or arrange for a jitney. Providing additional commuter parking is a luxury, not a necessity.

Who cares about those hovels anyway? :)

The train station parking lot is below the houses on Glen Avenue, so their view is above the parking lot. That would change with an elevated garage.

Don't make me tell you folks to play nice. :)

Maybe The Patch could pay for the $5MM new deck and it could reserve naming rights? The Connic Connection...I like that.

PW. Will there ever be a new owner at the building that has been vacated since the early 70's located on Main street in Sprinfield next to the Millburn border? The heck with another super market, we need a parking lot that can be used for many purposes by surrounding communities. Make our community safer and place a large parking garage on that spot and produce revenue for both communities. During peek driving hours hire competent individuals with the flow of traffic onto both Main street and Morris ave. Once you've removed those trees the natural beauty will be gone for ever.

Everyone will have to share the pain-a cement box downtown won't make the Glen Ave residents happy. Losing a few trees won't make the Chatham Rd. area residents happy. It wouldn't be fair to either to expect one area to take the hit solely.

Peter, did you mean to say the Saks property on Millburn Ave that was proposed for a supermarket? I'm sure the same people pushing for a large cement garage in Millburn would be aghast at a large cement garage being placed alongside Glenwood.

It is owned by Stop and Shop. The process has been very long. It is in Springfield however. They clearly are looking at the site as a revenue producing property so any on use is pretty much off the table,

It's owned by Royal Ahold, a Dutch company that operates several different supermarket chains in the US. They have proposed a Super Stop and Shop for the site however.

The plan for Stop & Shop has received all its approvals (via a court process) in Springfield. They have to come to the Millburn Zoning Board, though, to receive approval for the driveway access. Nothing has been filed, and I asked about it a week ago or so.

I still don't see a need for two train stations located in a small residential town. It should be possible to save money and enhance commuter and NJTransit efficiency by eliminating the SH station, as well as the less useful stations in South Orange. Less stops also means faster trips.

Yes Damian and MarkDS I was referring to the old Saks Department store. Number 90 Millburn ave has the potential to suit the needs of both communities. Per Jennifer It looks like another super food store will be moving in,such a waste, have the Millburn town council propose a Joint effort in making a parking deck on that location similiar to the one located at the Short Hills Mall. I walked from that spot on Sunday morning to the Short Hills train station via Baltustrol ave, A ten minute walk. Will the commuting public walk ten minutes or demand on site parking as proposed at lot #7?

I think a parking garage would fit well into the park between the Short Hills station and the Racquets club. I mean, I never see anyone use it, and for sure it would make the Creche fight moot.

I should've put a smiley in there, Jen. It was a tongue in cheek suggestion in response to the posters who want easy parking as long as their backyards aren't affected.

146 red ribbons! I just took a walk along Chatham Road from Forest Drive to the Short Hills train station and counted 146 red ribbons, indicating 146 trunks to be removed. This is a staggering number of trees, including many stately, large old trunks, and would devastate the beautiful view. Posted some photos here on Patch, but I am not a great photographer and am afraid I didn't properly capture how extensive the proposed strip actually is. (Jen: I'm sure a Patch photographer or someone with a panoramic lens could do a much better job....) Neighbors, I encourage you to take a walk along Chatham Road on this lovely Sunday and see just how many trees are at risk.

Another consideration is the twice daily Glenwood carpool line that travels up and down Chatham Road. It is extremely busy already and adding more cars will only make the area more dangerous to the children that walk to school. This area is congested with pedestrians walking to the train and children going to school. Trees aside, the traffic pattern must be looked at during peak hours for safety reasons. Adding parking will only add demand, then more parking, then more demand. Carpool, walk..

Most commuters will park before the morning carpool line, and return after the afternoon carpool line. Does the carpool line extend beyond Forest Drive anyway?

Yes, the carpool line does extend beyond Forest but you are right most commuters park before the elementary school. The Middle School and High School students, however, are out walking between 7:00 and 7:45 which is very busy. I think people really need to consider carpooling at both stations. When you expand to meet demand, the demand will expand. Does anyone know if out of towners are permitted to get parking stickers?

Out of town residents are not permitted to park at M/SH locations. Any increase in parking capacity at the SH station will be available only to M/SH residents. Any parking garage in Millburn will also impact students walking to the Middle and HS.

Does anyone know when the next meeting is on this matter? We need to group together now to ensure this plan does not go forward.

What's the rush to cut down the trees ? The Glenn Ave. lot is the most ideal solution -- it affords far more than the approx 50 spots proposed in the immediate plan, is within the existing traffic flow to the station and the added deck(s) are not in direct eyesight of neighboring homes. How hard is it to drive to any one of the parking lots that are currently available within walking distance of the Millburn station? As a daily commuter, I would rather walk the distance and keep the landscape along Chatham until the garage is complete.

Also consider the increase in noise level from the trains without the trees to buffer the sound.

Noise to who? There are no homes across Chatham Road where the trees will be cut. As for the Glen Avenue site being the 'best' solution-it may be for neighbors of the Short Hills station, it sure isn't for neighbors of the Millburn station. NIMBY indeed, all over again.

Drove by the location today and was saddened to see the shear number of trees marked for removal. It will expose the train line completely and remove a considerable amount of green to the area. This is also in direct contradiction to Stewart Hartshorn's wishes when he created Short Hills, specifically the area along the train line. Here is a quote from "A History of Millburn Township" by Marian Meisner (2002) available online (www.mfplib.org/hst/index.htm). This is from Chapter 14 - The Short Hills and Wyoming Developments:

Much of the beauty of Short Hills today is a tribute to Mr. Hartshorn's foresight. He left undeveloped, strips of land along the railroad right of way, between Hobart avenue and the railroad, and between the railroad and Chatham road, so that people coming into town would not be disturbed by the usual ugliness greeting travellers into a community. "Years later," his daughter, Miss Cora, writes, "When asked why he put those strips there, he said that he had passed by long rows of privies backing on the railroad on his trips to New York and he wanted to make certain that he would not have a raw of them in his village." The little plaza park by the Short Hills Station, laid out by Mr. Hartshorn, was given to the Township by the Hartshorn Estate in 1944 with the stipulation that it be kept open as Mr. Hartshorn had wished.

That last sentence suggests the town may be violating the covenant that established the park along the train line within Short Hills.

No privies, no problem!

I finally drove by the ribboned trees. What a waste. I will add my name to the list of those opposing it. Let the commuters walk or carpool.

Jennifer Please take a video of those sites should you have the time and post them on this site. We would then have the ability to keep on record the vision of Mr Hartshorn for years to come and keep away the tree surgeons. I will send the video onto the corporate offices at Royal Ahold

A covenant like Hartshorn's is probably not legally enforceable. It typically violates public policy to try to perpetually restrain alienation of covenanted land.

I've asked around about any sort of restriction put onto that land where the trees are by Hartshorn, and no one has heard of such a thing.

Even if it isn't illegal, removing the trees is a smack to the face of the founder of Short Hills.

There have to be easier alternatives to the parking solution - redesign the parking spaces for one. Lots of wasted space in the SH station lots.

Other options:

1- Raise the prices so daily commuters think twice about driving their SUVs 1/2 mile every day.
2- Offer carpool discounts

I agree, the gain on of 25 spaces so that 25 people stop making the effort to carpool or maybe 25 people who have been walking decide to go for the space is not worth the life of 146 trees that add so much to our environment and community.

Considering that SH is a secondary station in terms of the number of stops [Millburn is primary] and in a primarily residential neighborhood is a major difference. Summit, Millburn and Maplewood are all in primarily commercial districts.

The Short Hills Station is across the street from an entire block of parking lots, a post office, and commercial stores, including until recently two gas stations. More commercial property extends from Chatham Road downhill adjacent to the Arboretum. Hardly primarily residential, including a private social club on the other side.

I guess I'm surprised at how vocal our local 'green' Short Hills residents are about losing a few trees but are silent about the Chai Center wanting to carve up a nice chunk of property a mile away in Short Hills. I can only guess that they don't live near that part of town. NIMBY rules!

The parking lot of the Millburn train station is not in a commercial district. It is residential. People live next to the train station parking lot.

Portray as you wish, but the Millburn station is commercial w/ homes on one side only + up a hill.

The nearest house to the proposed new parking area is on the other side of the tracks, lol

Damian: I do not want the Chai Center OR Chatham Road redeveloped into a blacktopped parking lot. I am sure if you poll the many, many businesses in Millburn and the 5-6 in Short Hills, that the majority of owners in town would prefer more foot traffic in Millburn to keep the commercial district alive. To call the small stretch of businesses on Chatham a commercial dictrict is disingenuous.

The people who live on Glen Avenue also do not want a huge cement box right in their backyards with the increased traffic that would entail. You may say that the Millburn train station is commercial w/homes on one side only and up a hill, but I could say the same thing about the Short Hills train station. It's commercial with homes on one side across a park.

Can't they just add valet parking in Short Hills? It's not perfect, I know, but nobody really knows for sure that we need a parking garage - projections aren't always reality.

If a deck can be avoided, a valet or jitney makes a lot of sense, but the former still needs space for parking. That is why a jitney or walking or carpooling with a designated lot only for 2+ commuters makes more sense.

I agree! I don't think either the Glen Avenue Parking Garage or the Short Hills parking lots are necessary. The more parking you add the more people will drive instead of walk or carpool. I thought the High School wasn't going to manage this year with the largest class ever driving to school and guess what, it did. Less kids drove alone or at all.

Larkin, that points me to a solution. The way the HS handled it was to get student permit parking in selected streets near the HS. Why not do the same with the streets around the SH station? If it worked well enough for the residential areas near the HS (although the residents hate it), why would it not work in Short Hills?

Actually, that's not how they handled it. They did that several years ago and it wasn't a good experience for the local residents so it was taken away. The parking is just what is in the school lot.

I would think commuter parking in the streets near the SH station would work better than having the students park in the streets near the HS. Noisy radios and litter that was a problem with the students would be replaced by suited men and women commuting to NY. Win Win!

The Township Committee had a first reading of an ordinance that would limit the parking on the side streets near the Short Hills train station to three hours. It'll go for a vote in December. It was proposed because of concerns from the neighbors about parking on the side streets.

Also, the reason township officials have given for looking into a garage for the Millburn station is because they are parking a large number of cars in valet each day. The valet comes at a cost each year. I'd have to look up how much in a previous story, and I don't have the time right this second (trying to finish my Les Miserables project).

Besides being very concerned about the trees, and the associated aesthetic and environmental impact, I'm curious to know how much this proposed parking along Chatham Road is going to cost? In addition to removing 100+ trees, in order to create head-in parking, a lot of land will need to be razed, retaining walls built, and paving added (presumably resulting in a long line of spaces similar to the current "coal chute" parking area). Sounds like a very expensive and extensive project to me. And how long will it take to recoup that expense with parking permits and fees?

Maybe the Congregational Church, (and other houses of worship in the area) could rent their lots during the week and there could be a jitney service during peak hours.

Don't take it so personally that people are upset about the number of trees that are marked to be removed and the beauty of a small park area will be destroyed. Did you drive by to see for yourself the 140 + trees that are going to be cut? This part of our town with cars up and down the street all day, children walking to school, and people enjoying a sit in the park deserves at least some more exploration (cost vs benefit) and a detailed study on how this parking proposal will impact the area. Frankly, I'd rather see street parking (and I live in this neighborhood) then Chatham Road trees being destroyed and the rail completely exposed. Please stop making assumptions about Short Hills residents. Yes, the Millburn plan for downtown development and parking has been a fiasco however, don't take that out on us because we think that this tree mission is not a good idea for at least a dozen of valid reasons.

I'm a Glenwood School graduate, so I know the area as well as anyone around. What I take personally are people who want a solution that will negatively impact someone else's neighborhood and benefitting their own. (Remember the Glenwood parents who wanted the Morris Turnpike apartment kids bussed to Millburn to take care of the overcrowding at Glenwood?) As for making any assumptions about Short Hills residents-my family has lived in both Short Hills and Millburn for four generations.

Has anyone explored the idea of a jitney service to the Short Hills station? I know there's one in the Wyoming section that goes to the Maplewood station.

1. I want to remind everyone this plan hasn't been put forward for a public discussion yet, so no decisions have been made. The ribbons were put on the trees so people could discuss the potential impact if township officials did move forward with this plan.

2. Susan, when the Wyoming jitney service was put into effect, township officials tried to jump on Livingston's jitney service. I don't remember the reason it didn't happen it was so long ago. And the Wyoming jitney is not run by the town. It's run by Maplewood.

3. The Township Committee is looking for plans for both Lot 2 and 7, but the consensus has been it should be built (if it's built at all) on Lot 2. In fact, some township officials have said they oppose Lot 7, including Tom McDermott. He said as such during a debate.

Correction: Neighbors and students had a positive exerience the 2 years seniors were assigned parking in streets near the high school. Many a student got to know the resident of the house hwere they parked and even shoveled the driveways of nearby residents when it snowed during this period. (It was, admittedly, a poor experience for the neighbors during the earlier years without assigned parking ). But the neighborhood had been promised by the Township Committee that the assigned parking would be limited to a 2 year period to accommodate the construction period at the high school. After construction was completed the high school regained the lot near Chanticlar and had less need for street parking. Township Committee members wanted to keep their promise to residents near the high school and would not renew the assigned parking student permits. Promises should be kept and the Board of Ed did not press the Township Committee to renew the permits. Of course now the classes are larger at the high school so parking need is again increased. If there is a need, (not sure it sounds like there is), this solution could of course be reconsidered and it is also possible to move which neighborhoods students are assigned to each year so the same residents aren't inconvenienced repeatedly.

As to the parking issue along Chatham Road, I would hate to see all those trees removed. And would also like info on how much this would cost as it sounds expensive. Guess I am in the minority as I do not object to a parking deck -- as long as it was constructed in an aesthetically attractive way. Also, what is the problem with controlled parking on streets during the daytime? I like the idea of assigned parking in lieu of destroying the charm of Chatham Road. and this would be a revenue generating solution as permits are sold by the Township -- not an expensive solution. Excellent suggestion.

Neighbors: If you use Facebook and are opposed to the widespread removal of trees along Chatham Road to create parking spaces, please join the newly-formed Facebook group "Save Trees Over Parking (STOP)."

Why are we encouraging more traffic at the SH train station area by providing more parking...the area should service the immediate community ....who can carpool, get dropped off or walk. Loosing trees and creating more concrete will ruin the appearance for the residents..especially in combination with the increase in commercialization if the SMG proposal goes through. If people need to drive and park...find a more commercial area like downtown for adddtional parking.

Geralyn: Be aware that Damian will cite NIMBY if you reply. I agree with you. If you drive at night, the difference in the areas is obvious. The area around the Millburn NJT station is already blacktopped and overly lit up. The Short Hills NJT station is neither, but there are too many people from Millburn with inferiority complexes who see a Short Hills vs. Millburn conspiracy in everything that happens in town.

"too many people from Millburn with inferiority complexes." That's a very arrogant statement and you keep on making it. It doesn't advance the discussion and, in fact, does the very opposite.

Sorry, jsb. Your argument is transparent. If the SH Station greenies were so concerned about the area, they'd be up in arms about the Chai Center variance application. In a TOTALLY residential area, unlike the SH Station area, they plan to blacktop 50 parking spaces and plant a building larger than the SMG Woodland Road/Chatham Road location right in the middle of one of the nicest residential areas in town.

But did anyone here comment on that thread yesterday? NO. Because it's 'not in their backyard'. No inferiority complex with me, by the way. I was born in Glenwood, cut through the Arboretum to get to school daily. I just think there needs to be some civility in determining how to address a Short Hills Station lack of parking problem without dumping the solution all on Millburn. How is that not fair?

All fair points, but there are too many people who have nothing but contempt for Short Hills residents and, while we are in the same town, the same people are often paranoid.

Frankly, a deck is not needed. Carpooling, walking or a jitney is more sensible. Spending $200,000 to $250,000 per year on valet parking is also wasteful. For that price, you could buy and utilize 2 jitneys and still save money.

I'd like to see the income side of the valet parking equation. I remember when the town added the valet parking, the cost of parking permits increased by around $200. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I think the idea was the increased cost of permits would pay for the valet parking.

That is the same thing they want to do with the garage - increase the costs of permits to pay for it, I believe - which is another factor. Do we really need parking permits to go up another $150 to $200? That will be a real burden to some people. It may encourage carpooling, I guess, but at that point the garage will have been built.

The cost of parking permits should go up a lot as it is still too cheap, it will raise needed revenue which can be specifically earmarked and may encourage some to walk or carpool.

Agreed, jsb, those are all good points, but I haven't observed the contempt/envy that you refer to. You've offered solutions just now that would not burden one part of 'our' town (Yes, Mark, we are one town) at the expense of others. Others in this thread have not. And Mark, I'm sure if I went back through all the Chai comments I'd not see many of the names here that are so vocal about keeping the Short Hills Station area green, hence the NIMBY comments.

What does make me happy is seeing the passion everyone has for this town, whether or not they're being somewhat parochial in their outlook.

Personally I can not see any jitney arrangement that I would ever use. I do "carpool" with my wife in the morning but always need to come back to pick her up in the evening. Unrelated people would not do that. My point is that schedules vary too much to make much carpooling practicle.

The parking deck solution is not being "dumped on Millburn" (in Mr. DeBlis' words). The simple fact is that the proposed parking deck would be built in an already existing parking lot. This makes more sense that creating a newer one on Chatham Road. The folks who bought homes on Glen Avenue near the train station did so with the full knowledge that they were buying homes on the fringe of a commercial district. Their views already include the First Aid Squad, the library, the train station and several parking lots. Is it really worse to look at a parking deck than a parking lot? Our downtown is struggling and we really need more parking, not just for commuters, but for shoppers.

And the Chatham Road owners bought in an area with two gas stations, several medium office buildings, an upper and lower Chatham Road strip mall, (albeit charming) , a Post Office and an existing parking lot complex

The visual of a parking garage is just one of the issues. Added traffic, nearby the existing Library that children walk up and down towards, added air, light, and noise pollution to the downtown center, security issues-this is only a start to a list of objections. And parking? It's a breeze right now, even with the downtown bridge construction.

Susan, is there any plan to add more spaces (beyond redrawing the existing lots) that you could accept? Because if you can't, it's clear you don't want it in your backyard.

I drove by the Short Hills train station lots/parking areas yesterday at 2 pm. There were more than a dozen empty spots (some in the lots, some in permit parking down closer to the arboretum). This says to me that there may not be a true need for more permit parking in Short Hills. There were also 6 empty "token" parking places (for daily use). I am going back today and will next week to see if this is a daily happening.

The town does not need two train stations one mile apart. Instead of cutting down trees, I believe the station should be shuttered, and the parking lots developed or turned into green space. One train station is sufficient for Summit, it should be enough for Millburn Twp.

MarkDS, thanks for explaining the train parking situation (we are w/in walking distance to SH station so never knew the driving details). I also appreciate the point you made earlier, about turning the currently abandoned Chatham Road gas station into train station parking. The area is already paved and presumably commercially zoned, so that seems like a practical alternative.

MarkDS wrote: "Care to pick which neighborhood would be the loser?"

I don't accept the loser terminology, although I can understand how folks that live close to the SH station could consider it a loss, but some sacrifices may be useful, and there is no progress without change.

I would support enhanced parking solutions at the existing Glen Ave station in a manner that that balances concerns of various constituencies, including residents on Glen, tree lovers, commuters and local business enterprises. I believe the best solution is likely to involve a parking deck, the cost of which can be financed, at least in part, by commercializing the existing SH lots. To the extent there is a dollar gap, the deck can be financed by traditional means including parking permit and metered parking revenues. Frankly, expanded parking in the area of the Glen station is quite beneficial, if not necessary, for the long-term growth and vitality of the local business community, which benefits all residents. So, that would be my suggestion.

In short, if Summit has one station, if Maplewood has one station, if Newark has one Essex & Morris line station, then one station is sufficient for all of Millburn Twp. Two stations is an unnecessary luxury.

I don't think it makes sense to get rid of the Short Hills Station when so many people are able to walk/park or be dropped off there. I thought the problem at hand was parking?

Larkin, it'll never happen. Acton has brought this up, what, three times? For someone concerned about downtown businesses, imagine the Chatham Road strip mall losing all the traffic from Short Hills Station commuters? Imagine all the Short Hills Station commuters who walk or are dropped off-now they may need to buy/insure another car, pay the $500 parking fees, lose property values because the station would be closed (how much does 'walk to train' add to a homes value-you see it in every 'for sale' ad), add extra time to the commute. It's a non-starter.

Yeh, it makes no sense. I do not think Acton is considering how much parking would be required to be added at Millburn and the cost if you need to replace all the spaces currently at Short Hills, AND those who can not longer walk AND to make up for the current shortfall which is the basis for all this activity. You would need large garages on both lots 2 an 7. And for what? So the people west of us can have a 2 minute faster commute.

Much of the savings would benefit NJ Transit and its patrons. They would benefit from closing the station and NJ Transit should, therefore, share the costs of new parking at Millburn. That would assist the Township in funding a deck.

I completely agree that there would be community opposition to closing the SH station because of increased costs to those closest to the station. I just happen to consider two stations a luxury, and one that we should be willing to consider forgoing in order to accrue benefits that beyond our individual concerns.

There is plenty of parking in SH at 5:40am when I get there for the 5:50am train. When I get home at 6:30pm from work there is plenty of parking also.

I believe the parking should be open to non-residents, although they should pay a cost that is not subsidized by Millburn Township. It would encourage more people to take advantage of public transportation.

RIZZA, the SH parking lot fills up with the 7:27 AM train to New York. I've seen people coming at the last minute have to turn around and drive to Millburn. And I'm sure there is a lot of people returning before 6 PM.

All the chatter is about parking for those leaving Short Hills for the day, every day....what about those of use who work locally and use the roads, take care of the surrounds and don't park our cars? What about the people who do use the public spaces and all the work that went into to creating them? Did we not move here for these garden state areas, as well as the school system?

Hello, My name is Lillie-Belle Grove and I am six year old. I love the trees around the train station. Trees help us to breathe and please don't cut them down. Why do people want to cut them down? I think that's not a good choice and we need to make the right choices. Thank you, Lillie-Belle Grove

Downtown Millburn is a commercial area and the engine that drives the town. The SH strip is a mere trifle. Put in a deck in lot 2 or 7 so that the businesses flourish. Enough us vs. them. The only houses that may be inconvenienced will be the few that have the view of the blacktop lot anyway and they cannot be surprised or feign shock that the lot might be converted into a deck.

As for Damian's concern, I am neither impressed nor concerned. Unless downtown Millburn is given an opportunity to grow [more parking = less commercial vacancies + thriving businsses], taxes will increase.

I think it time to move on, so I do not plan on replying to the expected NIMBY rebuttal. I chose to pay more and live in the SH section of town as I wanted to be removed from the businesses and traffic. Others had the same choice and chose Millburn proper; they cannot expect anything more or less than they chose.

JSB - I find this comment harsh:
"I chose to pay more and live in the SH section of town as I wanted to be removed from the businesses and traffic. Others had the same choice and chose Millburn proper..."

You obviously had the financial means to buy a home far from the commercial areas of town; not everyone has that ability. Many of us made concessions of one type or another to enjoy the services and lifestyle our town offers. That being said, I think our neighbors on Glen Avenue need to be realistic. Converting a parking LOT into a parking DECK is much less of a change than turning a green space into blacktop.

But a little more kindness would suit all of us, don't you think?

Plus it's not really accurate since there is another shopping area in Short Hills - the one on Millburn Avenue, which by the way seems to be more in need of foot traffic than Millburn Avenue in Millburn proper, and there are people in Glenwood who live right behind it.

If we have to have a parking garage, lot 2 would be the best choice re: less intrusion into a residential area plus it is more convenient for shoppers. I hope Mr. McDermott sticks by his debate statement that he would oppose a garage on Lot 7. I don't live on Glen Avenue or near Chatham Road, but I understand and respect the objections by the residents of Glen Avenue and those in Short Hills. I would hope the town council would do the same.

JSB wants to avoid the 'us vs them', then makes a "I chose to pay more . . .' statement. And JSB further comments about a NIMBY response, then basically states exactly that if you bought in Millburn you get what you deserve, but don't change a thing near me!

I think anyone, living anywhere in Millburn/Short Hills, should oppose increased density across all neighborhoods. We don't need to urbanize any part of town, whether it would be a parking garage downtown or the Summit Medical Group (withdrawn, but it will reappear) Chatham/Woodland expansion.

I'm a little behind on this one. Still reading the Item and expecting to be informed about important things going on in town. I live near Chatham Road. This one is a no-brainer. You do not cut down trees so that commuters can back their cars into narrowest part of Chatham Road while people are driving and children are walking. There isn't even a line drawn on Chatham Road between Woodland and Taylor Road South. If and when this actually happens, I promise to be one of the people hugging the tree to keep it alive. This is absolutely nuts. One does not cut down a street of trees. This not only is ugly to look at, but it increases heat during the summer and eliminates their noise buffering effect. Just witnessed a mass starling migration this afternoon. Everyone on the street was mesmerized. They landed on the tops of the leafless trees in the arboretum. Say goodbye to reminders of nature's wonders, such as an abundanc of bird sounds, air purification and erosion prevention. These are the consequences of the wholesale massacre of trees. The South Side of Short Hills Station is on a slope that descends to Millburn Ave. I was here for Hurricane Floyd and witnessed the appliances floating down Woodland Road. Absent the tree buffer on Chatham, I cannot even imagine how water flowing from Hobart Ave. will be contained to prevent flooding of "Glenwood". Please, let's make this whole idea a bad memory that we can repress. Adopt a tree on Chatham Rd. Keep it safe.

Yenta, how many trees did you "massacre" to build your house and your nice grassy yard? Did you go out and hug any of those before you had them chopped down? How many bird nests were destroyed? Or, is it different in your case? At least parking would reduce congestion on our roads, reduce pollution, and reduce fuel usage. Your yard is only for your own personal use.

Spare us the drama. This is not a forest, not an arboritum. It is a row of trees next to the train tracks.

Actually J Doe, the area we are all talking about is right next to the arboretum. While it is not the arboretum proper, it is pretty ironic that they are proposing to raze the area that surrounds it. And, if your view is taken to its logical extension (how many trees did you "massacre" to build your house), we should not be in favor of preserving any trees if we have been willing to cut down some of the trees to build housing? I can't imagine that's what you are really saying. I do take your point that reducing congestion on the roads and enouraging public transportation is important. However, as a user of the Short Hills train station (full disclosure here - I walk to the train and went out of my way to choose a house that is walking distance to the train station), I'm not aware that there is a huge need for additional parking at that station. Certainly there is not such a pressing demand that we should pave out an entire street of trees that will turn a beautiful residential area into a parking lot. On the flip side, I've become convinced that we shouldn't build the parking garage on Lot 7 either. I personally think the valet solution has been working and if people are willing to subsidize it with permits, we should not over-develop our downtown. Summit is a very different town than Millburn and I don't think our small town's character would be enhanced by a garage. If one has to be built it should be in downtown on Lot 2 away from residences.

Train station parking might "reduce congestion on our roads" in general, but it will surely draw new traffic into the surrounding residential area. Sure, there are many environmental benefits to increasing access to public transit, but there are also less destructive options for providing expanded parking near the station, should the need for more spaces be established.

Further, based on this and previous articles regarding commuter parking in Millburn-Short Hills, additional parking at SH station will not eliminate the need for expanded parking or continued valet at Millburn station. From what I understand, the township would need to create at least 150 spaces to get rid of the valet. At maximum, the Short Hills tree removal proposal would only create 60 spaces.

It will not surely draw in new traffic, in fact it will do the opposite. Now, people who live near the SH station have to drive across town to Millburn station to park, since SH has insufficient parking. These spots will allow those people to stay closer to home. These spots will not be for people from other towns, only millburn/SH residents, so it will not draw in new traffic. It will just reduce cross town traffic. Rather than driving an extra couple of miles across busy roads and cutting across near the middle school, people will be able to stay near the SH station and park there.

If there are less destructive ways of getting more parking in SH, then we should do them. But, if the only less destructive way is to put the problem in millburn instead, with the resulting increase in traffic, then that is acutally more destructive and dangerous.

Does anyone know who actually put up the red ribbons on the 120+ trees? Funny thing is that a member of the Township Committee reports having not known anything about this proposal. Who is making this recommendation? The Town Engineer, Mr. Tillotson himself, The Township Forester?

Do you think this will be on the agenda at the Dec 7th meeting?

"These spots will not be for people from other towns, only millburn/SH residents, so it will not draw in new traffic."

Do you know that for certain. My guess is that the spots will be restricted to permit holders at some times, but not at all times. At times when they are unrestricted, the additional spots could lead to increased traffic in the area.

I have an alternative idea. Widen the parking lot directly across from the SH station to the yellow line. Move the curb and plantings to the yellow line. Reconfigure the parking lot. You will be killing two birds with one stone. You will keep the drop off at the station while narrowing Chatham Road at its widest point. Because of the sharp right turn from Station Plaza North to Station Plaza South, crossing Chatham Road is dangerous. Cars do not respect the pedestrian crosswalks. If you make the street narrower, cars will be forced to slow down to a reasonable speed, thereby increasing pedestrian safety, calming traffic and avoiding cutting any the trees. Furthermore, We need more bike racks. There is currently a rack that holds around 7 or 8 bikes. Why is the township even considering accomodating more parking when they can't get it together to add a bike rack that will cost around pennies in comparison?
The people most in danger of getting hit by a car at the SH station are the very commuters who cross the street from and to the parking lots, especially at dusk.

I would like to know why this discussed "plan" under a confidential subcommittee has been presented to the press without being reviewed in a public hearing by the Township Committee. When is it planning to be on the agenda?

Anyone driving on Chatham Road and seeing the 175 trees marked in orange ribbon for removal on only one side of the train tracks must realize that clear cutting these trees will now require a 6 foot and significantly higher retaining wall spreading more than three blocks long for what 20 or 40 extra commuter parking spots? How can blighting of the natural woodland part of this designed village setting be under any serious consideration? I would like to encourage concerned citizens to contact Township Committee members to express their disapproval and request for a public hearing on this matter.

Lise Chapman

The Save Trees Over Parking (STOP) petition is now online at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savetreesoverparking

Please sign if you are a M/SH resident who opposes the removal of the Chatham Road trees to create parking spaces. And, please, spread the word! Thanks!

Lise, you are the voice of reason! There are many concerned residents out there that plan to ensure that this proposal is "cut down" before any tree is destroyed! The proposed plan is unreasonable, does not solve the problem and shows a huge gap in communicate within leadership.