Nancy,  during the February 2008 BOD meeting the OPVFD president and the fire chief were present and questions like yours were asked an a lot of people were not satisfied that a major, singular reason was given.  There was what I call a lot of "himming and hawing" going on. At that point in time the OPVFD had not organized their efforts enough to be able to give concrete answers.  Their architech (from Becker Morgan) was just "coming on board".

The main emphasis from the BOD was to do what had been promised for so many years and never done - even letting the tree grow on the roof years ago. The argument was made, and is still being made by Marty Clarke - that the membership has ALREADY PAID for the rehabilitation via assessments that went into OPA reserve accounts. The BOD was looking at a way to facilitate improvements to several entities: the OPA membership (who has financed this), the various OPA departments who use this facility such as Rec. and Parks, the various clubs and organizations that use the place, etc.  During this time it was quickly realized that OPA's portion of the CH space would increase from 6,000 sq. ft. to approximately 10,000 sq. ft. if the OPVFD were to vacate the building. AND there definately were stormwater management and wetland issues beings that facility is within 1,000 of "tidal water" and to try to go over the 10,000 sq. ft. "footprint" would cause OPA to have to conform to a lot of regulations.

At the same time, the Comprehensive Planning Committee was recommending space needs of 14,000 sq. ft.   It was felt by the BOD that 10,000 would suffice and I dare say now that we have the Zogby report in hand, that this number is certainly justified based on the stated  usage of the building.(lower than expected)

The fire department has different pieces of equipment now, such as ladder trucks, that it did not have during the 2004 time period (which they said they would "close" the North station), that will not fit into that building, and it was OPVFD's ultimate decision to say - "we want a 'new' building" (that would accomidate such equipment). The fire department, after several months of "himming and hawing", finally decided this was the way to go and the contract that the forum has been alluding to that Bill Zawacki signed the other week, is the culmination of formalizing that decision. (whether or not Bill Z acted properly or not is not a topic in this post).

Nancy, to me, the "controversy" in this issue is not the cost (it has already been paid) and not the notion of OPVFD having their own building - it is a matter of WHERE its going and what effect that will have on trees, traffic, NOISE, etc.   I sense that is a concern that is not only shared by you but by others as well.

The last I heard, and don't hold me to this as I have not been invited to these related meetings, is the projected size of that new fire station would take "about an acre" from White Horse Park - and if I remember correctly, that is about 210' x 210' (approximately).  The entrance will be on Ocean Parkway.  This should help you "visualize" the project.   I have no idea how many trees would have to come down with the full project but you are correct that a lot will be taken down.

You, and many others with concerns,(how about the members who live on Crow's Nest Lane?)  will be able to address those concerns within the referendum process - such as the required Public Hearing and, ultimately, the ballot box.  One of the more intriguing questions and "hot topic" is what if the "quotes" for the rehab job come in BELOW the referendum threshhold?   We should know by July 2nd.

Nancy, I am not criticizing you or arguing with you, I fully understand your angst. I am simply trying to share information with you, but more importantly, trying to get people more actively observant about these issues by seeking out the information via the papers and websites.  Hope this helps.  Respectfully,   Reid