All the talk from the CC PR people that they would "comply" with the law has been a lie.  They do not seek to comply  - they seek an exemption and they will not clearly state under what grounds.  It appears they are claiming that because once they demolish the building and foundation, which is on far more than 1 acre of land, they will then rebuild on the "same/smaller foot print".  The current footprint ends on the foundation, not UNDER.  (they are playing a very cute game on the UNDERGROUND parking - they refuse to call it underground, they insist on using the term "under building"  - but do state that they will need to remove soil and there will be no windows).  Further, they should actually read the HIGHLANDS BILL for the areas which they may claim an exemption - they do not meet the requirments as they will be DISBRUBTING more than 1 acre of land. 

What other items does CC not wish to comply with?

They wish to make the parking spaces smaller than required by law.  What will this gain for them - more parking spaces - what does this do for us... it allows more pollution to the driveway area that will run off into the water - it allows more traffic and more!

They will not show us the 300 foot buffer zone required by the highlands bill - why??  it will prove that the building itself is within 300 feet of 2 C-1 waterways.

They seek numerous other exemptions and speak about this with a tone that makes it sound like it is really no big deal  - Well it is a big deal and we know that our town officials will enforce the laws as they stand. 

On other matters, yet again Mr. T. Doty was within feet of the memebers of Voice of Rockaway Twp. and yet again the man lacked the courage to address his concerns face to face. 

What was that Ireland said about telling the truth?  I know some reporters are feeling that he has been less than honest.  It is really a tragic day when a man of God puts his own selfish needs over that which would protect Gods earth.

Have a nice day.

You can download a complete copy of the Highlands Bill from the DEP website in .pdf format, which I did last nite. It is rather lengthly, so I have not read thru the whole thing in detail yet, but I did find a couple of passages that apply. The definition of "impervious surface" is as follows:

"Impervious surface" means any structure, surface, or improvement
that reduces or prevents absorption of stormwater into land, and includes
porous paving, paver blocks, gravel, crushed stone, decks, patios,
elevated structures, and other similar structures, surfaces, or
improvements;

The paragraph that they are claiming exemption under appears to be the following:

(4) the reconstruction of any building or structure for any reason
within 125% of the footprint of the lawfully existing impervious surfaces
on the site, provided that the reconstruction does not increase the lawfully
existing impervious surface by one-quarter acre or more. This exemption
shall not apply to the reconstruction of any agricultural or horticultural
building or structure for a non-agricultural or non-horticultural use;

I think it will boil down to how the impervious surface is calculated. If its a 3 dimensional consideration, which seems logical, then they are out of the ballgame.