It was an interesting session. I told a certain DR reporter to check closely as to whether the CC plans met the Highlands requirements. He told me that the Rev assurred him that they fully met all the Highlands requirements with the revised plans. Well now we find out that the "truthfull" Reverend was less than forthcoming with that statement. (not there's a surprise). Not only dont they meet any of the requirements, they arent even trying to. They have adopted the opinion that they are totally exempt from the Highlands regulations and have formally filed for an exemption with the DEP. They are basing that on their calculations that they havent increased the size of the impervious covering with their new plan so therefore they are totally exempt from everything. The buffer they are using ranges from as little as 50' to a maximum of 150' from the streams, not the 300' required by the Highlands. The entire project violates the township ordinance prohibiting construction within 1500' of a public drinking water source. They also have reduced the size of the parking spaces from 9' x 20' required by ordinance to 9'x18' saving themselves 18sq. ft. per space, thereby increasing the density of parking. By doing so and designating more of the building space as non-occupied areas they are trying to fudge the occupancy/parking space requirements. Some 270 of their new parking spaces is actually on top of designated wetlands. Their calculations of impervious surface was equally as creative. They are calculating strictly on an arial, 2 dimensional footprint basis, claiming they are actually using less imperv surface then Agilent had. The only problem with that is that they arent including the under building parking lot, which actually doubles the IS of the main bldg, nor are they including the second level parking surface in their proposed two level parking deck. Now I'm not a lawyer or an engineer, but it seems to me that the whole purpose of the regs on IS was to control runoff like gasoline, oil, road salt, etc. from parking areas. Those proposed parking areas are still open to the elements. They will have snow, rain, ice, along with the gas, oil, and salt running off of them, regardless of whether they are on a surface level or lower level. I also dont think they calculated the IS of the main bldg roof correctly either. They are again going on a two dimensional footprint. For example, if the bldg now, with a flat roof, is 100'x200' you would have 20,000 sq ft of IS for the roof. If you take that same bldg footprint, 100'x200', but put a peak to the roof, you add at least 30% to that surface, depending on the pitch of the roof. I doubt they are going to have a flat roof on their main "sanctuary". So IMHO their entire plan is a sham. Hopefully the town and the VORT lawyer will also file a brief with the DEP objecting to the exemption and pointing out some of these descrepancies. So much for our good Rev trying to blend in with and become a part of RT. NIMBY and NIMRT.
Thanks for the summary. I thought they were also planning a parking garage and that one level and the footings would be underground contrary to Highlands Law. Was that not present in the revised plans?
/* You may give each page an identifying name, server, and channel on the next lines. */ var pageName="" var server="" var channel="" var pageType="" var pageValue="" var prop1="local-news" var prop2="" var prop3="" var prop4="" var prop5="" var prop6="news" var prop7="local_news" var prop8="" var prop9="" var prop10="" /************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE! ***************/ var s_code=' ' 09/14/04 - Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
David Ireland, Christ Church pastor, bottom, listens as hearings on the proposed church resume following a three-month delay called to assess the new Highlands law. Danielle Austen / Daily Record Christ Church seeks DEP exemption
By Rob Jennings, Daily Record
ROCKAWAY TWP. -- Christ Church of Montclair wants an exemption from the new Highlands law and will meet with the state Department of Environmental Protection next month, an attorney for the 5,000-member, evangelical Christian church testified at Monday's township planning board hearing.
The attorney, Wendy Berger, said that Christ Church's total square footage of proposed pavement and buildings was less than what already exists at the 107-acre, former Agilent Technologies site currently under a $14 million purchase agreement with Christ Church.
"We're not building more impervious coverage," Berger said during a break in Monday's planning board hearing, the eighth on Christ Church's controversial "mega-church" building plan on Green Pond Road.
In response, an organizer of Voices of Rockaway Township, which opposes the church building plan, said she disagreed with Berger's assessment.
"They are disrupting way more than a quarter-acre or more," said Lisa Salberg, referring to one of the numerous technical requirements in the law, which was signed by Gov. James McGreevey in August.
Christ Church scaled back its proposed building area from 412,000 to 287,000 square feet in a revised application in August and adjusted its parking diagrams. The existing building there is 283,000 square feet but Christ Church is claiming to have reduced the total parking area by modifying its plans.
An exemption from the law would be a big boost to Christ Church, which scaled back its proposed sanctuary from 3,000 seats to approximately 2,500 seats after agreeing to a 3-month delay in the hearings in June.
Under the Highlands law, proposed developments in a 395,000-acre preservation zone, including the Agilent site, would be subject to review by a state regional planning council.
The law exempts churches, but not those that are seeking to relocate, as is the case with Christ Church.
Berger said that Christ Church will meet with DEP on Oct. 5 and predicted it would be one of the first such meetings with an organization seeking an exemption from the law.
Berger predicted success, but planning board chairman Morton Dicker -- during an extended exchange with Berger -- said that the board had to proceed under the assumption that the Highlands law would apply to the application.
"I'm not inclined to grant an approval based on an exemption that may or may not be granted," Dicker said.
Christ Church's proposal, which has generated heavy local opposition from residents who charge it would hurt the environment and worsen traffic, includes a private K-5 school, recreation facilities, a Fellowship Hall and other services.
The church's pastor, David Ireland, charged in an interview last week that opponents were distorting the proposal.
Approximately 175 people attended Monday's hearing at the Copeland Middle School. Five police officers, including Police Chief Walter Kimble, stood near two entrances into the hearing room.
Ireland sat at a table with Berger as the church's site engineer began testifying about the revised building plan.
Board attorney William Dimin said the possibility existed that a township ordinance establishing churches as conditional uses might be changed by the council in a way that could potentially impact the Christ Church case.
Dimin, after months of debate on the issue, ruled in June that the size and scope of Christ Church's application should not preclude it from consideration under the existing ordinance -- a ruling that had been sought by Christ Church.
An attorney for Voices of Rockaway Township, Michael Edelson, had urged the planning board to transfer jurisdiction to the board of adjustment, which would have complicated the church's approval process.
Before the hearing, fliers were circulated in the audience advertising a fundraiser for Voices of Rockaway Township, to be held Oct. 10.
A ninth planning board hearing on the church will be held next month.
__________________
The truth wins out over slick PR and personal attacks.
The Christ Church Plan for the redevelopment of 140 Green Pond Rd is just too big for the area.
That parking garage is only partially underground. It is being referred to as "underbuilding". They confirmed that the garage floor would be at about existing grade and that the water table is only 8' below that. I would assume that with that in mind, you would need some pretty heavy duty footings to support a large bldg over top, so they would definitely have to go into the water table.
