May 2008 Buffers (Page 1 of 2) What is a Category One Buffer? Buffers are vegetated areas adjacent to waterways that provide protection to New Jerseys water quality. These special areas are established and protected through various rules and may vary in width. A 300 foot or Category One (C1) buffer is required by the Stormwater Management (NJAC 7:8) and the Flood Hazard Area Control Act rules (FHACA) at NJAC 7:13, for certain activities proposed adjacent to waters designated in the Surface Water Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9B) as C1 or their upstream tributaries in the same sub-watershed (HUC 14). How is the Category One Buffer applied? Stormwater Management rules: All permits issued by the Departments Division of Land Use Regulation (DLUR) (i.e., Flood Hazard, Freshwater Wetlands, and Coastal permits) must comply with the Stormwater Management rules where applicable. These rules are available at: www.state.nj.us/dep/rules. A 300 foot buffer or Special Water Resource Protection Area (SWRPA) is required for all Major Development (1/4 acre increase in impervious surface or 1 acre of disturbance), that is adjacent to a waterway that is designated as C1 or to an upstream tributary within the same HUC 14 AND that is mapped on either the County Soil Survey or the USGS Quad map. All disturbance in the SWRPA must be approved by the Department in a DLUR permit or by the Division of Watershed Management, when no DLUR permit is required. Development in the SWRPA is permitted in limited circumstances, for example, for a project that involves: a linear development, a unique hardship, or disturbance of the outer 150 feet of the SWRPA that is already disturbed only if the overall functional value of the SWRPA is maintained or improved. Flood Hazard Area Control Act rules: A 300 foot buffer or Riparian Zone (RZ) is required for all regulated activities proposed in within the 300 foot RZ that is adjacent to regulated waters that are designated C1 and upstream tributaries within the same HUC 14 whether mapped or not. Limited disturbance may be permitted in a RZ under an individual permit or a hardship exception. In most cases the SWRPA and RZ will overlap. Compliance with both standards is required. Category One Related Rules Stormwater Management rules (N.J.A.C. 7:8) Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) (N.J.A.C. 7:9B) Flood Hazard Area Control Act rules (FHACA) (N.J.A.C. 7:13) www.nj.gov.dep/rules New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Land Use Management www.nj.gov/dep How is redevelopment impacted? The standards protecting vegetation in the RZ and SWRPA do not apply where no vegetation exists (i.e. paved or developed areas), however, all other applicable standards of the rules apply. This does not apply to disturbed areas where vegetation exists or was illegally removed. How do I know what my buffer is? For an official determination under the FHACA, apply for a Flood Hazard Area Verification to determine the width of the RZ (50300 ft); or for projects involving a Freshwater Wetlands application, a Letter of Interpretation (LOI), which indicates the resource value classification of wetlands on a site, will also note whether a SWRPA is present. C1 waters are listed in the SWQS rules. In addition, the Surface Water Quality Standards are available through the Departments interactive mapping tools and available as a digital data download as an ArcView shape file format at http://www.nj.gov/dep/gis and can be used to informally determine whether a C1 waterbody potentially impacts a project. When are projects grandfathered? Pending and previously approved projects: If the project has a valid DLUR permit or an application deemed complete by the Department prior to the effective date of a C1 designation, it is not subject to the requirements made applicable by the new designation. Projects needing more than one DLUR permit: If the project has a valid DLUR permit (i.e. Flood Hazard) prior to the effective date of a C1 designation and requires another DLUR permit (i.e. Freshwater Wetlands), the review of the other permit will be exempt from requirements made applicable by the C1 designation provided that the previously approved valid permit included a stormwater management review consistent with the Stormwater Management rules effective February 2, 2004 and any subsequent amendments. Projects that did not need a FHACA permit prior to a new C1 designation, but are now located within the C1 buffer: Projects with municipal approval, issued prior to the effective date of the C1 designation, that enables commencement of construction will not require a FHACA permit. Projects that did not need a municipal approval and began construction before the effective date of the C1 designation as evidenced by: the foundation for at least one building or structure; all of the subsurface improvements for a roadway; or the installation of all of the bedding materials for a utility line, will not require a FHACA permit. In all cases, if the project changes such that a new permit application is required, the designation in effect at the time of the new application will apply. Category One Buffers Buffers (Page 2 of 2) For More Information Stormwater management and municipal stormwater permittingwww.njstormwater.org Division of Land Use Regulationwww.nj.gov/dep/landuse Division of Watershed Management www.nj.gov/dep.watershedmgt Water Monitoring and Standardswww.nj.gov/dep/wms
__________________
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.
In short this new document explains how the new rules fit together. In shorter terms - the exsisting plans CC has on record do not fulfill the requirements set forth and thereby the plan is dead in the water (pun intended). - I have it in PDF if anyone wants it - just email me. have a very nice day! Lisa
__________________
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.
"Development in the SWRPA is permitted in limited circumstances, for example, for a project that involves: a linear development, a unique hardship, or disturbance of the outer 150 feet of the SWRPA that is already disturbed only if the overall functional value of the SWRPA is maintained or improved."
-------------------------------------------------
I wonder what defines a "unique hardship" and who determines if one exists?
The current cc updated plan - ie to refurb the interior only proves that in order to practice their religion they do not have to change the footprint of the building - therefore RLUIPA is not a problem and their is no hardship on them per the DEP definition of the term.
Yes it appears we are back to meetings and who knows how long this round will take. With all the new regs I almost..ALMOST feel bad for them however I did attempt nearly 5 years ago now I guess to tell them that this land was very important environmentally speaking and that the plan was simply a bad idea. If they had looked at the substance of what we were saying rather then resort to PR games and name calling they would have saved a great deal of time and a heck of a lot more money!
Given the turn in the economy on top of everything else not to mention the gas price increase this plan makes less and less sense by the day.
Oh well - back to the meetings! As soon as I get word on when they will begin again I will let you know. There is also a chance that they will abandon the idea for a while and just work with the refurbed area. The planning board process is a costly one and it does not appear they have the funds or that their membership thinks it neccessary to pay for it at this point.
Lisa
__________________
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.
Obviously I am hoping that this puts a big hold on the project too, but I am worried about the, "Pending and previously approved projects: If the project has a valid DLUR permit or an application deemed complete by the Department prior to the effective date of a C1 designation, it is not subject to the requirements made applicable by the new designation." I havent heard any recent outcome on the exemption appeal, but wouldnt this mean that IF the DEP OK's their exemption again AND deems their permits to be complete that they would not be affected by the new designation? Personally I wouldnt put too much faith in this being a major roadblock for them. The other items Lisa mentioned, might have more effect, that being the poor economy and gas prices. Everything is going up so I am sure their plans are going to be much more costly now than they originally thought and the congregation might be less willing to make the trip every Sunday. C.
"Everything is going up so I am sure their plans are going to be much more costly now than they originally thought and the congregation might be less willing to make the trip every Sunday."
-----------------------------------------
As paradoxical as this sounds, the sour economy and the prospects of $10.00 per gallon gasoline is the only bright spot with regard to the cc situation, and I must say that it pleases me greatly.
I figure that we can better afford 10 buck gas than the folks living in the inner city, so bring on more price hikes soon!
I assume that CC still hasn't applied for the permits necessary to do the interior refurbishment. Last I heard that was going to be done in order to begin holding services at 140 GPR this August. Seems like this is behind schedule and I was wondering if CC might be reconsidering the project in light of some of the problems contained in this thread. Any thoughts or information on that or am I just succumbing to wishful thinking?
PS. My pseudonym, rockres23yrs, reminds me that this all has been going on for five years now. How time flies.
All they have at this point is a demo permit for the interior. The recent tax appeal they filed had some strange negotiated pieces such as they promised not to file any legal action against the town for a set period of time - which means to me that they have no plans to move forward on the project for at least 2-3 years anyway.
Yes the changes at the DEP do mean back to the planning board - the plans approvals were always based on the idea that as long as they met state and federal law then they are permitted. At this point if they were issued a permit RTWP would be in violation of following state law - so in short .... Yes we will at some point be heading back to the planning board.
In other news I think we all need to spend a little attention of a new pressing problem - the Gov. new idea that many suburban areas add new housing - this has nothing to do with CC it is a sperate issue all together - If we are required to do what the Gov. has suggested we will have to add about 1000 homes to Rockaway Twp - currently we have about 8600 homes and it took us about 130 years to get to that point -now they want us to add an additional 1000 in just a few years - THAT IS NUTS! Think of the added schools we will need, the fire/first aid services, the roads, water and sewage issues and that us just the tip of the iceberg! Now figure into this that 25% of the land the state calculated these number on is in Picatinny - and of the 75% left nearly 60% is in the Highlands - this leaves about 15% of our total township where this "building" could take place - however most of that land is already build upon. Someone is missing the picture here and yet again I am stunned at the lack of thought and planning our "leaders" in Trenton have provided. Does anyone recall the fact that we were attempting to limit urban sprall and that if people move out here they will also have to travel back east for work - at $4+ a gallon for gas!?? Uff DA!
Have a nice day as you ponder this latest issue! Lisa
__________________
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.
Thanks for the information Lisa. Regarding the new issue that you brought up, if there isn't room for the additional housing in the 15% of RT that is buildable wouldn't that mean that the housing "quota" would need to be scaled back to something that reflects reality? What else could they do? Compel us to build high rises?
Where in the township is the 15% located? Would building in that area necessitate an extension of the sewer line north on Green Pond Road so that Hibernia and Telemark could get sewer hookups? If so, that might be a bright spot in this.
Can the state "compel" us to build... who knows it is uncharted at this point.
Nearly everything up Green Pond Rd is in the Highlands - so no building there. It is around the mall, in pockets around White Meadow and Birchwood. One lot the is owned by the Wilf family is directly accross from the mall - it is currenly zoned commercial but they are seeking to have it changed. And of course Pond View which is still on hold.
I can not state strongly enough that residents need to attend public meetings and make sure your elected officials are fighting for the entire town - do not wait for someone else to do it... please get involved. If something is not done very soon in a few short years you will all be wondering "how did this all happen?"
I do not use the term "Crisis" often - but that is what we are facing here.
Lisa
__________________
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.
So Lisa, more info on the tax appeal you mentioned. What are they looking for and what did the town give them? Why would anyone include a promise not to take any legal action against the town as a prerequisite for a tax appeal? Seems to me that they dont deserve ANY reduction in taxes unless and until the site use changes to a house of worship and then ONLY on the sanctuary area, not the entire property. I hope the twp doesnt allow itself to be further neutered by their threats.
"make sure your elected officials are fighting for the entire town"
That frightens the hell out of me! Please excuse my French, but they couldn't find their asses with a roadmap and a flashlight on the entire CC fiasco. What leads us to believe they will listen to any of us residents any better this time around?
I want the endless hours spent at going to CC meetings back - Lou seems like the only one with half a brain - the rest offer no hope for our beloved town.
Stepping off my soapbox for now, and we really appreciate all the time you have given for our town already!
I think we have a few clear minded people working for us and I think we have a few are not so willing to fight for what is right and simply go with the flow. I was happy to see Barabara Grimaldi step down - the woman was clueless and failed to see Rockaway Twp as an entire town but only as sections ie she refered to the north end of town as "the netherlands" and suggested that such things as a new dog park should not be in the 'netherregions or out in the netherlands" because those with small properties such as those at Fox Hills needed the space more??? The list of Barbaraisms is long and her lack of understanding of the town was displayed each time she spoke in a meeting - COMPLETELY CLUELESS, personally I think she was a nice person, however as a council person - CLUELESS!. So she is now gone - maybe we can get someone a little more "town" minded to replace her.
I think we all should be scared about what is happening - much of which is handed down from Trenton and the town has little say in the matters. The town is still fighting the exemption and other issues and they need your support - keep writing letters and come to meetings as you can.
Re the tax appeal - If you really want to get upset on that issue look no further then the mall and what they are attempting to do - all of which is made legal by STATE law - not local ones.
Lisa
__________________
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.
I see the Highlands Master Plan was approved yesterday by the Council and now goes to Crooked Governor Corzine who will probably rubber stamp it unless some developers come across with payolla to block it
Anyone know if the adendums that were passed work in the Township's favor for the CC proposal.