They are doing a lot of digging from the sign right up to the stream by the driveway. Unless they got their exemption (even with) I would think that would be a violation that close to a C1 waterway. They are from 50' to 0' away. Also saw a load of gravel being dumped in front. Whats going on?
Have you guys not yet figured out that Black Churches are immune to the rules that the rest of us must follow. It is really silly to even bring up these sorts of things at this point. We should all know better by now. Ireland can do whatever he wants to do. To make a complaint about it would be considered to be racist.
Rat
ps - just as an aside, the property adjacent to the road is owned by us, the taxpayers of RT, not that it matters in the least.
You know, as residents RT, state your opinion regarding the location, but you talk about lies.... I read nothing, but exaggerations and lies come from all of you. Instead of bashing Dr. Ireland, why don't you look at yourselves and wonder what's wrong. Afterall, you spend time judging him and then cry out the christian faith is all about judgement. Are you any better? CC is a pretty decent church, flawed like all other churches, but decent. They help a lot of people, but since you're so perfect and don't need help, don't concern yourself with what makes 6000 other people happy.
You know, as residents RT, state your opinion regarding the location, but you talk about lies.... I read nothing, but exaggerations and lies come from all of you. Instead of bashing Dr. Ireland, why don't you look at yourselves and wonder what's wrong. Afterall, you spend time judging him and then cry out the christian faith is all about judgement. Are you any better? CC is a pretty decent church, flawed like all other churches, but decent. They help a lot of people, but since you're so perfect and don't need help, don't concern yourself with what makes 6000 other people happy.
I think before you come in here and pass your own judgement about us, you should live in the area that is being affected. Without being personally involved, you are an outsider looking in through the "looking glass" only. The differences between CC and any other church in Rockaway Borough or Township is quite simple, the other churches want to peacefully coexist within the current main structure of the community, and CC and Rev Irelands ego want to push, shove, and sue until they get things done "just the way I (the Rev ireland) want to", because "God told me (the rev ireland) to continue the fight for my megachurch, and let no heathen stand in my way" (quotes from his own public speeches). So anyone who disagrees with the Rev Ireland is a heathen, honestly, do you really believe GOD would say such things when GOD loves all his children for who they are. Again, is it not the EGO of one man (The Rev Ireland) who is driving this they way he wants it and most certainly not the way GOD would want it based on his teachings. Again, think about it.
Well said Mr. Bill. The way I look at is, Did they look at what would make the 18K people of Rockaway Twp happy? Not at all, and I will continue to fight against their brand of bigotry and religious extremeism as long as I live. C.
Besides his intolerance of other religions (especially Roman Catholicism and Judaism from what I have experienced and been told by people close to the situation), it is the "you people owe us" attitude that I find extremely offensive. It is the "we are now here and you need to set everything up for us" attidude that really gets to me.
We are a charatible people here in RT, but we shall choose to whom we shall be generous. We do not stand for demands of acceptance and charity by an outsider.
Today, I called the RT building department to find out what is going on. I spoke with Mr. John Drew, the Municipal Engineering Inspector. He (ireland) is constructing a lighted sign there running electrical conduits, etc.
It is unclear on whose property the construction of this signage is occurring. Drew told me that the planning board gave liarland permission to construct a sign there. I told him that the planning board does not have the right to permit someone to construct a religious symbol on public property - - - that it is beyond the purview of the planning board to overstep the law in that regard.
I then asked Drew about the C-1 setback requirements. He was aware that there is a general requirement of 300 feet, but he told me that they have a letter from the DEP dated Oct 2007 exempting them from the requirement. So I asked what setback they are restricted to?
He said they have no setback requirement whatsoever. He read the letter from the DEP to me and he seems to be correct. Drew agreed with me that the language in the letter allows liarland to build right on the banks of the stream if he so chooses.
I told Drew that I am going to have to see that letter with my own two eyes and told him that I will comming down there tomorrow to see it. I will try to make a copy of it and post it for all to see assuming that I meet with success.
I'm travelling this week and next, so when you get a chance, post the letter. I'd be curious if that letter has not been superceded (is the letter an official letter, or perhaps not, did anyone call and check with the DEP to see if it is no longer valid or not) by the DEP revisiting all of the paperwork involved with this new construction and development on 140 GPR. My advice is to start at the bottom and work your way up. Then let us know what you find out.
So far, the township has not been as forthcomming as I requested. John Drew has not gotten back to me and I have had a call into Jim Lutz, the township engineer since yesterday with no call - back.
John said yesterday that the plans submitted show the sign to be on cc property. I pointed out that cc plans are not to be trusted and that I want to see them along with the letter of dispensation from the DEP. I pointed out that cc has, in the past, submitted plans of differing design to the RT planning board as compared to what has been submitted to the DEP. I told Drew that we need to go back to the township or county maps and see exactly where this guy is building with respect to property lines.
Because of the stonewalling, I called Greg Poff, the township administrator and explained to him what I seek which is:
1. Demonstration that the property that is being built upon belongs to cc
2. Demonstration that they have formal permission from the DEP to encroach the 300 foot C1 stream buffers.
3. Demonstration that they have all of the building permits required for external as well as internal construction. (It is very fuzzy as to whether or not these have been attained - - - Greg said that the RT PB approved the construction of a megachurch but I said that does not obviate the necessity for permits and I want to see them.)
I petitioned Greg that he must share the same concerns that I do and that he must feel it necessary to be vigilant in the enforcement of state and local zoning and environmental laws. Greg said that he will bring these items up in his staff meeting this AM with both the aforementioned parties. I hope to have some answers before the end of the day. In any case, I shall keep everyone updated.
John Drew just called me and gave me the DEP stream encorachment permit document number which is:
1435-06-0010.1FHA070001
The DEP tel number may be (not sure if this is the right one) 609-777-0454.
I told John that I want a copy of the letter to post here. He gave me some jazz about doing that, so I gave him some jazz about the freedom of information act. He is going to get back to me as I insisted that I have a right to view these documents (and make copies of them) since I am a taxpaying citizen of RT and NJ.
When push came to shove, Drew stated that the township is relying on cc submitted plans indicating that they are not constructing on township or county land. There has been no independent verification of that. I re-iterated that this must be verified by RT and/or Morris county government officials.
Drew disagrees with that premise and trusts the plans as submitted.
I have scheduled to pick up a copy of the abovementioned DEP exemption document from town hall tomorrow. There is some red tape involved in getting a copy. It does not appear that I can post attachments here, but I will strive to transcribe it after I obtain it for those who may find it to be of interest.
Yes, great job Rat. Pse keep us informed. It was my impression that all the property from the stream to the road was Twp. Yes he would be allowed the same courtesy as Agilent was to have a sign, but that was within reason. I havent heard of any final determination of their exemption, but that may just be the town keeping it quiet so as not to admit that their "plan" to keep them out has been a total failure. Supposedly he only had a permit for the internal demo for the temp sanctuary. I would think a major outdoor digging and erection of a lighted sign would also require addnl permits too. I know Lisa is out of town this week but hopefully when she is back she can add some insights too. C.
If it was a straight "upgrade" to the sign, then no permits would be required. However, because it is a new lighted sign, lighting, site engineering, and drainage plans would all be required in Rockaway Township. Check with the building dept to see if those plans were submitted, and if so, where the approved. If approved, ask to see the meetings of the minutes for the public meeting this would have had to be approved at. I can remember a new larger sign I wanted to put on a commercial property in the township two or three years ago that got drawn out when a neighboring tenant thought my new sign would partially block his from the roadway, he called the town, and all of a sudden I needed all of these engineering plans and permits (I got them all by the way, and no, my sign did not block his at all as mine was a bit higher than his) before they would issue me approvals. So again, my advice is to start with the basics and work your way up the township foodchain from there.
I have a number of pieces of information from todays research. I shall post the Stream Encroachment/Freshwater Wetlands exemption first. This is a transcription of the document and so there may be a few typos despite my best effort.
I will provide other information that I learned today under a separate posting to avoid confusion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Land Use Regulations
Applicant: Christ Church 140 Green Pond Road Rockaway., NJ 07688 (sic)
Description of Authorized Activities and Limit of Disturbance
This permit grants permission to redevelop the site to a multi use church campus including a sanctuary, administrative offices, a school, a gynmasium, recreational fields, and cafeteria and dining areas, parking area, and stormwater management facilities along both beaver brook and hibernia brook at a location approximately 1500 feet upstream of the confluence of said watercourses, within lot Nos. 2 and 3 of Block No. 22203 in the Township of Rockaway, Morris County, New Jersey. This permit also authorizes disturbances to freshwater wetlands and transition areas under general permits 2 and 11 as well as a transition area waiver.
(Prior to site preparation or construction of the site, the permittee shall submit a draft copy of the required conservation restriction for review and written approval of the Division. Upon written approval of the draft, a final conservation restriction shall be recorded with the property deed in the office of the country clerk and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Division. No site preparation or construction authorized by this permit shall commence until the approved conservation restriction is recorded with the property deed in the office of the County Clerk.)
Project Manager's Signature:
Gabriel Mahon Telephone: (609) 984-0194 Email: gabriel.mahon@dep.state.nj.us
Note by Transcriber: There are 4 more pages to this document which I would define as mostly "boilerplate". As such, I did not transcribe these. If anyone is interested in having a complete copy of this faxed over, just contact me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shall reserve commentary for a separate posting.
This post is pertaining to the cc sign and its oversight.
------------------
Today, I took a close look at the conduit(s) (yes, there are two - - - not one) for ths cc sign. I noted that the electrical conduits are 1 inch in diamater and there are two separate circuits that can be facilitated by these. In my engineering judgement, two conduits of that size can carry enough power at standard 120 Volt, 3 Phase, 4 wire configurations to handle at least 6,000 Watts of lighting* (math is shown below).
Now folks, that is not your typical sign with a little spotlight on it! That is a beacon!
So, I called the township administrator, Greg Poff and asked him a series of questions including:
1. What is the size of the sign? (answer: I do not know)
2. What is the height of the sign? (answer - I do not know)
3. What is the lighting Wattage that is being permitted and is there any zoning limitation of the number of lumens emitted by a sign located in a residential area? (answer - I do not know)
4. Is anyone overseeing the construction of this sign with a view towards assuring that all of the zoning and environmental laws are being followed (answer - I do not know)
5. What about the foundation footings for this signage - - - are there any requirements based on height, weight and size? (answer - I do not know).
6. I asked him if he realized that RT owns property right along that area? (answer: I know that)
7. I asked him if any of the signage construction or conduit running is encroaching on RT property (answer: I do not know)
8. I asked him if anyone knows the answer to the questions that I am raising? He said that he doubted it because nobody really seems to care about it but for me (Rat).
I assured him that a lot of folks are going to be caring a lot about it and that he better spend some time learning the answers to the questions that I raised and to be prepared to provide more instructive answers other than "I do not know" by sometime next week. I told him that I am a bulldog and am not going to just go away.
Anyway - - - the overall attitude in chatting with 4 folks down at town hall so far is that nobody really cares about any of this - - - a real laissez faire sort of approach.
I find that to be uncacceptable.
*Note: Here is the Math -
A one inch conduit can easily carry 4 conductors of 12 AWG wire size. 12 AWG with a 90 degree C rating is capable of 20 Amperes intermittent and 0.8 x 20 Amperes on a continuous basis.
Each circuit is 120 VAC, 3 Phase Resistive, 20 Amp, 12 AWG. The power that this circuit is capable of delivering to a resistive (lighting type) load is:
20 Amps x 0.8 derating for greater than 6 hours use x 120 VAC x 3^1/2 = 3,325 Watts
Since there are two circuit conduits being run by our good friends at childs circus, the total power that he can deliver to his beacon sign is 6,651 Watts.
And -
According to Table 5B of the National Electrical Code, one is permitted to run up to 4 x 4 AWG conductors in a single 1 inch electrical conduit, meaning that my calculations above are on the most conservative side of the capability of the system that he is building there.
And, if he is just running low Wattage bulbs, then why not run only one conduit? Why 2 conduits?
Status of RTs appeal of the DEP cc Exemption: ---------------
I inquired of a number of folks at town hall today to find out the status of RTs appeal of the DEP exemption of cc from the highlands legislation requirements. Nobody that I spoke with even knew about this, amazingly.
Ultimately, I had to place a formal written request for information with the township clerk in that regard. It will take a few days to "process" whatever the heck that means. Anyway, I should know the status of that litigation early next week, hopefully.
This is complete bull****. The almighty pious rev big-bucks thinks a little time would make us residents complacent? I have already left a message for Lou and demand answers for this latest insult - I encourage all to do the same (go rat!). It is time for our town leaders to grow a set of balls and take a stand for our rights - we pay the taxes and elect their sorry asses.
I will let you all know what I hear back folks - if evaded I will demand a meeting with Lou. Keep up the good fight rat - we may have to pencil you in for Mayor Maier!
" - - - we may have to pencil you in for Mayor Maier!"
-----------------------------
While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I will never run for political office, nor would anyone ever really want to vote for me as politically incorrect as I am and intend to remain.
I is only an inginear and intend to keep it that way.
The reason for both conduits is so that the Rev "Ego" can install his mega 20' x 20' animated sign so the people stuck in traffic on Green Pond road do not miss his services. He can beam his likeness for all to see, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Just wait till the satellite ground station gets installed out back where the soccer fields used to be. Then let's not forget the helipad hanger that the Rev Ego needs to build so that he can fly is congregation paid multimillion dollar helicopter from Rockaway to Montclair, so he can administer his teachings to the rest of his poor flock. Am I exaggerating, only time and the Rev Ego will tell.
I do not know what he intends for his signage, but it seems that the building department does not know (or care) either. So, my big beef about all of this is that nobody seems to know what the nature of this signage is. I think that we have a right to know the specifics before he builds it to be sure that it complies with zoning laws, setbacks, light output, etc. I also am curious if he has the proper permits for this
and -
relating to the DEP exemption shown above and quoting it - - -
"(Prior to site preparation or construction of the site, the permittee shall submit a draft copy of the required conservation restriction for review and written approval of the Division. Upon written approval of the draft, a final conservation restriction shall be recorded with the property deed in the office of the country clerk and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Division. No site preparation or construction authorized by this permit shall commence until the approved conservation restriction is recorded with the property deed in the office of the County Clerk.)"
My question about that is has the permittee submitted a draft copy yet? If that has not been done yet, then nothing should be going on near that stream until that task has been completed.
I'm not sure about CC, but I know every other property owner or landlord has to first submit plans for approval whenever they want to make changes to their property. If CC did not submit these plans, the question is why is Rockaway Township not following their own rules and regulations to force them to do so? The second question is, after now finding out that CC is doing additional construction (unless the sign construction was buried in the plans submitted for the interior demolition and construction) on the exterior portions of their property, why is it that Rockaway Townships building dept has not issued a cease and desist workorder? Who is being paid off in the building dept? Or is it perhaps that someone in the building dept is related to the builder, or is now a new member of CC and is doing things through the back door or the down low.......I'll repeat, where are the minutes to the meeting where this signage was approved?
I just received a phone call from John Drew, the township Engineering Inspector to report on the signage electrical conduits. The problem is that the drawings submitted to RT only includes 1 x 1" conduit, not 2 x 1" as is presently installed. So, I asked him to find out if there is anyplace where it stipulates that two conduits are provided for in the design. He said that he will research it further, but it appears that there is one conduit too many running up to the cc sign.
I hinted that if the drawings indicate one conduit that one of the two conduits should not be there and should be removed. He had no comment about that.
I asked when he would have more information about the electrical system/conduits and he said that he would call me later this week.
Could be, but the only drawing that the building department has shows only on conduit. So, I do not really care about what ireland needs in terms of signage infrastructure (seperate power and signal lines). I only care that the prints do not show two conduits and I want to know how he gets away with putting in two when he told the town that he was only going to run one.
I think that we need to hold him to his drawings. That is how it is done in my world of engineering so why should this bastard be exempted from it?
In other words, you design it, review it, draw it, submit it, get it approved and then you build it per the plan.
Well, to play the Devils advocate on this one, the second conduit could be empty and for "future use as yet to be determined". I have seen this type of strategy used a number of times in commercial construction with 90% of them going unused. However, all have always been shown on the engineering plans submitted to the local building and code enforcement people, and not just in Rockaway, NJ. It seems to me that the building dept and code enforcement dept is not doing their job to the full extent of the current laws on the books.
