Hi -it has been a very busy few months which left me with a broken leg in New Orleans and a month (so far) of recovery. I wanted to let you know some new information: 1. The test of the Highlands Act has held up in favor of the Act. This means in part - that CC has to comply with the Act - regardless of the timing of the plans. There still is a chance they will get an exeption - however there are other new laws that they will be required to comply with - storm water, C-1 and others which make it highly unlikely that they will ever be able to build anything close to what the plans show.
2. The sign - they violated state law in the work they did - and honestly so did the town - they were to have had a permit because they were within feet of a C-1. I was out of town when the construction took place - but did make calls about it. It was a mistake that should not have happened and hopefully will never happen again.
3. There has been a changing of the guard in Trenton - the former head of DEP has moved to the Gov. office and there is a new head of the DEP - The former head of DEP Lisa Jackson in on a short list for a federal position.
4. It appears that CC needs additional permits before they can open the temporary sanctuary... and they are not happy about that - I suspect you will see a new legal action from them in the coming weeks.
5. Looking back over the past 5 years now... every thing we have been saying has come to pass - the land is wrong for a development this size - the infrastructure is not there - the land must be protected-the roadways are too small - and now the economy is going to prove it difficult for people to continue to give to such a large and glamerous project.
Best to all, Lisa
Highlands Act gets OK from state's highest court Developer's lawyer: Lack of explanation troubling By Colleen O'Dea Daily Record December 10, 2008
The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of the Highlands Act.
Without comment, the court affirmed an August 2007 appellate ruling involving OFP, LLC, which had sought to put 26 homes on 93 acres in Washington Township. It was the first case decided by the state's top court involving the four-year old state law restricting development in the 860,000-acre region.
"This is a significant ruling that upholds the constitutionality of a law and a process designed to protect an environmentally sensitive region of our state and preserve important water resources," said Lee Moore, a spokesman for the state Attorney General's office, which defended the 2004 law.
The ruling pleased environmentalists and dismayed property rights lawyers, particularly because the court said nothing in agreeing with the lower court.
"I thought there were some real issues the court was faced with that the appellate division didn't address and the Supreme Court would have a role in that," said Brian J. Mulligan, the Trenton attorney who represented OFP. "I'm still left with this empty feeling. I don't know how they got there."
Jeff Tittel, head of the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club, said what matters is the affirmation of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, which created the region encompassing most of Morris County and set restrictions there to safeguard the water the area supplies to more than half the state's population.
"This will hopefully end all those other lawsuits from all over the place that are wasting our time," he said.
OFP went to Superior Court in 2005 after learning it would have to follow the restrictions in the Highlands law, even though it had received all the necessary permits before the law's enactment on Aug. 10, 2004.
The law was made retroactive to its introduction on March 29, 2004, and because one signature had been lacking on a water permit request to the state Department of Environmental Protection, OFP did not get its final approval until May 14.
"At the end of the day, that cost millions of dollars," Mulligan said.
Mulligan had argued that the retroactive application of the act was improper.
The suit also said the inclusion of OFP's property in the preservation area, that half of the region subject to strict DEP regulations, was arbitrary given its proximity to a former landfill.
Most significantly, OFP contended that the law was unconstitutional because it led to an illegal taking of property without just compensation.
Morris County Superior Court Assignment Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis dismissed the case in November 2005.
The appellate division agreed in August 2007, saying OFP could not claim an unjust taking or property without first seeking relief from several remedies --including a hardship waiver or the transfer of development rights program.
Although some of the questions by justices during oral arguments in September asked about the fairness of the act, the Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously agreed to affirm the appellate decision without further comment.
John Weingart, chairman of the New Jersey Highlands Council that in July adopted a 463-page master plan for the region, applauded the court's action.
"Today's unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court is a ringing endorsement of the regional planning approach for protecting the water supply for millions of New Jersey residents," Weingart said.
Mulligan said OFP is going to explore all its options, including further court action, seeking a DEP waiver or trying to get financial relief from the fledgling TDR program.
"I worry about where the funds are going to come from to compensate land owners, especially in this economic downturn," said Mulligan. "Property owners were put in the position where they have lost property value, and they have been waiting four-and-a-half years for relief and they got no relief from the courts."
Colleen O'Dea
__________________
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 and best wishes for a speedy recovery from your broken leg. It's good to hear something positive re the 140 GPR affair.
As usuall, you do not know what you are talking about. I reasearched this some time back.
CC has been given complete exemption to the C-1 stream limitations. They can build right up to the banks of those streams according to RTs building departments inperpretation. Please refer to this copy of the exemption: Why did this happen? Well, you know the answer to that question but are too PC to admit it in public. Well, in case you do not know, in this society, governement does not apply the law equally to the public at large compared to blacks and especially black churches. Read it and weep.
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.f
Rat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
More "read it and weep" material for you. Obviously, you were too lazy to go back and research this forum before posting. This info goes back about 2 months. Check it out; it is posted elsewhere, but I am delivering it here for your convenience.
-----------------------------
Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Denied to RT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just got off the phone with the township admin, Greg Poff to find out the status of the Townships request concerning irelands exemption from the Highlands legislation.
The "Request for Adjudicatory Hearing" which was submitted by us on October 07, 2007 has just been denied to RT. In other words, the courts have decided that they will not even hear the case. The Township is awaiting the formal documentation pertaining to the denial.
Please note that I prediced that outcome a long time ago. The rule is simple; none of the rules apply to a black man who owns a church. So, he has his Highlands exemption and now he has his C1 stream encroachment exemption, so there is nothing in his way but finance. I note that the township municipal engineer (John Drew) interprets that to mean that he can build right up to the banks of those streams if he so chooses.
And, that is the end of that. Is there any real outrage by the citizens of RT? Nah!
So, get over it. Everything is approved and all the waivers are in place. You and your tactics were completely unsuccessful in effecting this megaproject. The only thing that would have stopped it dead in its tracks would have been the implementation of my ideas which was the use of Eminent Domain.
But, you folks did not want to do that because it would have cost some money. Ya got what ya paid for.
So, now the only thing stopping liarland from building his stairway to heaven is club member $.
There are some people that are simply to rude for their own good, yes Craig I am talking about you.
Let's have a reality check.
The permits you references were all withdrawn over a year ago. They have NO permits for Stream Encroachment or Freshwater Wetlands nor do they have permits for underground utilities, outfalls/intakes or a general "major permit" - ALL were withdrawn. If you have any questions please call the DEP or check their website and you can reference the following numbers 1435-06-0010.0 FHA 060001, FWW 0600001, FWW 060002
I will be happy to listen to your apology anytime you are man enough to offer it.
In other news last week in the planning board CC was informed that they need a water permit that they currently do not have in order for them to hold services in the building.
Oh one other item for Craig - there is no "grandfathering" permitted anywhere in the state regarding C-1 regulations. Even IF CC had permits - prior to the C-1 being fully invoked on that portion of the waterway they would still have to comply with the C-1 regs as would ANYONE in the state.
Have a wonderful holiday season!
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.
Hi Lisa. I for one have never heard any definitive judgement on the twps last appeal of their DEP exemption. What exactly was the final word on that. Not that Rat needs anyone else to defend him, but I believe what he was referring to was that he specifically questioned them digging right up to the stream with the sign conduits and was shown an approved exemption by the inspector that he (the inspector/town) interpreted as a total exemption allowing them to dig and/or build right up to the stream. So if that is definitely NOT the case, I think the twp needs to be straightened out on the subject or there will be problems. Happy Holidays to all. C.
Chuck is right. I have met with three members of the township construction department and have also been in discussions with the township engineer and his boss, the township administrator, Greg Poff.
And, they have all shown me the documents that I posted here giving cc the right to encroach those streams. And ultimately they provided to me copies of these for a small administrative fee). In the words of the township engineering inspector, "he can build right up to the stream banks".
And, the townships lawsuit based on the highlands exemption has also been thrown out by the courts. They will not hear the case.
So, in summary - - -
CC has the right to build on the property and is free and clear of any restrictions based on the Highlands Act.
And -
CC has a wetlands exemption that allows them to build right up to the stream banks. The expiration date of that permit is 2012.
And - - -
You need to go down to town hall and place requests for the appropriate documents and you shall have them within a few days. I have done that and have these here. Stop relying on hear-say.
And of course, I do accept your apology, Lisa. Guess that you have been too busy to follow these things properly.
The Highlands exemption is still pending. Those you are speaking to in the town are incorrect - I have been speaking to those with a great deal more knowledge on this matter - and no they can not build up to the banks of the rivers.
The digging was done in violation of state laws and the town has been informed of this from several people.
The entire plan for CC are null and soon to be void. They will have to re-apply with new plans, they know this.
Craig try to have a nice day and please do your best to get over your anger.
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.
Well, Lisa, it would seem that you are the only one in the township who knows the real story. There have been three people in the construction department as well as the township administrator and the township engineer who interpret the documents that I have posted here to mean that cc has clear sailing. They have already been permitted to encroach the stream with the running of electrical conduits with the blessing of the township.
I guess you better go tell the township construction department how to do their jobs. Obviously, they need your guidance. Go tell them that those documents that they have are forgeries or something.
??
I know that it is tough to take, but your little dance around the environment is over. Now it is time for you to get over it too.
The courts and the NJ DEP have spoken assertively.
