You may recall that I submitted a formal complaint to the RT Construction Department because cc installed two conduits for their GPR signage when the submitted plan called for only one. You may also recall that I asked for information pertaining to a sub-code requirement disclosing the wattage of the illumination of the sign.
I have been following up on this complaint routinely. Finally the township got back to me with the following letter submitted by ireland and company. I will transcribe it here for all to see:
Christ Church, Rev David Ireland, Ph.D. - Senior Pastor
January 6, 2009
Via Hand Deliver and Fascimile Mr. Andrew San Filippo Construction Official Rockaway Township 65 Mount Hope Road Rockaway, New Jersey 07866
Re: Christ Church Project Block 22203 Lot 2 & 3
Dear Mr. San Filippo:
Please accept this letter as confirmation that a second conduit run that was installed for possible future use has been placed below grade. The submitted signed and sealed Electrical Site Plan - Sheet ESP-1, by Professional Planning and Engineering Corporation, does not show this second conduit; thus it will not be utilized for any existing sign purposes without the prior approval of the Township
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to give me a call @ 973.783.1010 ext. 236
I am in receipt of the letter from cc pertaining to the two electrical conduits that they ran and find it to be an unsatisfactory response to the issue that I raised. In summary, the organization (cc) disclosed a plan to the township to install an illuminated sign, which received approval from the board based on the submitted documentation. The plan showed one conduit to be run to the signage site. Instead of following the approved plan, they ran two conduits, just because they felt like doing that (future expansion of the size and power of the signage being the obvious and undisclosed reason).
And, in response to my complaint, they simply state that they did that (ran two conduits rather than one) and that is that. Is that how we conduct construction projects in Rockaway Township? In other words, a simple wave of the builders hand solves a significant documentation issue?
I should hope not. There is a good reason for our formal approval process and the documentation associated with it.
I expect a more proactive response from cc along the lines of the removal of the extraneous conduit.
Please advise me of your expectations from the builder in this matter in very specific terms.
Also, I am not in receipt yet of the specification for the illumination characteristics of the lamps within the sign. Is that forthcoming? As it stands right now, we can not calculate the proper conductor sizing to verify their design. I want to perform the math required to determine if the NEC code is being adhered to. I believe that I have that privilege as a tax paying citizen of RT.
Here is my commentary subsequent to several telephone calls after the submission of the above letter:
The total and complete answer to the problem is the above letter submitted by a "minister" and that is the end of that. Do you think that you could fix a sub-code violation yourself on a home improvement project by sending a simple letter like that? I think not. I also note that they have much bigger plans for the signage power in the future. I can only imagine a "Jumbotron" or something else really tacky along those lines being built there in the future. How about, maybe a 50 foot tall Red neon back-lit cross there to enhance the beauty of our township.
The township is totally intimidated by this group; ireland is running the show here and our local government has no say about it. The township is going to let them do whatever the hell they want to do. Our township officials are no better at protecting the best interests of the township than a gutter - bum.
What a sad state of affairs.........
