I agree Rat - it's over for the Vatican East plan...the charade should end at 8:01pm tommorow night, anything else is a complete waste of everyones precious time (and we have wasted plenty to date!).

Well, of course, we have to have a planning board meeting even though the application doesn't even remotely meet our ordinances...

Remember, we're wasting THEIR time with all of OUR delays!

Must keep our eye on the goal..wasting as much time as possible lol!

I wonder...will the traffic expert be discussing traffic issues with the irrelevant old numbers? What a spectacular waste of time! Hooray!

Seriously, though, of course, we'll be there. There HAS to be some sort of turnaround that takes place tomorrow and I need to be there!!!

So will the planning board continue where they left of at the last meeting and waste time talking about what was? Or will they use the time prodcutively and point out all the violations in the existing plan relative to the current ordinance. Then send CC Inc. back to the drawing board to figure out how to shove 10 lbs of crap in a 5 lb bag.

hey Craig...if you get a chance, can you ask some questions tonight real loud ?? Like you did at the meeting way back when??? I almost fell off my chair laughing when the "voice from above" came down upon Ireland.

Unfortunately I had to leave the meeting last night at the recess.  Did anything significant occur after that?

My ramblings about last night's meeting:

I have to say congratulations to the Daily Ragord for guessing the number of people in attendance.  85 was a very accurate number.  Mr. Jennings - you win the grand prize....A brand new Magic 8 Ball....May it serve you well in your journalistic endeavors.

Some comments about the Jennings article in today's paper....

 

1. Mr. Jennings - you should REALLY think about sticking around at the meetings that you write about.  Most of the good stuff occurs toward the end...Although last night ended quietly, you tend to miss the cross examination and only watch the prepared testimony.  Did you have a hot date last night?  You left much earlier than usual!
   
2. Jenning's statement that Mr. Pehnke told the board that traffic generated by the 5,000-member church would contast favorably with ... Agilent.

Let's examine #2 above..

Mr. Pehnke clearly testified that the number of cars during morning rush hour would be 50+% greater (due to parents dropping off kids for school) than Agilent, but yet he called this 50+% increase 'slight' (Do your bosses pay you to spin, spin, spin also, Mr. Pehnke?  Please stick to the facts and NOT opinion as to what is slight and what is MAJOR).  Mr Jennings - is this contrasting favorably?  Did you only hear the word 'slight' and not listen to the NUMBERS?

Mr. Pehnke also stated that the students would be leaving school between 3 & 4 PM, and therefore not entering the rush-hour traffic stream.  I would like to see statistical proof that parents who drop their kids off at school are likely to NOT be working parents.  My expectation is that most parents will pick up their kids between 5 and 6PM.

The traffic expert also spoke of total number of cars, but NEGLECTED to mention the DIRECTION those cars would be traveling.  GPR traffic is heaviest in the morning heading southbound.  The traffic generated by any company would be almost completely northbound in the AM, but the traffic generated by CC would be almost 50% southbound (all those parents heading back to work after dropping off kids)...

Mr. Pehnke, we do not believe the CRAPOLA that was spewed yesterday - that 15% of the cars heading to the school will be coming from Sanders Rd. Do you really expect our board to believe that 75 cars, translating to over 100 students will be from White Meadow Lake?  You also had a large number of cars heading to school from the North via Meridan and GPR.  I guess you don't want those cars on route 80 which is already at the "F" level!

Question for Mr. Pehnke:  During your rehearsed testimony, you were asked by Ms. Berger if you ever recommended 9'x18' parking spots for other projects.  You hesitated and responded "yes....probably...yes".  Which is it, Mr. Pehnke???  Yes???  Probably???  Maybe???  Hold on - I'll borrow Mr. Jenning's Magic 8 Ball and tell you???  or perhaps No????  I was surprised that Mr. Dimin allowed this non-answer without asking Mr. Pehnke for a YES or NO answer with details as to WHICH other projects these recommendations were made for.

Anybody have comments on Mr. Dicker's suggestion that the light be moved up to Meridan Rd, the GPR entrance be made one way (inbound), and all cars exit via Meridan?  Mr. Dicker - what were you thinking?  You'll bring Meridan Rd to a STANDSTILL and people will STILL have to make a left onto GPR!!!  At least with the light at the entrance, those of us who live near Meridan can get to the mall area by turning north on GPR and using Snake Hill Rd!

 

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  I thought that CC had proposed that they would have one and only one entrance (GPR).  When did the Meridan Road entrance get re-introduced into the project????

 

-- Edited by Jay R at 08:52, 2005-03-22

Another question I have is how does the planning board view the underground parking garage? Is it legal to disturb that much soil on a site in the core of the Highlands? As far as I know, the underground idea surfaced after the "exemption" granted by the DEP. Does the board have authority to limit the amount of ground disruption on any givin project?

It's interesting how Mr. Jennings spun the testimony (traffic would contrast favorably with 1000 person Agilent)...

....Compare his statements to the first paragraph of the Star Ledger article by Jamie Duffy:

Traffic would increase substantially during the morning rush hour and at Exit 37 on Route 80 if the Christ Church of Montclair moves to the former Agilent Technologies site on Green Pond Road, a traffic expert testified last night at the Rockaway Township Planning Board.

 

....amazing...both reporters were at the same meeting...

I was wondering if VORT and/or RT were planning to put on their own traffic expert similar to when we heard from three different planners?  I'm just trying to follow the program here but I have to admit that I'm not real sure what the program is.  Any information is sincerely appreciated.

 

PS.  What's the agenda for the April 4 meeting?

I'm no expert on this but I think the theory is that the traffic studies are based on the capacity of the facility rather than the number of congregants.  This line of thinking of course only works if you can effectively limit the attendance at each service to that capacity.  I believe the equation that is being used is capacity divided by people per car (2.1) = number of cars.  Whether the membership is 5,000, 6,500 or some other number doesn't seem to be factored in except that obviously the higher the membership, the greater number of services needed to accomodate everyone.

I'm very unclear about how it is proposed that you limit attendance to capacity (i.e. do you turn people away) in which case you still have traffic going both ways.  What about standing room only?  What about using other rooms with TV monitors?  It's not like the theatre where tickets are sold for the seats and when there are no more seats, no more tickets are sold.  I'd really like to see this issue addressed.

Any thoughts?

 

 

Interesting points about the attendance.

I believe that VORT's lawyer was hinting at this last night, but did not continue the line of questioning.

Basically, he was asking about the traffic study compared to the one done in 2003 (?) when the facility was to be much bigger.  Both used similar percentages, I believe 90% for the 1st and 95% for the second service.  It appears that the number of people they SAY will come tracks to be just smaller than the size of the facility divided by 2 services.

Very fishy...Hopefully, the board will follow up on this point if and when questioning of Mr. Pehnke continues.

All good points. A couple of things mentioned have already been discussed. First, yes the traffic is based on occupancy not total membership. They have agreed to a maximum capacity cap and they testified that any overflow would be turned away. The idea of addnl seating in other areas, and / or tv feeds was mentioned and discussed as not being acceptable or in the plans. The capacity is the capacity. Period. That covers the entire facility. They also are strictly limited with the number of seats, aisle width, etc so it would be tough to fudge anything there. Its all stipulated in the plans. Now, that being said, I think it would be real tough to enforce any over capacity limitation once they are in there. I also think that trying to limit their expansion once there would scream RLUIPA. The only option to my thinking is that they never get in at all. I have passed the question regarding current membership up the ladder and hope it gets asked. Not because the total number is critical right now except that if it exceeds what could be accomodated in 2 services then it would skew the traffic survey and it should be revisited. Basically it was a wasted evening last nite. It looks like the next one would be the one with fireworks since Dimin announced that the ordinance effect would be discussed and reqd changes in their app.

ok - we deny the turning lane (can we?) and we deny the smaller than code parking striping, and the parking tower and underground parking garage are denied as well (again - can we?) where does that leave cc? That alone should bring this to a crashing halt.

Then again, when do we get our day in court about the defunct plans the "exemption" was based on - that should wrap this up once and for all if the laws are followed by the DEP. (null and void is null and void in my book).

I know your right Lisa, I'm just growing impatient...see everyone next meeting, it's time to rebuff the spin!