You are welcome! I think our expert did a wonderful job. He was clear, to the point and had all of his facts in order. He is a good representitive of the entire team that we have built to help clearly see the entire impact of this application. There were over 300 people in attendance last night.
Interestingly, I see that those supporting the applicant have seen a sharp drop in numbers attending the meetings. One can not help but wonder why they are not participating in this important process.
We appreciate all of the help and support of our wonderful neighbors in getting the word out about last nights meeting. My family had been away on vacation for a week, then I was out of town at a conference and did not arrive home until 2am on March 11 -(just in time!).
We were very happy to see many new faces and many who have been there since day one! The changing of days of the week for the meetings does cause some difficulty in attending meetings for some families. We know that for each person that was in the room there are 5 others that stand with them, but are unable to attend the meeting for various reasons. I would hope that our Srs had a better oppurtunity to attend, but due to the late hour and the dark it is hard for them to get out.
We are still seeking donations to help fund our "dream team" so please give what you can and know that you are getting your moneys worth!
I have to agree...somewhat. the vORT expert made a clear, logical and well thought out argument. He made a good case for a clear distinction between church and Mega-church.
Where the presentation failed however, was in the area of LAW. Dimin's recognition of that FACT restored my faith in the process. Actually, the vORT lawyer should have presented that argument. I have to wonder why the law was ignored.
I also feel there was an element of sleaze in that the vORT team knew there would be cross examination and that the next meeting was on Apr. 21 yet waited until the waning moments to announce the unavailability of the expert. The old hit and run. Do I think it was planned? Clearly it was
I have to agree...somewhat. the vORT expert made a clear, logical and well thought out argument. He made a good case for a clear distinction between church and Mega-church.
Ted - if you agree, at least somewhat, then why do you still insist on playing your childish games with the caps?
I also feel there was an element of sleaze in that the vORT team knew there would be cross examination and that the next meeting was on Apr. 21 yet waited until the waning moments to announce the unavailability of the expert. The old hit and run. Do I think it was planned? Clearly it was
I think you read too much into that. CLEARLY Dimin wasn't in on the 'fix' if that's what you are calling it. Did you see the expression on his face when he heard that? So - if the expert does manage to show up on Apr 21, will you admit that there was no 'hit and run'?
By the way, I posted a response for you in the re: middle ground thread. The posting that you assumed came from me did not, hence my confusion as to why you drew me in with YOUR first post in that thread.
I didn't call it a fix, I called it sleaze (which is what it was) and my comment is directed at the vORT team, not Dimin
I don't really like Dimin but my opinion is based in past PB hearings and the reasons why I believe he was appointed. Last night however he did the right thing; he admonished the vORT team for ignoring the law.
Why are you obsessed with my use of "caps"? The issue is the law.
Ted, you give far too much credence to the VORTs planner! Let's take a look at the definitions discussed. All of the sources referenced define "Church." Then, where "Mega-Church" is defined, these definitions begin as follows: "A Mega-Church is a church....." The definitions then go on generally to give a size qualifier (2000, 10,000 whatever). So is a Mega-Church included in the definition of Church? Absolutely. A Mega-Church is a sub-set of Church. One could make other similar distinctions, a mini-church (less than 100) for example. Is a mini-church a church? Of course it is. I commend the VORT planner for coming up with a cute, semantics based argument, but as is clear from Mr Dimin's lukewarm response, it is unlikely the planning board will be foolish enough to hang their hat on it.
Why are you obsessed with my use of "caps"? The issue is the law
Ted, I am not obsessed by your lack of politeness, only mildly annoyed by the immaturite behavior of one who has the potential to offer so much. Besides, as you have stated about me, I am so easy to steer off track. Those with superior intellects (you) must keep the rest of us on course by not throwing distractions (incorrect use of caps) at us. Please concentrate on law and facts so others (myself included) can listen to what you say and not how you say it.
I dont know what meeting Ted was in, but if he had paid attention to the one last nite he wouldnt have made such ridiculous comments. How would anyone from VORT know anything about when the next meeting would be. They didnt decide on the date until the start of the meeting last nite you ass. In addition, Dimin never asked about the legal ramifications under RLUIPA until the end last nite. The VORT attorney and planner couldnt have addresses that before. They were very narrowly charged with addressing the definitions of church/megachurch and whether the original drafters of the ordinance could have forseen a megachurch coming in. They answered that in no uncertain terms and brilliantly. The VORT representatives have consistantly run rings around anything the church has put up. Dimin obviously wants them to assist with further research as to what possible outcomes to expect under RLUIPA, but if Dimin and the town reps are half as good as I think they are they wont decide on the basis of what could, possibly, maybe, be decided years ahead in court IF RLUIPA isnt declared unconstitutional based on the many appeals already pending.
Chuck, they didn’t have to know when the next meeting was to be held. vORT’s expert was going to be busy. He took up the whole hour to avoid any debate and kept yapping until Dimin cut him off. Besides being a bit racist, you’re a little slow on the uptake (wow I think I was mean AND condescending at the same time).
Not only did Dimin ASK for legal ramifications, the church’s expert confined his response to legalities. That’s what he was doing while many of you were chuckling at what you thought were “Clintonesque” responses.
I’ll say it again; vORT wasted its (your) money. And Lisa has the balls to ask for more donations. I’ll be interested to hear how many suckers are still out there.
Chuck, they didn’t have to know when the next meeting was to be held. vORT’s expert was going to be busy. He took up the whole hour to avoid any debate and kept yapping until Dimin cut him off. Besides being a bit racist, you’re a little slow on the uptake (wow I think I was mean AND condescending at the same time).
Not only did Dimin ASK for legal ramifications, the church’s expert confined his response to legalities. That’s what he was doing while many of you were chuckling at what you thought were “Clintonesque” responses.
I’ll say it again; vORT wasted its (your) money. And Lisa has the balls to ask for more donations. I’ll be interested to hear how many suckers are still out there.
And could you please stick with a single font, unless you're responding to something someone else said? A paragraph in a completely different font in the middle of your post makes no sense.
Unless you're just trying to throw us dummies off track again, you clever fella!
No Ted, I have no problem on the uptake, but let me clarify the downside which is apparently the only end you operate on. You cant even maintain your own opinion from one post to the next. First you say the planner did a good job, with a clear, logical, and well thought out argument and then in the next post you accuse him of yapping until Dimin cut him off. Make up your feeble mind. Dimin didnt cut him off, he just noted the time since they have to stop at 11. Maybe the guy didnt hear the dates in the beginning, maybe he didnt look at his planner, maybe he forgot, WHO CARES! The point is he agreed to work around it and be there. Stop trying to make it another one of your imaginary conspiracies. And Dimin never asked for any legal ramifications until the end. In fact the entire board repeatedly stressed that they were examining one question and one question ONLY. Did the original drafters of the ordinance forsee the possibility of a Megachurch when it was drafted. Thats it.No other aspects of the case. In fact after Berger objected to the planner even referring to her brief, Dimin noted that the planner was not a lawyer and couldnt comment on the legal aspects only the planning angle.
VORTS money was well spent. They were both great and ran rings around the church's people. Berger is shaking and the planner was stuttering.
As for you other personal attack you really need to grow up. The only prejudice I have is against contrary, self important ****s like you who never have a civil thing to say about anyone or anything. I'd tell you to stick it where the sun dont shine, but apparently in your world thats everywhere. I'll just go back to ignoring you for the pipsqueak you are.
I feel very troubled that you wouldn’t stand together with your town. Regardless of your problems with the current local officials, you still have got to see that Mr. Ireland’s business will do nothing good for this town and in fact will put a strain on the town’s roads; It will put a strain on the town’s emergency services; I will put a strain on our own religious freedoms by blocking our path to the established places of worship made up of actual members of THIS community; And more then anything else will put a strain on the town’s wallet. Mr. Ireland’s business venture will do nothing more then hurt this town while he gets richer.
I believe you have at least child; obviously you can’t care too much about how the little Doody is going to grow up. I don’t personally have a son yet, however, I hope to one day and that day I can with a clear conscience say to my son, that I have in fact tried my best to make the world the best place that it can be for him.
I don’t know where you are from originally but my grandparents owned a house in Lake Telemark…my father grew up here…and in fact my father and mother met around split-rock. When I got out of the Marine Corps and moved to Marcella I started to joke that I’ve come home to spawn.
I realize you must be mad at the world because of your disability, suck it up. Don’t make our town and I the target of your rage. Find something a little more constructive to do instead of arguing just to just to hear yourself talk.
There are many reasons why I don’t stand with vORT and their supporters. But read the words above. Does anyone want to stand next to such classless individuals?
These boards are distressing. I checked them out in order to see some of the positions held by VORT, but it appears that instead of responding to posts (like mine from the Thank You VORT string reposted below that I repeat below so people can understand the realities of this situation) folks just devolve into name calling. Oh well. After some cool down time for VORT, Christ Church will prove to be a most welcome addition to Rockaway.
old message:
Ted, you give far too much credence to the VORTs planner! Let's take a look at the definitions discussed. All of the sources referenced define "Church." Then, where "Mega-Church" is defined, these definitions begin as follows: "A Mega-Church is a church....." The definitions then go on generally to give a size qualifier (2000, 10,000 whatever). So is a Mega-Church included in the definition of Church? Absolutely. A Mega-Church is a sub-set of Church. One could make other similar distinctions, a mini-church (less than 100) for example. Is a mini-church a church? Of course it is. I commend the VORT planner for coming up with a cute, semantics based argument, but as is clear from Mr Dimin's lukewarm response, it is unlikely the planning board will be foolish enough to hang their hat on it.
If you are really a member of CC, you should be looking into all aspects of this application. There is no anger toward you and your fellow church members, simply concern for our community. This is an environmentally sensitive area, a small town with limited fire and first aid services, a small road way that is very difficult to maintain in the winter months and the property is surrounded by residential property. I am sorry that a very few people have made statements that appear to be nasty toward you and your fellow members. The intent of Voices of Rockaway Twp is to evaluate the application and ensure that the residents are not going to be adversely affected by the redevelopment of the land and the increased demand on infrastructure. NJ has the been victim of a great deal of sprawl over the past few years and those of us who live in Rockaway Twp wish to keep our home town free of urban sprawl. Regardless of who presented this application, be it IKEA, Walmart or CC we would be just as concerned.
Very fair comments, even if they might be debated they are fair concerns to raise. Thank you for taking the time to summarize. I think (and please note that I have literally zero "inside" information, I am a member of Christ Church but not in communication with Church leadership regarding any information the public is not privy to) that this will work out. My guess? The "is it a church" argument (which I must admit is very insulting) will not pass muster (for the reasons stated previously) and the planning board will work out suitable off-site infrastructure improvements, paid pro rata, if they determine that any are necessary after all of the testimony. I can not imagine that anyone really wants to go the lawsuit route.
All in all, I would just say that our Church truly looks forward to becoming a positive part of Rockaway and the surrounding region.
If you are indeed a CC member then I feel sad for you (really). The proposed campus will never see the light of day. If your leader scales back about 75% overall then mabey...but could he move in to a site scaled back 75%? According to him - no.
In all sincerity, please suggest a look into the old Hercules site in Legewood I believe? It could possibly be a reality to build something of the scale CC seems to need
Are all these people who sit through the meetings missing the point? No one is questioning whether CC is a church. It is a legal distinction that I thought was very clearly made. A Megachurch (which CC agrees it is) is a VERY LARGE church. Everything associated with it is much larger than a traditional church. That is why there are now new definitions and the word is formally being used to describe such organizations. As such it cannot be assummed that old ordinances that only addressed the more traditional sized churches apply literally to the new behemoths. The question was simple, "Could the drafters of the ordinance in 1995 have envisioned a megachurch when they said church in the ordinance?" The answer is NO. Megachurches didnt exist in common language or culture in any great or known degree then, at least not in the NE. Therefore it is not an automatically permitted conditional use under the ordinance. As such it may have to go through the Board of Adjustment not the PB. No one is saying it isnt a religious group or a church in the broadest sense of the word. Come on, pay attention. If you are really concerned with these things stop jumping at conclusions and listen to what is being said. No one is showing disrespect for your church. RT is not full of 100% atheists. We belong to churches too.
A more careful read of my original post would illustrate that I was discussing the issue at hand before the board - whether a mega-church is a church. My follow up parenthetical about being insulted was at the ancillary postings which do in fact question the church's legitimacy. Pay attention.
Getting back to the issue in front of the board, could the drafters of the ordinances have contemplated what is now called a mega-church? They did not contemplate size at all, they made no differentiation between church size at all, large or small. A church is a church. To alter how different size churches are dealt with, RT will have to change the ordinances. In the future.
An interesting side question for you though: assuming you go ahead with the idea that the drafters had some size characterizations in mind, what exactly would you suggest is the line the drafters did contemplate? Did they envision a church of 500? 550? 1,000? Everthing up to 1,999? Or maybe anything smaller than Christ Church would be ok? Where is that line? You see, in the end, Mr. Dimin will be required to give his legal opinion on what "church" means and whether Chirst Church falls into that definition. He will be unable to justify an opinion other than that as written, the ordinance includes all churches regardless of size.
Now, if you were drafting today might you make different ordinances? Sure you might, but you might not - the ordinances applicable to large scale properties might be viewed as more than adequate to handle the issues which arise - for example, environmental requirements must be complied with (and are in the plan), setbacks and other onsite requirements must be complied with (and are). Offsite issues such as trafffic can be addressed by the board in the site plan review (and will be).
Among the problems with the argument the Voices planner puts forth is that it begs the following questions: How were fast-food restaurants treated before the separate ordinances? They were treated like all other restaurants. How were drive-in banks treated before the differentiation? Like all other banks. How will a large church be treated before a new ordinance is put in place (if the board ever decides that that is even necessary - which is far from a foregone conclusion in RT or any other town)? The same as any other church.
