Planning Board Atty, William Dimin said it best at last nights meeting. He told one member of the public that CC brought its plan into apparent compliance with RT ordinance 5-10a...he also descrided the ordinance as "changing rules in the middle of the game".
It seems as though the opposition plan failed; change the law and a frustrated CC will leave. It didn't work, Sheninger is gone and the new plan has much less impact.
I'm sure opposition will continue but how? and how will it be viewed by the rest of the world?
I'm sure opposition will continue but how? and how will it be viewed by the rest of the world?
There are still many unanswered variables dOOTY. Traffic Impact, Growth, UNDERGROUND parking, impact on the environment, unused/unamed floorspace, to name a few.
There is still a good year or more of hearings on this dog. Let's pray for a new buyer to come along in the meantime who will benefit the township and not burden local area residents.
Anyone beside tURD have a report on last nights meeting. Daily Record was useless as expected, Star Ledger was a little more informative.
I still don't get the prblem with the underbuilding/ground parking. Either you move soil to build a conventional foundation or you level it to crteate parking...what's the diference?
In both cases to ground beneath the building is impervious.
My understanding of impervious is "Incapable of being affected". Which is why I thought CC was originally using the existing footprint of the building so as not to dig a new foundation.
I was under the impression that "impervious" referred to the ability (or inability) of water, etc. to drain naturally into the soil. I believe it refers to drainage...
For instance, I believe even gravel is considered impervious ground coverage because, while water can drain through it, it doesn't do it as it would with natural soil...
An impervious surface does not allow water to pass through it. Relative to the Highland Bill, a building, including eves and gutters are considered impervious surface (this was testimony given a CC Planning Board hearing.
Given this fact, the soil beneath a building is cannot be rendered any more impervious.
Here is the exact wording taken from the Highlands law,
"Impervious surface" means any structure, surface, or improvement that reduces or prevents absorption of stormwater into land, and includes porous paving, paver blocks, gravel, crushed stone, decks, patios, elevated structures, and other similar structures, surfaces, or improvements;
I'm glad you agree, Chuck. Since the building is impervious, the ground beneath the buildingis not further harmed by either a parking surface or conventional foundation. I'm glad we can agree
I haven't posted to NJ.com for a couple of weeks. So I don't know who or what you're talking about.
To the point, I'm trying to find out why there's a problem with underbuilding (or underground ) parking. The building above is impervious so what's the difference?
Karen, I don't know what you're disagreeing with...unless you just like to argue
I thought that the problem with the underground parking was that the removal of that much soil and disturbing that much of the subsurface has adverse environmental consequences. I didn't think it was an issue of whether it increased impervious coverage. Isn't the question really whether the exemption that was based on not exceeding 125% of the original footprint means that in addition to the footprint not being over 125% of the size horizontally, that it also should not be larger going down vertically, i e., deeper? Isn't there an impact on subterranean water flows that can result in damage to the ecology? I thought that was the point of all this. Please let me know if I misunderstood the problem posed by the underground parking.
I think there are several problems with the under(whatever) parking. I believe underground brings into play much stricter regs and problems with the town ordinances, thats why they were trying to call it underbuilding. They also left that entire aspect of the plan off of the submittal to the DEP. It was never made clear in any of the pubs that I read whether it would or should be included in the impervious surface coverage calculations. By my way of thinking it should. Especially since its not fully enclosed, thereby open to the elements on at least 3 sides. As a paved surface, it will collect rain, snow, and ice, as well as road salt, oil, and gas and will have to runnoff somewhere and thats why I think it qualifies as being included in the sq footage of the IS. There was also the issues of that much soil being excavated with existing pollution that has never been remediated and with it having such a high water table chances were increased that the water supply could be effected. Not to mention the township well that is less than 1500' away which is also protected by ordinance.
The building is impervious cover. If the parking surface under the building is included as square footage or additional impervious cover, it would be double counted.
As far as runoff goes, the elaborate filtration system plus the snow and ice removal method described in Monday's meeting will handle that aspect...If fact, one north end resident quiped that perhaps RT should take note of the method and maybe the well on his property wouldn't be polluted by salt.
Remediation of existing problems is being handled by the polluters, as described by Dimin. Art Crane or DiMaria briefly discussed soil removal. But in short, the issue has been resolve many times before asnd willl be again.
So...impervious cover aside, a house is only the size of the square footage of one of its levels? You don't count upstairs or basement, only ground floor? That seems odd.
So I guess I should appeal my taxes too now, because I'm being taxed on a house that's 1800 square feet, rather than the 1,000 square feet it "really" is, huh? And two of my bedrooms don't "exist" so I could have gotten a septic for only 2 bedrooms instead of 4. Wow, thanks for the enlightenment.
You said: "If the parking surface under the building is included as square footage..."
Ted, you’re wearing me down.
I believe you know that my question about square footage is in response to your statement about how the underground parking doesn’t add to the square footage of the building.
Now…if all that counts is the square footage of the building’s footprint, then how big, in fact, is the facility that Christ Church plans to build? If the number being quoted in the papers is only the footprint, then it seems the proposed facility is far larger than it’s being portrayed.
I don’t think I’m the only person who defines the square footage of a building to include all useable space, regardless of what level it’s on.
The square footage was given at the Planning Board meeting. I assume your issue relates to how the square footage will be used. For example, you want to know if they'll bring in folding chairs, put up TV screens and expand....That question was answered by Dimin and Sceusi on Monday night (Dicker also adressed it a couple of months ago). It is a question of compliance with what was approved.
Chuck believes that RLUIPA will allow the expansion but I trust the legal advice given to residents..You guys are arguing in circles
