In a brief filed by Rockaway Twp in Superior court - appellate division there is some very interesing information that makes it clear this matter is nothing but an up hill battle for CC.
In the brief it clearly says that after the exemtption was granted the plans changed no fewer than 3 times - it mentions the "null and void" statement in the exemption letter (several times over).
Here are some interesting lines from the document:
"the DEP admits that the records discloses what occurred during the agency hearing but admits it is deficient..."
"The applicant is free to submit a new application for exemption for the reconstituted project which will trigger the procedures now in effect by virtueof the adoption of new rules and regs by the DEP May 9, 2005"
In response to stating that the DEP did not respond to documents sent by the Township to them regarding this project (on several occations) .." the utter silence of the NJDEP to these entreaties was and remains deafening."
There is more and I assure you it is good reading. In short it is clear by all documention submitted that the DEP acted unfairly to Rockaway Twp and did not act lawfully in the processing of the application in question ( by means of refusing to hear Rockaway Twps concerns prior to the granting of the exemption). The law is on our side every way you look.
So I guess it is time for CC to start muck raking again - this is a sure sign of desperation - I can hardly wait to see what they come up with next. Maybe they will begin to strong arm people who think they may run for elected office in 5-10 years - or heck maybe anyone who thinks of running at all - ever will be named in the next version of the laughable law suit! I wounder if the Sr class Presidents at MK and MH's are safe??
Good night,
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.
You state that this is nothing but an uphill battle for the church but you offer no information supporting the comment.
For example, "In the brief it clearly says that after the exemtption was granted the plans changed no fewer than 3 times". What does that mean? Are they angry or are they merely saying they should take another look? I hear what you're implying but wouldn't it be better if you gave us information instead of just your viewpoint?
I see that the applicant is free to submit again but we already knew that. Was there any wording that indicates that the DEP would do anything other than a fair and honest review?
Kim, I'm glad the documents are available, thanks. But my point is that Lisa's post, although appearing to be informative was not.
She opined that a struggle will be needed for the church to retain its exemption. In fact she made it sound as though (friends in high places and all) things look bad for CC.
What you're telling me now, is that I should view the documents myself to form my own opinion.
I agree but that being the case, shouldn't Lisa have just stated her opinion and advised others to form their own? In my opinion Lisa implied her comments are fact. Why would she do that?
All anyone can state is their opinion, you state yours, I state mine. Lisa states hers, etc.
Even this statement is only my opinion, because of course, even when stating what one perceives as "fact", one relies on one's own interpretation of the information that's available.
I reckon everyone's interpretation of the documents might differ somewhat--hence her suggestion to take a look at the documents ourselves.
For someone whose behavior on the nj.com forum is as nonsensical as yours, who are you to question what is fact?
Over there, you state that the people who oppose the CC project are actually "CC helpers", and that the mayor "wants money" and therefore promotes "overbuilding". You state these as fact also.
Please back up your facts with documentation so that we may all draw our own conclusions.
And please, stop picking nits to confuse the issue.
The problem is that Lisa didn't lable her post as opinion. She flat out said CC was going to have a uphill battle as if the documents she read gave some indication of that. If there was an indication, what was it?
I'm not trying to confuse, I'm just trying to eliminate spin.
