DEP told to review church's exemption Rockaway Twp. claims a victory in Highlands fight Friday, September 09, 2005 BY PAULA SAHA Star-Ledger Staff The state Department of Environmental Protection will be reviewing Christ Church's exemption from the Highlands Preservation Act one more time.
The state appellate court, in an order filed Wednesday, dismissed Rockaway Township's appeal of the exemption and sent the matter back to the DEP for "further fact- finding."
Rockaway Township Mayor Louis Sceusi called the order a victory for the township, even though the court did not outright reverse the exemption, as the township had argued it should. Sending it back to the DEP accomplished almost the same thing, Sceusi said.
"There was absolutely nothing to support granting the exemption," Sceusi said yesterday. "I'm glad it is going to be further reviewed. I have every confidence that the DEP will enforce the letter of the Highlands Act."
Christ Church, a 5,000-member congregation in Montclair, has been before the township planning board since December 2003 seeking site plan approval for a complex at the former Agilent Technologies site on Green Pond Road. The proposed plans have prompted concerns from many in town who say they are worried about the environmental and traffic impact.
About a year ago, Christ Church was one of the first developments in the state to receive an exemption from the newly-enacted Highlands legislation, which limits development in a "core" watershed region that includes the Agilent site. Rockaway Township appealed the exemption.
In the order dated Aug. 31 and filed in the Appellate Division on Wednesday, the court states it could not reverse the exemption because the "DEP admits that it failed to articulate a proper basis for its decision and acknowledges that there was not sufficient evidence on which to base its decision. An appellate court cannot properly perform its review of an agency decision without a reasoned explanation based on specific findings of fact."
The court order also denies a motion by the church to intervene in the case.
A spokesman for the church declined to comment in detail on the order yesterday because its attorneys had not yet reviewed it. Marc Weinstein did say the church was gratified that the court had dismissed Rockaway Township's appeal.
"The church remains confident that its exemption of the Highlands law will remain intact following the NJDEP review," Weinstein added.
A spokeswoman for the DEP declined to comment on the matter yesterday because she said the agency was still waiting to see a copy of the court order. But in a legal brief to the court filed on behalf of the DEP by the Attorney General's Office, the state said that if the court kicked the exemption back, the DEP would review comments and evidence from the township and the public.
Paula Saha covers the Rockaways. She may be reached at psa ha@starledger.com or (973) 539-7910.
__________________
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.
According to the article, the "DEP admits that it failed to articulate a proper basis for its decision and acknowledges that there was not sufficient evidence on which to base its decision. "
Why then did the DEP make the decision it did? Is the DEP in the business of making decisions based on "not sufficient evidence" and without hearing from all parties involved? Will there be an internal investigation by the DEP or an external investigation by the state attorney general's office into how this decision was made?
Personally, I believe the that the AG needs to investigate to make sure that the initial DEP decision was just an 'error of judgement' and that there was no wrongdoing! How do we get the AG involved??? Can RT do it???
__________________
This message is posted to the "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Internet Forum. Reproduction of this post on any other website is expressly forbidden without prior permission of the author.
"Why then did the DEP make the decision it did? Is the DEP in the business of making decisions based on "not sufficient evidence" and without hearing from all parties involved?"
The DEP is in the business of Politics and not in the business of objectivity and logic. Evidence seldom is an element of the political decision process, as you should know from life experience.
Why then did the DEP make the decision it did? Is the DEP in the business of making decisions based on "not sufficient evidence" and without hearing from all parties involved?
>
They ARE a government agency.....what else do you need to know? They are probably staffed with people who needed a job during a time when all the burger flipper jobs were already taken.
What I would like to know is if anybody is in touch with the AG office to determine if laws were broken or influence was pedaled!
__________________
This message is posted to the "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Internet Forum. Reproduction of this post on any other website is expressly forbidden without prior permission of the author.
I do not know for a fact, but it is probably like money in the bank to bet that influence was pedaled. After all, isn't that how things work? RT lost the situation likely because we did not influence pedal more than the other guy.
I would hope that our township officials would be INSISTING that the AG at least review the case.
__________________
This message is posted to the "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Internet Forum. Reproduction of this post on any other website is expressly forbidden without prior permission of the author.
Just a couple of questions for anyone that has information or would hazard a guess:
1. how long is it expected to take for the DEP to re-review the application and render a decision?
2. is the town still prepared to hold meetings in the meantime?
I would think that since the entire application is now up in the air pending DEP approval that the meetings should be suspended until an exemption is granted. Any thoughts?
I hate to pi$$ in everyone's Cheerios, but did I miss where any of the articles said the existing exemption was being pulled? It just said the DEP has to re-review. In fact the court said they couldnt rule the exemption was out because there were no facts on file to judge. I havent heard anyone say that the existing exemption was no longer in effect pending the review. Unless the DEP grows a set and starts out by stating that the exemption is null and void pending review, I would think that they could continue on their merry way, exemption in hand, until someone says otherwise. Right now they HAVE an exemption. The other big ? is exactly what will the DEP review. The original application or the request for exemption based on the current plans? Remember what the town attorney and chairman have said repeatedly, they can only proceed with what CC has now, not what might happen in the future. Right now they have an exemption. Now we can all hope that the DEP starts out by pulling the existing exemption, looks at the original app and turns it down. Then CC would have to reapply under the current regs and with current plans, then we would start all over again. I just dont have any faith in the DEP to do anything that requires logic and intestinal fortitude. Also remember that even if they lose the exemption, that doesnt mean they cant proceed, just that the Highlands Council has to approve their project.
Not to beat a dead horse but doesn't the terms of their exemption state that if any changes are made to the plans that the exemption is based on that said exemption is null and void? If so, then how can they still hold a valid exemption?
I have read the court documents. The Courts stated that the DEP did not have ample information to grant the exemption, thus it must review the file. If the court stated that the DEP did not have ample information to grant the exemption, thus the exemption is not whole - thereby it is not vailid - thereby it is not and an exemption.
The end result at this moment is that there is no valid exemption as of Aug. 31, 2005. When the DEP will open this can of worms again with a proper and complete review has yet to be announced.
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.
I agree that it doesn't make sense that a valid exemption currently exists (1) because the DEP did not have sufficient evidence to grant the exemption in the first place and (2) that there have been material changes to the plans which in any event would have caused any exemption that was originally granted to be null and void. Am I correct in assuming that when the DEP gets into this mess again that they will be reviewing the current plans rather than the original plans? Since the original plans have now changed, there doesn't seem to be any point in reviewing them. Would that be correct?
Let me clarify my previous comments. I agree fully and wholeheartedly with everything that is being said here. That being said, someone of authority, has to grow the set reqd to say, "YOU HAVE NO EXEMPTION!" period. So far, I have not seen that done. The courts didnt do it. The DEP hasnt done it. It doesnt matter how we interpret the decision and what seems logical to most people. We all agreed that the exemption became null and void the first time they made changes to the plans. That was the letter of the law, but no one did a damned thing to enforce that. That was months ago. Unless either a court or the DEP step up and tell them they have no exemption, I will bet $ that they walk into the next PB meeting, acting dumb (well dumber then usual), proceeding as always with their exemption still in hand. I am amazed that a major legal point like that wasnt addressed in the court decision and wasnt pushed by either side to be clarified at that point. CC can interpret it as the DEP has to re-examine everything but the existing exemption is still in place pending their review, and further, the added reductions further support the requirements of an exemption, and the town can interpret it as we are saying here, but without the DEP taking a stand, since the court didnt, nothing has changed in the meantime. Forgive me for not getting a warm and fuzzy over the DEP doing what needs to be done properly.
I concur. For what it is worth, this so called news had not convinced my wife and I to take our house off of the market. We still predict that the "PC thing" will be done here ultimately. They will ultimately re-examine their decision and rationalize why it was the correct one. This situation involving a black church desiring to move to "Whitelandia" is much to much of a political hot potatoe for any politically driven governmental agency to tackle. It just will never happen, IMHO.
I guess since no construction will occur prior to the DEP taking a look at the situation, hopefully the current situation with the current plans, it really makes no difference at all whether technically the exemption was voided or not. Whatever you call it now, it will be what it will be after the DEP review. I'd be interested in knowing how that review will work and over what timeframe if anyone has any information.
Todays Daily Record seems to actually have a factual opinion piece regarding the DEP and the CC "exemption". Good questions were raised over "who is pulling the strings at the DEP". Clearly at this point all agree that the DEP acted without fact in their granting of the exemption. Hopefully they will take this oppurtunity to do the right thing for the Highlands, Rockaway and for the residents of NJ.
Have a great day!
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.
