It seems that tomorrow's DR will have an article on how the Dept. of the Interior is reopening the case about HP illegally filling in the wetlands years ago and that they have written the DEP and "stongly" suggested that they take that into consideration when reviewing the exemption application. Hmmm. Sounds like trouble for whomever owns the property now and wants to develope it.
I remember when that siituation went down. It was circa 1981 and I was working there when the new building was being constructed. It was well known by most everyone that the property was dominently wetlands. However, the attitude was something like this:
It is much easier to seek forgiveness than to obtain permission. So, they filled the area which now constitutes the ballfield, EMI testsite area, and the section of the property which is presently the North East corner of the rear parking lot.
And yes, they did ultimately get caught by the DEP. And, yes they did get a little spanking.
The DEP did not have jurisdiction in the early 80's as this was a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act. Since the late 80's the DEP has jurisdiction on these federal matters. This is a far more complicated matter then Mr. Jennings has indicated in his article which is why the Star Ledger has not printed yet - they are doing their homework.
Happy New Year to all, Lisa
-- Edited by Lisa Salberg at 08:13, 2005-12-31
__________________
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.
Well, someone gave 'em a little spanking for it. But, the stratedgy worked for them. I remember that, in anticipation of regulatory agency problems, they left a little "divet" in the land (between the rear access road and east of the fields third base line) which was about 100' x 100' x around 20 feet deep (about a quarter acre). Their logic was sort of "if there is any wildlife that needs wetlands, let them go to the divet". I kid you not. Almost funny, right? Anyway, that divet can still be seen today.
I was wondering since you were an employee of HP at the time of the controversial fill in of the wetlands, do you know for a fact that the fill in was illegal and/or that impervious surface was constructed over the filled in area. If so, it seems that the DEP and/or Dept of the Interior should know about it based on Today's article in the Star Ledger. I was very surprised to read that the DEP is ok with it based on the Dept of Interior letter.
PS. for what it's worth, I was surprised that no one with a math/science/engineering background took you up on your offer. Seems like a wasted opportunity.
"I was very surprised to read that the DEP is ok with it based on the Dept of Interior letter."
-------------------------------------
Why??? All of you should know by now that, when it comes to churches, the DEP could not care less what they do. They will proactively avoid dealing with that situation like the plague. When are you going to figure that one out? Rockaway Township is on its own. And, RT is mishandling this situiation and, thus, my wife and I are also on our own. That is why we are selling. And, ultimately, all of you good folks in RT are also on your own. Do what you may.
As for the filling of wetlands, I layed out what I knew about it. The "powers that were" knew that they were breaking the rules when they filled the wetlands. I also know that a small fine was levied. I also know that the government turned a blind eye to it all, for whatever reason, I can only imagine.
--------------------------------------
At the end of the day, if ire-land decided to put a nuclear fission reactor on that property, the DEP would say, fine. You guys really have got to get that one into your heads or you are going absolutely nowhere towards the solution to this problem. And, the only solution is ED.
Remember, it does not really matter to us, since we have one foot already out of the door. But it really slays us that you folks are so naive' about the solution to this problem.
