Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: DEP


Status: Offline
Posts: 73
Date:
DEP


This was sent to the VORT email. Interesting article

WATER SIDE
AP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 13, 2006 -- TRENTON, N.J. - A state appeals panel ruled yesterday that state environmental regulators can restrict development near waterways.
The New Jersey Builders Association had challenged Department of Environmental Protection rules that barred development within 300 feet of some rivers.

The DEP says development near waterways causes rainwater to flow directly into a stream, taking pollutants with it.




__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:

How far back on the property (compared to the existing plan) will that force ireland to build his mega? In other words, how much further back does he have to move it to be in compliance?

-- Edited by Rational at 13:59, 2006-04-19

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 410
Date:

“New Jersey’s stormwater rules are
considered the nation’s most protective largely because they require 300-foot
vegetated buffers along Category One waterways to help filter pollutants and
safeguard the quality of these waters.”

300 ft of vegetated buffer means they are already out of compliance - I guess that rules out expanding the mega-parking lots - but will the DEP have the stones to enforce the law without any b.s. "exemptions" for liars?

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:

I really doubt it.

plus -

One of our state legislators wants to ammend the law to exempt churches and municipalities from the various provisions of the Highlands legislation.

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 165
Date:

I think it would force him too far. He doesnt have 300' extra to work with. He is very restricted by having to maintain the minimum number of parking spaces. That was one of the original problems and was why they went for an exemption. There was also some descrepancy with the streams. They were supposedly C1 but not on the list, or were supposed to be added and wernt, or something like that. Dont remember the details, but something about the classification wasnt clear and of course our friends at the DEP never did anything to rectify it. I personally made an inquiry about their classification to the DEP and they sent me docs that were clear as mud with no definitive clarification.

__________________
Chuck Mueller "JUST SAY NO!"


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:

I do not know the stream designation (C1 or otherwise) but I am pretty sure that the two streams that confluence at that property feed into the Rockaway river which ultimately feeds into the Boonton (Jersey City) Reservoir. If I am right about that, pollutants in those streams certainly would effect the quality of the drinking water in Jersey City.

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:

I believe that the ONLY coduit of water flow from the Split Rock Reservoir to the Boonton Reservoir is as follows:

Split Rock Reservoir > Split Rock Dam > Beaver Brook through the 140 GPR property > Rockaway River > Boonton Reservoir.

If this is true, I can not imagine why this stream is not designated C1.

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 549
Date:

Both the Bever Brook and the Hibernia Brook are C-1. HOWEVER - if granted the exemtption they magically are no longer C-1 in that portion. In other words BS.

The DEP needs to protect the water for all the people of NJ. Lets hope they do the RIGHT thing and protect the water and land.

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.
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard