Assume that ireland and his business obtain their re-instatement of a Highlands exemption. He has shown that he expects Morris County and Rockaway township to construct a light on the corner of Meriden and GPR. Since GPR is under the control of the county and Meriden Rd is under the control of RT, wouldn't both of those legal entities require a Highlands exemption to provide the roadway improvements and the traffic light demanded by ireland to provide his kingship with what he considers his due?
In other words, the Meriden Road - GPR intersection light both would be located within 300 feet of the Hibernia Brook. Thus, construction within that radius would be in violation of the rules. Just because ireland gets his exemption for his Rock Concert Hall / Megabusiness, what is compelling those other two entities that I mentioned to seek Highlands Act exemptions?
Does anyone know what the compelling force is?
It certainly is not within the best interest of RT or Morris county to do so.
Interesting question. One would hope that the application for a highlands exemption by CC would not be granted unless in granting the exemption the required and/or forseeable road improvements are also included. I wonder if including those islands, etc raises the amount of impervious coverage beyond the 25% exemption criteria.
I believe that they are already over the 25% if it was ever calculated correctly. I have contended from the beginning that they were not calculating properly. The concept is to limit impervious surfaces, that is, any surface that would catch water and cause runnoff rather then allow it to soak into the ground. Rat could probably supply the calculations, but basically if you take a 10x20 foot flat roof (like what is there now) it gives you 200 sq ft of impervious surface. If you take that same bldg and make the roof a slanted roof and add steeples, spires, and multi dimensional angles, you greatly increase the total square footage of the IS. Yet if you just look at it in a purly 2 dimensional view from the air, the footprint looks the same, even when the IS has dramatically increased.
I do not know if trigonometric projections are required on complex roof surfaces in such an IS calculation. Does anyone know? I can see an agrument that could be made either way on that one.
In other words, if one assumes an orthogonal (straight downward) rainfall, the effect on the area surrounding a building will not matter based on the complexity of the geometry of its roof. However, if one assumes a driving rain and depending on the rains angle of attack, an asymetrical impact could occur on the IS depending on what type of surface is in the shadow of that precipitation.
