For starters, I did a head count. There were 28 seats in each row and seating in the bleechers. The seats were 1/2 to 3/4 full and there were at least 40 people in the bleechers. There were over 200 people at the meeting (not counting the applicant and members of the board).
I am pleased that the applicant appears to see very clearly that the plans they have submitted are never going to make it. I and many others have read the Highlands Bill. I do not see how they can think that they can rework the plan, accomadate 5000 people each Sunday, have all the programs and services they seek (and claim are manditory to practice their religion) and comply with the Highlands Bill. I am sure attorneys, engineers, planners and many other prof. services will be required to review the plans, attempt to re-work them and still end up with the end result - it simply will not work.
It would be a very classy move for the applicant to see the big picture and nicely step away from a project that can not happen. They have a few months to think it over, maybe they will see the light.
Good night.
__________________
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 saw the look on Irelands face during the break, for the usually stoic looking person he is, he looked pretty excited. Then when I read his quote in the paper:
"We're not backing down. We're not going anywhere," Ireland said.
I realized that walking away is the last thing on their mind at this point. From the presentation that they gave, it is clear that the buildings there are quite large, and they seemed eager to work with what's there and comply with the laws. At this point, even changing the zoning laws will have little effect if they stay withing the existing structures. I don't think CC is thinking it "can't happen here" as Lisa put it. They are thinking that they have won each battle so far, so why stop now.
But where will they put the cars? How will they grow? If, with some of the growth projections being made, how can they have 10,000 members in a few years? They'd be holding their meetings all day long. We must stop them somehow. I have a bad feeling about this whole scenerio. It's not going to get better for us if they get in, only worse.
Once in, they will do anything that they want on "Church Property". Do any of you belong to a Church or Synagogue? Can you imagine the local government comming in and telling you that running 6 or 7 services on a give day is not allowed? Of course not. Can you imagine the township comming in and telling you that your church has grown too much? The situation is totally out of hand. The town had it chance to fix things by condemming the property but it did not. We are toast. Basically, the behinds the scenes leadership that is needed to solve this problem is not there. CC will prevail, and they have a lot more in store for this town then anyone in town could possibly imagine once "phase 2" is completed.
Can you say "Faith Based Initiatives?" Can you say "Mount Laurel Housing?" Well, get used to it.
BTW - Craig meiers did have it right. He and his wife decided to get the hell out of here about a month ago as I recall it. Smart move if they can sell.
He had planned to build 77 classrooms for 500 students. That just did not make sense right from the beginning. Maybe he did that to have something to tradeoff. If I were him, I would build about 20 classrooms for that student census. I would then use the existing footprint of the building to accomodate a 4 story parking garage to solve that problem. I would install a silt removal catch basin to aleviate any environmental issues arising from stormwater runoff. Traffic problems are the townships to deal with, not Irelands.
Doesn't rluipa allow a zoning board to reject an application if there is a compelling public interest?
Wouldn't the infusion of more cars and or buses than a road can accomodate be a compelling public interest in view of safety concerns such as prompt arrival of ambulences, fire trucks, etc?
If so, I'm not sure that your statement that traffic is the towns problem and not ireland's is entirely accurate.
That question was posed to the good Reverend at one of the early meetings. He said that he has no intention of providing any funds to alleviate any problems caused to the infrastructure which might cause the types of problems that you mentioned. A person from the audience even went up to the mic and asked something to the effect of "what if my sick mother needs an ambulance and get stuck in a large traffic jam on Sunday morning?" Dicker promptly shut her down telling her that it is none of Irelands problem. And, of course, the good Reverend did not step up to the plate and offer a good Christian gesture despite the law. Another person asked (meier I believe) something to the effect of "what if you effect my wifes ability to get to church on sundays due to the traffic created? Are you going to place your religious rights above hers?" His answer was "that is not my problem." I heard it; I was there! He is a real sob. So, my conclusion is that the infrastructure implications are ours and ours alone, folks.
I agree that the impact on infrastructure is a concern and would HAVE to be fixed. I just do not think that Reverend Ireland is the one required by law to fix it. I think that it will be incumbant upon us to fix it.
Let us face it. Ireland knows damn well that a two land highway is not going to accomodate his Sunday traffic jam. He also knows that the problem will have to be fixed else he will go out of business. I think that he also knows that the town will be required to fix that problem because of public health and generall public welfare concerns. Just my opinion.
If traffic impact is the town's and not CC's concern why did CC submit a traffic impact study with their application? I think I recall some discussion about the merits of the study. It doesn't make alot of sense that CC would have to submit such a study if it was irrelevant with regards to their application. Am I missing something?
My take on it is that an applicant is required to account for traffic impact on a town based on the land use situation. However, his report proves (although bogus because he does not account for any growth) his contention that he will not have a deleterious effect on our traffic. But that is just a ruse. He knows that it will, but just wants to get approved so that he does not have to put up any funds for infrastructure improvement issues as a contingency for approval. Thereafter, when he grows his amusement park like a weed and the traffic becomes the real problem that he knows that it will be, he will just say to the town that it is time to fix the problem. No my problem, man and he will probably insist on a quick fix for it. (However, I see no quick fix for the widening of GPR to 4 lanes for 0.5 miles - - - property condemnation and rock blasting, etc. That will be a Morris County problem, however).
Don't you think that either Vort or the town can successfully bring in their own experts to refute cc's traffic study? Based on past comments, it seems that it is certainly based on very suspect assumptions. Then if it can be shown that a traffic problem would exist, rluipa does allow for rejection of the application based on a compelling public concern.
quote: Originally posted by: rockres23yrs "Then if it can be shown that a traffic problem would exist, rluipa does allow for rejection of the application based on a compelling public concern. "
I pray that you are right! My concern is along the lines of the concept that "a man with two watches never knows what time it is." In other words, their expert is going to say that the roads are just fine for 5000 people on Sunday (we already know that) - - - and that may be correct. Our expert is going to say that the roads are not adequate for 10,000 people on Sunday. Ireland will simply fall back and say "where did you get that 10,000 number. 5,000 is my (Irelands) number and I have no estimates for future growth, so your towns analysis is bogus and the application must be approved based on that alone. It is impossible to project Church growth as the good man of the cloth has already stated in public.
So, the question may come down to the following:
Does the Township, in the absence of growth projections of Christ Church by Christ Church have the right to make its own projections for Church growth for the purposes of making assessments of infrastructure impact? (btw - it goes will beyond just the roads, it goes to the question of sewer loading, well loading, police and emergency services requiremtnts, etc.) It is a legal question and not a logical one that you and I are going to be able to sort through. So ultimately, I am not sure how it will turn out.
The suspect assumptions that I was referring to in my post was not future growth but rather assumptions in their own report such as attendees arriving early and thereby spreading the traffic load over a longer period to smooth out the congestion. When I heard that it didn't make a lot of common sense to me and hopefully it won't make sense to whoever ultimately will judge the issue.
