Requires DHSS standards for safe building interiors; submission of documentation of investigation and remediation as a condition to issuance of construction permit for certain sites; makes changes to the "Industrial Site Recovery Act."
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning contaminated property, supplementing Title 52 of the Revised Statutes, and amending and supplementing P.L.1983, c.330.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. a. Within nine months after the effective date of this act, the Department of Health and Senior Services shall adopt rules and regulations pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.) that establish: (1) procedures for the evaluation and assessment of the interior of buildings that are to be used for a child care center licensed pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1983, c.492 (C.30:5B-1 et seq.), or for residential or educational purposes; and (2) standards that establish maximum contaminant levels for building interiors to be used for child care centers licensed pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1983, c.492, or for residential and educational purposes, that are protective of the public health and safety.
b. The department shall establish an application process for the certification issued pursuant to subsection c. of this section. Every application for a certification shall be accompanied by a fee, established in accordance with a fee schedule adopted by the department, by rule or regulation, reflecting the costs of reviewing and processing the application.
c. Upon a demonstration to the department by the applicant that the procedures established pursuant to subsection a. of this section for the evaluation and assessment of building interiors have been followed, and that there are no contaminants present in the building that exceed the maximum contaminant levels established in subsection a. of this section, the department shall issue a certification that the building interior is safe for use as a child care center, or for residential or educational purposes.
d. As used in this section, "contaminant" shall have the same meaning as provided in section 23 of P.L.1993, c.139 (C.58:10B-1).
2. (New section) a. No construction permit shall be issued pursuant to section 12 of P.L.1975, c.217 (C.52:27D-130) for any structure that was previously used for industrial, storage, or high hazard purposes, or that is on a contaminated site, on a site on which there is suspected contamination, or on an industrial site that is subject to the provisions of the "Industrial Site Recovery Act," P.L.1983, c.330 (C.13:1K-6 et al.), except upon the submission of the certification issued by the Department of Health and Senior Services pursuant to section 1 of P.L. , c. (C. )(pending in the Legislature as this bill) to the construction official by the applicant, that the structure has been evaluated and assessed for contaminants, and that the structure is safe for use as a child care center licensed pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1983, c.492, or for residential or educational purposes.
b. No construction permit shall be issued for the construction or alteration of any building or structure to be used as a child care center licensed pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1983, c.492, or for educational or residential purposes, on a contaminated site, on a site on which there is suspected contamination, or on an industrial site that is subject to the provisions of the "Industrial Site Recovery Act," P.L.1983, c.330 (C.13:1K-6 et al.), except after submission by the applicant to the construction official of documentation sufficient to establish that the site has been remediated consistent with the remediation standards and other remediation requirements established pursuant to section 35 of P.L.1993, c.139 (C.58:10B-12) and a no further action letter has been issued by the Department of Environmental Protection for the entire site.
c. As used in this section, "contaminated site" means any real property on which there is contamination, and "contamination," "remediation" or "remediate," and "no further action letter" shall have the same meanings as provided in section 1 of P.L.1993, c.139 (C.58:10B-1).
************************** Now given that the property at 140 Green Pond Rd is an IRSA site and given that stream encroahment permits take anywhere from 1-3 years to get at this time (and as of yesterday the applicant has not applied yet) it seems highly unlikley that this applicant will ever be permitted to build a school on this property because in part they seek to disrupt the soil.
The history behind this new move by the Senate stems from a DEP blunder. A man wishes to build a child care center on land that had belonged to a themometer factory in south NJ. The DEP said it was fine and now the kids are all sick, very sick. The parents tried to sue the builder who turn back and said the DEP had permitted the building and they were the ones who caused the children to get sick - you can imagine how the parents took that news. Now the DEP is on the hot seat and the Senate has moved in to more closely monitor schools on IRSA sites. We had been well aware of this situation and we have taken action to encourage this gets passed ASAP. Please call your state senator and ask them to endorse this important matter.
I can not help but wonder if the good people who gave their hard earned money had any idea that Christ Church was purchasing a property they had no chance to get into for 10 years or more (3 years already gone...many more to go). The permit process alone at the state level will take years and then there are the federal permits (DOI and such). The millions of dollars spent here are not fulfilling the goals and objectives of a 501c3, this make you wonder about the level of financial responsibility of this entity.
I would guess that CC is also not to happy about the conditions placed on them - my guess is they still try to sue the town. They will do this because it is the only chance they have at funding this poorly planned project, but I have faith in the courts and that they will see through this attempt to take money from tax payers to fund CC.
I have been away for a week so I had not had a chance to post the list of conditions - I will do that later tonight.
Best wishes to all, 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.
Ahhhh Lisa; but don't schoolchildren just love playing with Trichlorethelyne and such? Aren't god irelands children immune to that sort of thing anyway? Like everything else, I doubt that these things apply to the god.
That sounds like a great new law, but it looks like it we have to be enacted and THEN a year later it would become effective. Wouldn't cc be able to sneak in before the law took effect (money before the health of their own kids?)???
__________________
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.
Of course cc will sneak it in. You can take that to the bank. They could care less about kids or any other damn thing but ireland's bank account. And even if they did not sneak it in, they would become exempt because of their super special status.
Perhaps I should have payed better attention in high school, but can anyone tell me what the steps are for getting a bill passed once its introdcuced at the senate level?
BR wrote: Perhaps I should have payed better attention in high school, but can anyone tell me what the steps are for getting a bill passed once its introdcuced at the senate level?
You just never paid attention in class, so I'll give it to you from the old Schoolhouse Rocks series
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
And of course since I gave you the 1970's version I thought I would give you the 00 version in three parts.
For a group of people who just weeks ago were arguing that 140 GPR was the perfect spot for RT's badly needed new school, which would easily justify the taking of this property by ED, this proposed law seems to crush that plan.
And it was made clear that CC plans to remediate the property with DEP oversight. If the DEP signs off on the condition after remediation is complete, then this new law (if ever enacted) would likely not apply.
And even if the law did prohibit a school on that sight, my guess is that CC would simply purchase property elsewhere in the area and build a school there.
In any case, a CC school can only help RT's overcrowded school situation. Because some CC members will relocate to the Township and be sending their kids to CC's school. These people will be paying into the tax base but will not be adding children to the RT school system.
So it appears that the "excitement" about this proposed legislation is a bit "misdirected".
it seems the N.C. racist has problems with everything about Rockaway Township. He fails to realize that mr liarland wants to disturb millions of feet of soil. Rockaway would have no need to do that in order to locate our new school on this site. We would have the existing structure certified good to go of course, because we care for our children more than any amount of mega-buck$$$.
May all this a-holes hate come back to him 9 fold.
And how many of us, already struggling with paying our school taxes, are going to pay those taxes PLUS pay tuition to Christ Church for our kids to go to their private school, which may or may not teach the brand of morals and ethics we've been privy to over the past 3 years?
