Hello, I have not been writing much due to the fact that this and other internet sites are watched closely by the CC team. They do not tip their hand as to there next move, nor do we. I will say this much. This project may have planning board approval but it is still in need of many state and federal permits which are by no means a given that they will recieve. They are also in need of getting that DEP Highlands exemption, which again if far from a given. They are also in great need of staying as far away from the Highlands Council as possible - which may not be all that simple to do. IF and that is a great big IF they get all the permits required the estimated time for those permits is between 1-3 years from the date they apply (which as of today they have not). AND there are new state laws that they must comply with that leave it very questionable that they will be able to continue with the plans on that piece of land.
It is not always wise to show your hand so this is all I will say for now. It aint over yet!
Have a great weekend! 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.
Sounds like Deja Vu all over again. I will keep my fingers crossed that some other official body does the job that the PB refused to do, but I dont like relying on someone else to do RT's job. The fact that there are still numerous legal hoops for them to jump through only underscores the fact that the correct, logical, and responsible thing for the PB to have done would be to deny the application, period, as not in the best interest of RT. Then CC would have had an additional several years of legal processes to go through besides the other stuff. That way our kids would have been retired before they ever had a chance to build, and all that time they would have still been paying taxes. Passing the buck is not what the PB is there to do. They should all look up the legal definition of Non Feasance, particularly when not one of them voted in favor of it because they thought it was a good project for RT.
As I have said before, I believe that the good taxpaying citizens have a good case against the planning board.
A class action lawsuit against the PB and its individual members is definitely in order. They did not represent the best interest of our Township or its citizens. Let's hold them financially responsible for the damage that they have done to all of us personally. Let them pay for the destruction of our property values. I would also throw in a seperate lawsuit against Mayor Sceusi.
Anyone else here agree with me?
I doubt it. The entire township in large part are a bunch of naive wimps - - -
Acutally, I think that RT is getting exactly what it deserves. Unfortunately, we live here and it is going to hurt us too despite the fact that we do not deserve to suffer because of the outcome of this mess. After all, we did call the shots correctly on this with the proper recommendations all along - - - Eminent Domain. But everybody else wanted to play childish games with this thing.
I am not sure how to break this to you guys but the law was followed by the planning board and they did what was in their power to do. If there is something you do not like about the process it would have to be changed at the state level. If the board acted in any other way they would have violated the law. What they did was to use ever power available through the law and hit this applicant with conditions that are in the best interest of the township.
This is far from over -- hang in there.
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.
You are anything but Rational. But putting that aside, the Rockaway Township planning board had to approve the application. It did of course put certain caveats and restrictions on that approval. If the Rev Ireland chooses to fight these conditions, the original approval could be nullified and the whole process brought back to the beginning. While his PR folks can spin away all they like, his legal dept should be worrying more about the setbacks that they could cause by trying to get the planning board to ease it's parking restrictions. If not, then once again, Rockaway could deny the original approval. Kind of a catch 22 any way you look at it. As Lisa has already pointed out the Rev and his group have a long way to go before they will ever be able to start construction, a lot can happen legislatively between now and then. Enough said.
" - - - the Rockaway Township planning board had to approve the application."
--------------------------------
It would be totally irrational to make that statement unless you can back it up by stating the law which governs this. Have you spoken to a land use attorney in order to come to that conculsion? Are you a lawyer yourself? Are you an expert in Constitutional law? Have you ever studied civics?
Clearly the answer to all of those questions is NO. So, folks like yourself and VORT are doing a great dis-service to the community by spreading mis-information pertaining to what a PB can and can not do.
Now, please - - - before you go spouting off again, do your research. Grab your phone book and make a few appointment with land use attorneys (as did we) and learn the facts!
I have spoken with a leading NJ land use attorney, and have been around planning boards many times to have a firm grasp on the ins and outs of the situation and the laws that governed this particular application. You on the other hand seem to allow your emotions to get the better of you and cannot sit back and logically think this whole thing through and see the bigger picture (in a legal sense). To write more now would do others who are working behind the scenes a great disservice. All I can tell you is to sit back and watch the next few months, I think you will be surprised to learn that things are not always as they appear..
"I have spoken with a leading NJ land use attorney"
---------------------------------------------
Then Mr. Bill, you should have no problems revealing the attorney's name. Thanks in advance!
Sorry, not without his permission, I shall ask if he will allow me permission to post his name on this discussion and if the answer is in the affirmative, I shall do so, but not before then.
rAt...you know what I hate more than anything, is an armchair quarterback...you have not lifted a finger to help Rockaway except to blather on about nothing on a frigging message board. How pathetic is that! And then to actually have the audacity to say you are right?!?!?! You have been useless, a detriment, and an embarrasment to the entire town during this whole saga.
At least the gadfly and the sideshow act came to meetings and spoke their minds.
Please don't bother responding...your opinion holds as much water with me as a strainer does.
Sell your house, PLEASE SELL YOUR HOUSE AND GET OUT OF ROCKAWAY!!!!!!!!!!!
And RT Concern - - - just exactly what have you done to help the cause? Please list them in the following format for all of us to view:
1.
2.
3.
. . .
N.
Thanks
Rat
ps - had my advice (and that of my lawyers been followed) you folks would not be in the deep do-do that you are in.
pss - if you really want us out of town that badly, just take up some donations to purchase this joint and we are out of here. We would like to see around 700 K. I note that there are around 50 active member on this forum. That means that all you need to come up with is 14 grand each! What a bargain - - - right? So, send in those donations asap.
And this week only, I will also bless all of you and guarantee redemption or your money back. So, send in those checks asap!
"Sorry, not without his permission, I shall ask if he will allow me permission to post his name on this discussion and if the answer is in the affirmative, I shall do so, but not before then."
----------------------------------
My Response:
Uh huh! ROTFL!
----------------------------------
Here are the names of the lawfirms / lawyers that we conferred with on this matter:
Henry Hill - Princeton NJ (of Mt. Laurel Fame) around 3 years ago
Henry was probably the top land use attorney in the State of NJ and he told us what would have had to happen to solve this otherwise unsolvable problem - - - the use of ED. Henry died of cancer about 1.5 years ago, G-d bless his soul.
Dennis Drasco, Lum Danzis, Drasco & Positan - Roseland NJ around 1 year ago. He reflected exactly what Henry had told us pertaining to the only possible solution to this problem - - - ED.
------------------------
There is one other local attorney who specializes in real estate law but not specifically land use law who provided the same advice He is:
Robert Long, Denville NJ
Robert told us that ED is the only potential solution to this problem. Recently (about 1 month ago), however, he lamented that the time may be too late to do that.
Note: None of these names have been used with permission. I do not feel that I need their permission since we, in fact, did receive council from them. Two are still alive, so give them a call yourselves! It will only cost you a few hundred bucks for the consultations, but the affirmation is well worth it. It sure beats shooting off at the mouth in an uninformed manner.
"At what point will CC inc. not be liable to pay property tax?"
-----------------------------
I do not know; I would have to call a lawyer to find out. Since Mr. Bill is calling his lawyer to get permission to post his name here, perhaps he can find out the answer to the question since he already will be on the phone with him.
Mr. Bill - - - Thanks in advance for helping to answer BR's excellent question!
You might want to curb your ego. I would never drop a name on a public forum without that persons permission unless said party had already used his/her own name on that very forum beforehand. That is common courtesy and common sense, especially with the others who read and might harass those very same people to get their rocks off.
We have hid nothing on this end - - - we have been straight forward shooters based on our research and discussions with professionals in this field of endeavour. We have shared openly the results of our investigations with the best legal minds around in this field.
So, what is there to be afraid of given this situation?
He has explained not to use his name on any online forums, as such I will not name names. He did explain to me a bit about the law and tax excemptions though and it seems that until all approvals are in place Christ Church will be making partial tax payments on the majority of the property as they have not gotten all approvals just yet. I do agree that we have nothingt to hide, but at the same time we do not want to show our hand just yet in this game of cards.
It makes sense that the property is not only taxable pending all required approvals but even beyond that. Isn't the key ingredient that the tax exempt entity needs to be using the property for it's tax exempt purpose? Even after obtaining all the approvals CC could just sit on the property for speculation. In that event I would imagine that the property would still be taxable to the extent that it's not being used for worship, etc. Does that make sense to you Mr Bill?
At the risk of prolonging this thread, I have to put another two cents into the comments that the PB HAD to approve this. In short, I still say BS. If all that was needed was for an app to be "legal" under the ordinances then we wouldnt need a board. Every app could just be reviewed by a lawyer and rubber stamped. The board is put in place to interject human experience and personal knowledge of the area. Many, many applications are rejected simply as not being in the best interest of the town. A recent case in point was the convenience store/gas station app. It was legal, but immediately rejected. If all any applicant needed was to be legal then every app would have to be approved after minor corrections and that just isnt the case. To make matters worse, they knew they were going against the majority of the residents in town, and not a single one of them actually thought it was a favorable project for this town, yet they approved it anyway. No way they did their jobs and no way they HAD to approve it and every one of them knows they shouldnt have. Sorry, I'm not buying the party line on that one. Now if you want to try to sell the fact that had it gone to court, after a few years, they probably would have won anyway, well I might accept that as a possibility, but that should have been allowed to play out.
You are one of the very few persons in this township who actually seems to understand the law and how things work. Pity the rest of them! Unfortunately, their ignorance will have had a profound effect on not only their families, but ours too.
