Subject: DEP Says MAJOR DEVELOPMENT GOOD, FARMING BAD on C1s
Sent: 21 Dec '06 16:32
Commissioner:
Unfortunately,
Mr. Mauriello's interpretation of the buffer issue
does not agree with REALsmart's previous
understanding of this issue and the way it was originally framed at
DEP. In our understanding, the sole application of the "disturbance"
clause as applied to C-1 buffer issues was to be the case in which agricultural
uses would be continued and it would not apply under "change of use"
zoning, such as the change from farming to major residential development.
Please note the
following comments from REALsmart adviser, Bill
Wolfe:
"Folks the pragmatic answer to this is that
the C1 buffer rules LEGALLY MANDATE that the developer PROVE, by a
SCIENTIFICALLY VALID DEMONSTRATION, that the buffer reduction from 300 to 150 feet
(and disturbance in the buffer between 150 and 300 feet) provides the
EQUIVALENT protection of the functional values of 300 foot buffer
(under existing
conditions) and maintains “existing water quality.”
Merely demonstrating what “existing water
quality” is would take at least 4 quarters (one year’s worth) of water quality
data collection. That delay alone would be sufficient to trigger any new HL
regulations and the new stream encroachment rules.
Is there nothing living in the exiting
buffer? No vegetation? No habitat? No recharge? No sediment and pollutant
removal? No flood storage? The Builder would have to show that these
functional values of the buffer are retained by his development scheme such
that the post-development condition is equivalent to the pre-development
existing condition.
DEP could take years of technical review
to reach these types of conclusions (e.g., issuing the builder a series
of notices of deficiencies in proposed scopes of work for the various
studies, et al).
If DEP wanted to do the
right thing, it would be fairly easy." (end Mr
Wolfe's comments)
Here
it is @ NJAC 7:8-5.5(h)1.ii.
ii. Encroachment
within the designated special water resource protection
area under (h)1i above shall only be allowed
where previous development or
disturbance has occurred (for example, active
agricultural use, parking area or
maintained lawn area).
The encroachment
shall only be allowed where applicant demonstrates that the
Functional value
and overall condition of the special water resource protection area
will be maintained to the maximum extent
practicable. In no case shall the remaining
special water resource protection area be
reduced to less than 150 feet as measured
perpendicular to the top of bank of the waterway or
centerline of the waterway where the
bank is undefined. All encroachments proposed
under this subparagraph shall be
subject to review and approval by the
Department.
Link:
http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/2004_0202_watershed.pdf
Commissioner, we
hope that in view of the above, Mr. Mauriello's
specious reasoning is debunked permanently, for it truly would make NJDEP a
laughing stock. We continue to await the decision that you have promised in
your email of October 17th, 2006, and please consider that approval of buffer
reductions would:
1. Entirely
contradict the policy thrust of Governor Corzine's
Flood Mitigation Taskforce - recall that it had a distinct
2. DEP approval
would allow the
recently proposed new stream encroachment rules
(the regulatory cornerstone of the Corzine Flood
Mitigation Taskforce initiative).
Sincerely,