1 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 3 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 4 5 _____________________________ 6 In the matter of: Transcript of 7 PIC Monthly Meeting Proceedings 8 _____________________________ 9 10 11 Computer-aided transcript of meeting 12 was taken stenographically in the 13 above-entitled matter before KAREN L. DeLUCIA, 14 a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary 15 Public of the State of New Jersey, at 16 Department of Community Affairs, 101 S. Broad 17 St., Room 129, Trenton, NJ, on Wednesday, May 18 28, 2003, commencing at 9:00 a.m. 19 20 21 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 22 824 West State Street 23 Trenton, New Jersey 08618 24 (609) 989-9199 1-800-368-7652 (TOLL FREE) 25 http://www.renziassociates.com GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 5 MICHELE BYERS, Chair 6 ADAM ZELLNER 7 ROBERTA LANG 8 JOHN ESKILSON 9 RICK BROWN 10 MARGE DELLA VECCHIA 11 DAVID FISHER 12 JIM LEWIS 13 DAN RYAN 14 BILL PURDIE 15 16 ALSO PRESENT: 17 DANIEL REYNOLDS, D.A.G. 18 Counsel for the Committee 19 PAUL M. DRAKE, Area Planner 20 Department of Community Affairs 21 22 23 24 25 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 3 1 I N D E X 2 3 AGENDA ITEM PAGE 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS 4 5 RULE DISCUSSION 32 6 SPARTA TOWN CENTER PETITION 47 7 VERNON TOWN CENTER PETITION 148 8 LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP, 9 CUMBERLAND COUNTY DISCUSSION 257 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 4 1 MS. BYERS: Just starting right off 2 the top of the agenda the only remarks that I 3 have this morning are just how much I'm 4 anticipating moving off the center discussions 5 and into plan endorsements. It's been a long 6 time in coming. We've been talking about it 7 for three or four years now, and I think all of 8 us are ready to move on and get some real 9 regional planning started in the state. We 10 really don't want to continue on with looking 11 at just one center at a time; we'll be here 12 until the next ice age, I'm afraid. So I'm 13 very enthused about the announcements that were 14 made at yesterday's meeting, and looking 15 forward to moving ahead on Plan Endorsement. 16 We do have a quick session on the 17 agenda at the beginning for public comments. 18 If you have comments relative to either the 19 rules or any of the centers that are on the 20 agenda later, if you could hold those, that 21 would be great. But any other public comments 22 are welcome at this time. 23 So please state your name and 24 affiliation for the record, please. 25 MR. PEELE: My name is Stanton GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 5 1 Peele, and I'm a citizen of New Jersey. I left 2 some materials at everybody's place. The first 3 is a letter to Ms. Bass-Levin from Julia 4 Summers who is a colleague of mine. And the 5 second is what I'd like to talk briefly to you 6 about today; "The Meaning of Smart Growth for 7 Developments that Violate the State Development 8 and Redevelopment Plan". And particularly with 9 regard to a development proposed by St. Mary's 10 Abbey for a continuing care retirement 11 community. 12 I hope everybody can find their 13 little booklets. I left one I think at every 14 place for every member. It's got the open 15 cover with the question that I just asked. 16 It's got an outline of my remarks in case 17 there's any need to remember them. And then 18 there's a list of eight exhibits which I'm 19 going to describe as I go through this. 20 St. Mary's Abbey is a monastery and 21 private school in Morris County in the 22 Washington Valley. The Washington Valley is a 23 planning area number five. It's part of the 24 Washington Valley historic district, which is 25 on the United States and New Jersey Historic GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 6 1 Registers. It also has category one waterways 2 feeding Whippany watershed, and a number of 3 other special characteristics that I'll 4 describe to you. 5 This issue came before this group 6 one time previously. The CCRC decided that it 7 wanted to try and sewer through Morristown, 8 which as you know is a regional center. There 9 is a sewer already for the school property, and 10 because of previous agreements the capacity of 11 that sewer is limited. So they went to 12 Morristown, and Morristown's Regional Center 13 contemplated providing a sewer outlet for 14 them. And we came before the Planning 15 Implementation Committee, and Mr. Simmens 16 delivered an opinion about how appropriate this 17 would be and what the consequence would be for 18 Morristown if they did sewer that. It's 19 exhibit one in the booklet I gave you. 20 Primarily he said that it was not 21 consistent with the State Plan. And the 22 Attorney General's office ruled that based on 23 that Morristown could be decertified. That was 24 a pretty -- and the Department of Community 25 Affairs actually withheld funding that had GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 7 1 already previously been approved for Morristown 2 as a Regional Center. 3 Governor DiFrancesco was 4 interviewed about it. Acting Governor Donald 5 DiFrancesco said he supports the State Planning 6 Commission's right to determine whether 7 Morristown would violate the State Master Plan 8 if it runs a sewer line to the Delbarton School 9 amongst proposed $40,000,000 retirement 10 community in Morris Township. I think we have 11 to have it, the Acting Governor said of the 12 review process. It's not that we're singling 13 out anybody. We have to have it all over the 14 State in order to get where we want to be with 15 respect to "Smart Growth" and congestion relief 16 and good planning. 17 Now, eventually Morristown declined 18 to sewer this development. 19 Now this issue has arisen again 20 because to get a CCR approval you have to come 21 through the Department of Community Affairs; 22 the very department, of course, that sponsors 23 OSG. And another agency, which is a part of 24 the Smart Growth Policy Council, the EDA also 25 has been involved in this. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 8 1 And I wanted to ask you a 2 question. I wanted to ask you -- maybe you can 3 help me, Mr. Zellner. What's changed since 4 Governor DiFrancesco and DCA indicated that 5 they wouldn't permit Morristown, or they 6 wouldn't continue to fund them as a center if 7 they provided sewerage treatment for something 8 that violated the State Plan given that there's 9 been a Smart Growth -- given the Governor's 10 executive order the creation of the Office of 11 Smart Growth and the Smart Growth Policy 12 Council? 13 MR. ZELLNER: Well, what's changed, 14 and I think you saw it very visibly yesterday 15 in the announcement that we gave, that for the 16 first time we really do have departments 17 talking with one another and working together 18 towards issues that relate to Smart Growth. 19 In terms of what you're asking, my 20 understanding is from EDA at this point that 21 they have not received a funding application 22 from them. We have asked them to make us aware 23 should such an application come in. 24 And in terms of the Center 25 Designation, I don't believe Morristown has GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 9 1 been active and has listened to the advise of 2 the Planning Commission. 3 MR. PEELE: That's true. And I 4 guess what I wanted to hear from you, and what 5 I interpreted the Smart Growth Policy Council 6 meaning was, that since in the new 7 administration the concept was that all 8 departments would coordinate around the 9 principles of Smart Growth and the State Plan 10 in order to unify their policies. 11 Now, the problem I have and the 12 reason I'm here is the CCRC has already 13 received some kind of approval through DCA. 14 You have a CCRC section, and they have 15 permitted Delbarton to proceed to solicit 16 nonbinding applications, which is the first 17 step in the process, and which I fear is 18 something they can say, well, you've already 19 approved us; you already said we can go ahead. 20 You're right, by the way, in 21 mentioning that -- I include the relevant part 22 of Mr. Simmens memo concerning this issue, and 23 I'm going to direct you back to it at one 24 point. But the second exhibit is a letter from 25 the Delbarton attorney saying fundamentally; I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 10 1 only included the first and last page of a 2 14-page letter, but I'm sure he'll be happy to 3 send you another letter equally long. And it 4 says the State Plan really has no relevance to 5 us. We can't really -- it shouldn't influence 6 your decision making. And, in fact, of course 7 if you'll notice the date on it, July 21st, 8 Mr. Simmens' memo was following that in August; 9 so even considering that he reached his 10 decision. 11 But the third exhibit is Mrs. 12 Franzini's letter to me. And she says, what 13 you've just told me, Mr. Zellner, which I rely 14 on, the EDA confers closely with its sister 15 agencies and the Governor's Smart Growth Policy 16 Council in order to implement programs that are 17 consistent with the administration's Smart 18 Growth policies. The Policy Council also 19 affords an opportunity to bring particular 20 projects to the attention of its members and to 21 track these projects that may be deemed 22 inconsistent with Smart Growth land use 23 patterns. 24 Now, I want to return to Mr. 25 Simmens' memo, because I think some kind of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 11 1 precedent is coming out his office. The first 2 question is would extending a sewer to a 3 planning area five to create CCRC violate the 4 State Plan. And I think section one of his 5 memo says yes it would; he details it. 6 Point three, can a restricted 7 community by age be designated as a center. 8 Mr. Simmens discusses that, and I think his 9 indications are no, it can't be, but you can 10 read for yourself what it said. 11 And then I think very interestingly 12 on page four at the bottom, the State Plan 13 serves as a guide to when and where available 14 State investments should be expended, and 15 applies to regulatory programs to achieve the 16 goals of the State Planning Act. And I think 17 it was on that basis the logic was why should 18 we provide extra money to Morristown as a 19 Regional Center if they are in the process of 20 violating the State Plan; if they would be. 21 And they agreed. 22 Now, as I said this area has come 23 up again, and I think that's particularly 24 relevant to EDA, because if EDA provided 25 bonding for Delbarton, that would mean State GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 12 1 resources were being used to float a project 2 that violated the State Plan. But I think it 3 also has implications for -- or I'm going to 4 ask you if it has implications for DCA's 5 approval for CCRC. 6 I want to turn now just to some 7 mapping. I provided three maps. This is the 8 "big map". And the "big map" outlines in 9 black the property of St. Mary's Abbey, which 10 is 382 acres. If you'll see the hatched area 11 is the area that 171 acres that were rezoned 12 for the purpose of creating a CCRC. It's 13 entirely in red. And that reflects the kind of 14 considerations that went in to creating the 15 "big map"; open space issues, the landscape 16 project. This is a tier four area. 17 As far as I'm aware, the "big map" 18 does not include water resources, so I'd like 19 you to turn to the next map. This is a 20 Composite Water Resources Values created by the 21 Water Management Area Six Group. Again, you'll 22 see this is the Delbarton property, and you can 23 imagine this is the part that was rezoned for 24 171 acres. This is one of the three highest 25 rated water resources in the Water Management GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 13 1 Area Six. Its composite value is 49. And 2 you'll see that in particular the area here 3 which would be involved in the CCRC is totally 4 in blue; the highest rating that they're able 5 to give. This reflects ten categories; there's 6 steep slopes, there's wetlands, there's forest 7 covers, there's open waterways. There are 8 category one streams on this land. In fact, 9 they're trout producing streams. 10 MS. BYERS: Mr. Peele, can I just 11 ask you, at this point I think -- everything 12 you're saying is right on, and you've done a 13 great job here, and this is all very good 14 information. And I think that the past record 15 of the Office of State Planning and now the 16 Office of Smart Growth is now I think fairly 17 consistent in terms of making sure the agencies 18 are consistent with the State Plan. 19 So I think I'd just like to sort of 20 get to the bottom of what you're asking. 21 Because I think what you're saying is that DCA 22 has initiated some action that's inconsistent 23 somehow with the Smart Growth objectives in the 24 State Plan; and I'm not sure if that's the case 25 or not, or what that action is. But just by GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 14 1 way of background, no action taken by the Plan 2 Implementation Committee or the Commission at 3 this point relates to what DCA has done. 4 So I'm not saying there isn't a 5 relationship here -- 6 MR. PEELE: Well, I understood what 7 Mr. Zellner to say was that the purpose of the 8 Smart Growth Council was to coordinate the 9 efforts of the individual departments so that 10 they made actions in line with the State Plan. 11 MS. BYERS: Right. 12 MR. PEELE: So it's true that this 13 body hasn't considered it, but DCA as an 14 entity, one of the subdivisions, has considered 15 it. 16 MS. BYERS: So let's just talk a 17 little bit about what "it" is so that we can 18 get some clarity. What has DCA done or not 19 done, and how does it relate to the State Plan 20 and Smart Growth? 21 MR. PEELE: Was she raising her 22 hand to address that? 23 MS. BYERS: I think that's really 24 the question so that we can -- 25 MR. FISHER: We don't know. We'll GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 15 1 have to look into it when we get back. 2 MS. BYERS: Bill, do you have -- 3 MR. HARRISON: When CCRCs, 4 Continuing Care Retirement Communities, came 5 into being as an idea, there was a debate as to 6 how they should be regulated. CCRC consists of 7 independent living units, assisted living 8 units, and nursing home units. The Department 9 of Health issued Certificates of Need for 10 assistant living and nursing homes. There was 11 an argument because of the independent living 12 units that those should be treated differently, 13 and a legislative decision was made to put that 14 under the Department of Community Affairs. 15 That review, as is the Certificate of Need 16 review, is not dealing with land use or 17 environmental issues. And if there is no 18 statutory or regulatory basis for DCA, when it 19 conducts the review of the CCRC, that component 20 to consider land use or environmental issues, 21 someone could be proposing it in the middle of 22 a swamp, they can't say, oh, no, this is bad. 23 Their review is limited to those issues that 24 are a little different than what the Department 25 of Health would look at for a Certificate of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 16 1 Need for an assisted living facility. But it 2 is a comparable review in a sense that it is 3 not a land use review or an environmental 4 review. 5 And while I would agree with you 6 that in the future that's something that should 7 be looked at, not only for the CCRC reviews, 8 but the Certificate of Need reviews, at this 9 point there would not be a legal basis for DCA 10 saying we can not approve the financial aspects 11 of your project because its not consistent with 12 the State Plan. As much as I think everyone 13 would like that ability to exist, it doesn't 14 exist today. 15 MR. FISHER: So the independent 16 living units, they probably filed a POS? 17 MR. HARRISON: It's all filed 18 together as the CCRC. 19 MR. PEELE: I'm sorry, who are you, 20 sir? 21 MR. HARRISON: I'm Bill Harrison. 22 I work for the Office of Smart Growth. 23 MR. PEELE: Well, as far as the 24 financial assets go, the EDA has already said 25 that they would run this by the Smart Growth GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 17 1 Council. Is that what you -- 2 MR. HARRISON: No. That's in terms 3 of their providing funding for it. 4 MR. PEELE: So the fact that the 5 Smart Growth Council and Policy Council 6 involves different departments, like DCA in 7 coordinating, does not have any implications 8 for the component parts of that. If something 9 violates the State Plan and can be declared and 10 shown to violate the State Plan, DCA divisions 11 are not obligated to act on behalf of the State 12 Plan? 13 MR. HARRISON: For permitting 14 decisions, for funding decisions, yes, they 15 are. At this point there would have to be a 16 statutory change or a regulatory change - I'd 17 have to look at the CCRC statute to see if 18 there needs to be a statutory change - in order 19 for the DCA review of the CCRC to consider land 20 use or environmental issues. 21 MR. PEELE: You're saying the EDA 22 was different in that regard? 23 MR. HARRISON: The EDA, to do 24 funding under the executive order, looks to 25 what's consistent with the State Plan. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 18 1 MR. PEELE: So you're saying that 2 under current regulations the DCA could well 3 support projects and pass through projects that 4 violate the State Plan? 5 MR. HARRISON: Well, support is the 6 wrong word. They can determine that they meet 7 the requirements for a CCRC. That's a very 8 different thing than saying this is a good 9 project, or this is a project, they can go 10 ahead. They still have to go through the full 11 permitting process. 12 MR. PEELE: So another way to state 13 that is DCA is not fully committed through all 14 of its avenues to -- 15 MR. HARRISON: No. 16 MR. ESKILSON: That's partly what 17 Mr. Harrison said. And I don't think that's 18 fair to characterize it that way. He's trying 19 to give you a legal explanation as to the 20 actions that may or may not be taken by this 21 one component of the Department of Community 22 Affairs. I think he's trying to give you a 23 rational explanation. And I don't think his 24 comments should be characterized in any other 25 way than providing information to the public. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 19 1 MR. HARRISON: It is a lack of 2 legal authority, the same as the Department of 3 Health. And I take that into consideration 4 when it's issuing a Certificate of Need. 5 MS. BYERS: Dan, did you want to 6 say something? 7 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. I just wanted 8 to sort of echo what Bill said. 9 There are statutes that vestate 10 agencies with certain responsibilities. Some 11 of those statutes, such as the statute that 12 authorizes EDA to provide financial assistance, 13 affords that agency discretion as to what 14 projects it wishes to finance. And to the 15 extent that that discretion can be exercised in 16 mere consistent with the State Plan pursuant to 17 the Governor's direction, and pursuant to the 18 commitment that's made by EDA, they will do 19 that. 20 What Mr. Harrison is talking about 21 is a statute which specifies certain criteria 22 that the Department of Community Affairs has to 23 utilize in determining whether to issue the 24 type of approval that they issued with regard 25 to this particular project. And it's more GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 20 1 complicated than this, but it's akin to the 2 statute that says anyone who is 18 and passes a 3 driver's test is entitled to get a driver's 4 license. 5 The statute prescribes what DCA has 6 to take a look at in determining whether to 7 issue the approval they issued. And it's not 8 that the Department is not committed to the 9 State Plan, but the legislature has not given 10 the Department in that area the discretion to 11 say not withstanding that you've satisfied A, 12 B, C and D in the statute, we're still not 13 going to give you the approval that you've 14 applied for because we think it's inconsistent 15 with the State Plan. And under that statute 16 the Department doesn't have the discretion to 17 say if the applicant satisfies the statutory 18 requirements, not withstanding if they satisfy 19 the statutory requirements, they can still deny 20 the approval. 21 I think it's been indicated to the 22 extent that the Department is in a position to 23 exercise discretion, it's my understanding. 24 And not only this Department, but other 25 Departments have made a commitment to exercise GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 21 1 their discretion they can in a manner 2 consistent with the State Plan. But with 3 regard to this particular type of approval, the 4 Department doesn't have the discretion to say 5 we're going to decline to approve it because 6 it's not consistent with the Plan. 7 And I don't think it's fair to 8 suggest that, and I'll let the folks, I'm an 9 attorney, I don't make policy, I'll let the 10 folks who do make the policy speak to it, but I 11 don't think it's fair to say that the 12 Department is not committed to trying to do 13 everything it can to implement the Plan, but 14 there are certainly limitations. 15 MR. PEELE: Thank you very much for 16 that. 17 MS. BYERS: Mr. Peele, I'd like to 18 just hold everything for a moment. We do have 19 Senator Littell here this morning, and he's on 20 a tight schedule. And I'd like him to be able 21 to address the Committee. We haven't had the 22 opportunity to have that. 23 SENATOR LITTELL: Thank you. I 24 just need one minute. 25 I'm Senator Bob Littell, 24th GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 22 1 District, which encompasses all of Sussex 2 County, part of Morris County, and part of 3 Hunterdon County. 4 Northwest Jersey would be well 5 served if you approve the two projects that you 6 have listed for our district; namely Vernon and 7 Sparta Townships. They are our two largest 8 municipalities in Sussex County. They've done 9 good planning and work. And I highly recommend 10 them without reservation. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. BYERS: Thank you very much. 13 MR. PEELE: I just have one last 14 question. 15 The CCRC state regulation was 16 recently reviewed and changed; am I right on 17 that? Because I saw there was a request for 18 public commentary on that. Do you know 19 anything about that? 20 MR. HARRISON: No. 21 MR. PEELE: Because I did write at 22 that time to suggest that the wording -- I 23 think the opportunity came up, it was within a 24 year ago, that this conformance with the State 25 Plan be made a part of that. So I hope that GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 23 1 would be considered -- 2 MR. ESKILSON: Michele, I think we 3 had a very strong statement, and a very strong 4 commitment from the Cabinet yesterday to bring 5 state policy into conformance and consistent 6 with the State Plan. The State Government is 7 an awful large beast that we're looking at 8 here, and we just can't know every nook and 9 cranny that we can possibly be involved with at 10 any given point in time. I think we need to 11 ferret that out, and some important issues have 12 been raised here. 13 I didn't even know this existed 14 until this moment. I think it's important that 15 we now know that, and can look at that, and in 16 some cases we're going to need legislative 17 help. We can't do this alone. I think we need 18 to look at that and solicit the help of the 19 legislature and the respective Cabinet Members 20 and then move forward. 21 MS. BYERS: I agree. And this is 22 not the only instance where -- we're in that 23 kind of conundrum with all the agencies where 24 decisions legally can't be based upon the State 25 Plan, and it does require some statutory GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 24 1 changes. Not just for this, but I'm sure for a 2 myriad of other issues. 3 So I think it's fair to say that, 4 correct me if I'm wrong, but that the 5 Commission stands on the past positions that 6 have been taken by Herb Simmens, and the 7 Commission is adopting some of the policies 8 with respect to Planning Area Five Centers. So 9 we're not reversing anything; that's our 10 commitment. And that right now there is a 11 major effort on the part of DCA and the 12 agencies to support the legislative package 13 that would correct and bring into integrated 14 fashion permitting and financing and approval 15 decision making in alignment with the State 16 Plan. 17 So that's underway. And I would 18 urge you to continue to highlight this instance 19 as a reason why we need to have those kind of 20 reforms. And then also I'd urge you to 21 continue following EDA, and make sure that any 22 decisions they make, or any of the decisions 23 any of the agencies make with respect to this 24 project are highlighted in relationship to 25 Smart Growth. Because I think there's a lot of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 25 1 support here for your position. Anyone can 2 correct me if I'm wrong on that. 3 I see that we have two other hands 4 raised. I assume it's pertinent to this 5 issue? 6 MS. McINTOSH: Yes. 7 MS. BYERS: Okay. First Pam, and 8 then Jeff. 9 MS. McINTOSH: Pam McIntosh with 10 the Association of New Jersey Environmental 11 Commission. 12 I just want to speak in support of 13 what Mr. Peele has been saying. I realize from 14 the conversation that just went on that DCA 15 didn't really have a choice when it issued that 16 permit, but one would hope that in the future 17 -- I mean, the upshot of this is basically now 18 Delbarton can go out and market these. So that 19 makes it much harder, you know what I mean. It 20 sort of stacks things more. 21 MS. BYERS: You mean in advance of 22 all their other permits? 23 MS. McINTOSH: Right, in advance of 24 all their other permits and approvals, they 25 start getting more support for it. And so I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 26 1 guess we would urge that you would work on 2 coming in to look at all these other things 3 that are not covered that are not in 4 conformance with the State Plan. That should 5 be the Smart Growth Council to work on that. 6 This is in a PA-5 area. It's in 7 the headwaters of the Whippany River, Category 8 One Watershed. It will be impacting slopes and 9 extraordinary value wetlands. 10 And additionally really it's not 11 affordable senior housing that they're 12 proposing. The average unit will cost $400,000 13 and a $3,500 a month with a monthly fee. So 14 it's not really providing affordable housing, 15 which might be needed by the County. And also 16 there's also a number of other projects that 17 are happening also within the County that might 18 be addressing senior housing needs. 19 MR. PEELE: Exhibit eight, by the 20 way, in their application to the DCA they 21 listed their suggested unit prices. For a 22 cottage it would be a 500 to $700,000 entrance 23 fee, and a $4,000 to $5,000 monthly maintenance 24 fee. So probably a lot of members of this 25 panel wouldn't be able to afford it. It's not GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 27 1 for the truly poor, which you might be 2 considered among. They're going to generate 3 $110,000,000 in the first year from this. 4 MS. BYERS: Jeff. 5 MR. TITTLE: A couple of points. 6 Just one, I think -- Jeff Tittle, New Jersey 7 Sierra Club. Couple of quick points. 8 One I think we do have the ability 9 to monitor centers and what's happening with 10 large scale developments. We're supposed to 11 get notice of any developments over a certain 12 size. We do have the ability to comment to 13 other agencies on those developments, but the 14 biggest problem you have has been the failure 15 to do monitoring, and really not having the 16 staff to do the comments. But you could be 17 sending a letter to EDA saying that this 18 project is totally inconsistent with the State 19 Plan, or within the Center Petition for 20 Morristown. 21 But again, I mentioned yesterday 22 the 1936 State Plan, they had a staff of 55 23 people, and that gets down to resources. But 24 you do have that ability now. You also have 25 the ability to comment on capital plans and a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 28 1 whole range of other things. The powers are 2 there, it's just the ability to exercise them. 3 MR. PEELE: I did just want to make 4 sure for accuracy. Morristown was only 5 involved initially because they were going to 6 sewer this development in Morris Township, and 7 it's not a center. Although their planner 8 suggested that this could be designated as a 9 center. 10 I just want to thank you so much 11 for listening to me and your helpful comments. 12 I just want to -- I referred to the 13 Attorney General's decision in regard to that 14 earlier decision, the Governor's interview. 15 And I might just point out that Delbarton has 16 already not only applied to your CCRC division, 17 it's already been cited for a violation by it 18 and assigned a consent order because they 19 solicited these applications prior to getting 20 approval. So they're already within your 21 violation department. 22 I just made two copies of these 23 sets of documents. I'm just going to pass them 24 around if any of them are of interest to you, 25 since your fellow attorney general has opined GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 29 1 some aspect of this. 2 Again, thank you so much. 3 MS. BYERS: Thank you very much. 4 Yes, Candy. 5 MS. ASHMUN: Candy Ashmun. 6 I just wanted to -- I happen to 7 agree with what's been said, including the 8 legal discussion; I understand the problem. 9 However, as a consumer who is eligible for all 10 of this, and gets whacked by all of this, I 11 just want to say that someone should let the 12 Consumer Affairs office know because this is 13 really false marketing. And it arrives on your 14 door, and you assume I'll get my deposit up, 15 and as soon as they get 70 percent a whole lot 16 of other doors open. So I would ask you to at 17 least let whoever runs that office know. 18 The other thing I just wanted to 19 comment on was that the applications and the 20 fact that the public hasn't really had an 21 opportunity to discuss -- we got all of this 22 information maybe Friday, probably not; I got 23 it Saturday over a holiday weekend. I just 24 think it's time we had a little more notice on 25 some of these applications so that you can GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 30 1 really be intelligent; in this case it's 2 Lawrence, Vernon, and Sparta, but could be any 3 of them. So I urge you to get the stuff out a 4 little earlier so we can be useful in the 5 discussion. 6 MR. PEELE: Can I just ask one more 7 question. 8 The way this worked the last time, 9 I was here once before, Mr. Maraziti said we'll 10 look into this and see what our possibilities 11 are and what our possibilities aren't, and 12 that's how the Simmens memo resulted. 13 Can I ask for a similar possibility 14 here? I mean, there's been some discussion 15 about what you can't do and what possibly you 16 could do? 17 ZELLNER: We'll get a letter of 18 response to you. 19 MR. PEELE: Thank you so much. 20 MS. BYERS: The permitting decision 21 that DCA made and this particular situation, as 22 well as the discussion about Consumer Affairs. 23 Is there anything else? 24 Any other public comments? 25 MR. FISHER: I would just caution GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 31 1 the group. And I think part of the reason why 2 we received that 14-page letter from 3 Delbarton's attorney was there were lot of 4 discussions going on prior to their involvement 5 and Morristown's involvement in PIC meetings. 6 And not that their attorney characterized the 7 State Plan as irrelevant. I think what he was 8 saying is they wanted it to be included in the 9 discussions, especially included in the 10 designation of Morristown as a center. 11 So we just ought to make sure that 12 we communicate with those parties, as well, if 13 we're going to recommend any action. 14 MR. PEELE: They did invite them to 15 come and comment at a subsequent meeting. But 16 they did say we view the actions being 17 considered by the SPC as inappropriate, 18 disingenuous, and in conflict with expressed 19 provisions of the existing State Planning 20 Rule. So they did more than say we want to be 21 considered. 22 MS. BYERS: At least we're doing 23 something right. 24 MR. PEELE: They were saying you're 25 doing the wrong thing. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 32 1 MS. BYERS: Any other public 2 comments? 3 All right. A rule discussion. We 4 have a 2003 Rule Adoption, and 2004 Rule 5 Proposal. 6 Vanessa. 7 MS. MORIN: I'm just going to be 8 speaking about the 2003. We're going to put 9 off the 2004 Rule discussions for the June PIC 10 meeting. We're going to combine both 11 cross-acceptance and Plan Endorsement and a 12 comprehensive review of the rules. 13 I think you all got a letter 14 regarding the comments that we had since May 15 21st. There were eight comments. And as a 16 result of that and these comments and the ones 17 that we have prior to the original public 18 comment period ending we made four changes to 19 the oral proposal. 20 The first was to delete the 21 provision that provided -- allowed us to 22 suspend the rules, which is 1.7. We also 23 deleted the procedural requirements for 24 P petition meetings, at 7.4a. We basically 25 took what was in the guidelines and put it in GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 33 1 the rules. But we decided that wouldn't be in 2 the flexibility, so we took them out again. 3 We added language requiring 4 information that state agencies would provide, 5 format amendments at 8.3a. And we added 6 language that specifies the threshold for 7 notice to property owners at 8.4a. 8 MS. BYERS: I assume that you're 9 referring to a memo letter; it's two pages. I 10 don't know if everyone has gotten a copy of 11 this. I just want to make sure that everybody 12 knew that's what we were reviewing. 13 MR. FISHER: Where is the proposed 14 language; it's not here on this memo, right? 15 MS. MORIN: No. 16 MS. FISHER: Have you provided any 17 yet or no? 18 MS. MORIN: Did I include that in 19 the package that I gave you? 20 MR. FISHER: The working draft? 21 MS. BYERS: I got a copy of this by 22 fax late yesterday, working draft, 2003 rules. 23 I assume that's out on the table, as well? 24 MS. MORIN: Yes. I think I only 25 gave out the first 25 pages. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 34 1 MR. FISHER: That's the one we got 2 back. 3 MS. MORIN: I didn't bring copies 4 of all of the added language and the deletion. 5 Is there any particular one that... 6 MR. FISHER: The added language for 7 state agency involvement; and what page is that 8 on? 9 MS. MORIN: That was from the other 10 discussion last time. I didn't bring copies of 11 the -- 12 MR. HARRISON: Let me go through 13 the four changes. 14 One, we're just deleting the 1.7 on 15 the suspension of the rules; that's just coming 16 out all together. 17 The requirements for a 18 pre-application conference for a petition for 19 planned endorsement, that subsection is coming 20 out entirely. 21 In 5:85-8.3 we are adding a 22 sentence on when this concerns a State Planning 23 Commission initiating amendments to the State 24 Plan Policy Map; we're adding a sentence to A, 25 that the State Planning Commission shall GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 35 1 prepare and distribute to appropriate 2 municipalities, counties, state agencies and 3 regional entities justification for requesting 4 State Plan Policy Map amendments. And that's 5 simply saying we're going to justify what we're 6 doing when we send that. 7 And we clarified the language in 8 8.4a to make it clear. The original rule 9 proposal spoke of and involves no more than ten 10 properties. And we received a comment from 11 PSE&G as to what we meant by properties. So 12 we're changing the language to read no more 13 than ten different owners of lots as shown on 14 the current tax records. 15 We're going to generally be looking 16 at all the notices as part of the overall rule 17 proposal that will be coming to you at the June 18 PIC meeting. 19 Those are the four changes we're 20 making from the rule proposal that appeared in 21 the January register. 22 MR. FISHER: That's fine. 23 MS. BYERS: Any other questions on 24 the 2003 rules? 25 MR. ESKILSON: Stew Koenig (ph.) GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 36 1 from the league has a letter in here of 2 comments. Have you responded to that letter? 3 MS. MORIN: Yes. The first 25 4 pages. Each section that they referred to I 5 provided a summary of response to it. 6 Is there anything in particular? 7 MR. ESKILSON: Have we heard back 8 in response to your response? 9 MS. MORIN: No. 10 MR. ZELLNER: The two major issues 11 of the league being suspension and the 12 pre-meeting we've dropped. So I think we've 13 addressed those two issues. 14 MS. MORIN: Which letter was that? 15 MR. ESKILSON: I think that's the 16 Dressel letter. 17 MS. MORIN: You're talking about 18 the 7.11, 7.10? 19 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. 20 MR. ESKILSON: There is several 21 requests in here for clarifications, 22 definitions. 23 MS. MORIN: Right. 24 MR. HARRISON: All his comments on 25 7.4, we dropped that proposed change all GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 37 1 together. 2 MS. MORIN: Any other requests 3 about what we mean by monitoring designated 4 centers, plan implementation agendas, Plan 5 Endorsement agreements I explained in sort of a 6 general response saying that -- 7 MR. ESKILSON: That's the one that 8 jumped off at me; what do you mean by plan 9 implementation and Plan Endorsement agreement, 10 and you know my concern there. So I think we 11 don't need to resolve it today, but I think we 12 can move forward. 13 MR. HARRISON: That is one of the 14 things that we are going to be addressing as 15 part of the order rule proposal. 16 MS. MORIN: Clarifying what that 17 means. 18 MR. ESKILSON: Thank you. 19 MR. FISHER: There were a number of 20 comments just in general about public 21 involvement and notice and things like that. 22 And I know that we indicated, or at least in a 23 draft response, that we're going to be 24 reviewing those as part of the comprehensive 25 review of the State Planning Rules for the 2004 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 38 1 rules, right? 2 MS. MORIN: Uh-huh. 3 MR. FISHER: So there's no proposed 4 changes at this point in time? 5 MS. MORIN: Not for this rule 6 proposal. We wanted to do that comprehensively 7 in 2004. 8 MR. HARRISON: Some of the sections 9 that would be involved were not sections that 10 we had proposed changes to. It really wasn't 11 appropriate to do that now. You'll see it in a 12 month. 13 MR. FISHER: Okay. 14 Dan and I spoke yesterday at the 15 State Planning Commission meeting about the 16 concerns that were raised a few months ago 17 about map amendments outside the 18 cross-acceptance process. Dan said that he had 19 reached some conclusions on those issues. 20 MR. REYNOLDS: I guess the question 21 that had been raised, and I think I've 22 addressed this, maybe not as definitively as 23 I'm going to do right now. But questions have 24 been raised previously as to whether map 25 amendments can be made outside of the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 39 1 cross-acceptance process. 2 The Commission and the Committee 3 Members are aware that the Commission has done 4 probably over a hundred map amendments; most of 5 which have been designated centers, but some of 6 which have been changes in planning areas since 7 the first State Development/Redevelopment Plan 8 was adopted in 1992. And certainly there have 9 been changes to the map that have occurred 10 during the two cross-acceptance processes that 11 the Commission has undertaken so far, and I'm 12 sure there will be some made in the 13 cross-acceptance process that the chair had 14 talked about yesterday. But as I said, there 15 have been, I think well over a hundred map 16 amendments that have been made outside the 17 cross-acceptance process. And they've been 18 done with any number of instances of 19 participation by folks from the Attorney 20 General's office. 21 It's been the view of the Attorney 22 General's office since 1992 that map amendments 23 could be made outside the cross-acceptance 24 process. I understand there are individuals 25 and entities that may disagree with that, but GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 40 1 since that time the map has been viewed as a 2 document that reflects the application of the 3 policies, goals, and criteria set forth in the 4 Plan to various physical areas within the 5 State. It has been viewed as related to but 6 distinct from the Plan itself. And it's been 7 the view of the Attorney General's office for 8 the last ten or so years, or more years, that 9 the Plan itself can't be changed. That the 10 policies can't be changed. That the criteria 11 for determining whether a particular tract of 12 land should be in planning area one or planning 13 area three or planning area five can not be 14 changed. That the criteria for determining 15 whether somebody qualifies as an urban center 16 or a regional center or a village or a hamlet 17 can't be changed without going through 18 cross-acceptance. 19 But to the extent that factual 20 situations change; that a particular community 21 grows, its population grows, its employment 22 changes, it becomes sewered, the Commission 23 has, for the last 10 or 12 years, considered an 24 approved map amendment to reflect those 25 changes. As well as changes in instances where GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 41 1 municipalities say, listen, we now have the 2 data or the information to support, our 3 position is that we should be designated as a 4 town center or a village or a hamlet or a 5 regional center; or when you guys did the last 6 iteration of the plan you missed the fact that 7 this particular area is sewered. 8 In those circumstances, as far as 9 the Attorney General's office is concerned, 10 you're not amending the plan itself, you're 11 just reflecting the fact the criteria of the 12 policies in the plan should -- how those 13 criteria and policies should be reflected on a 14 tract of land, physical topography, or what 15 have you, of the state. 16 So I understand Dave's concern, and 17 I understand the concern that's been raised. 18 I've taken a look at the comment that the staff 19 has prepared. And in response to -- or in 20 response, I should say, that has been prepared 21 by the staff and reply to the comment, I think 22 it's consistent with the advice, both the 23 advice that the Attorney General's office has 24 provided to the Commission over this period of 25 time, and to the well established practice that GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 42 1 the Commission has followed over this period of 2 time. 3 And I should point out that there's 4 some principles of law that a particular state 5 agency has carried out its responsibilities in 6 a certain way over a period of time. If the 7 practice that they followed is challenged in a 8 judicial proceeding, that the courts are not 9 obligated and bound to follow that practice, 10 but the practice of the agency is entitled to 11 various substantial deference. So in addition 12 to the fact that the Attorney General's office 13 provides the Commission that they can do map 14 amendments outside the cross-acceptance 15 process, as long as they're not doing something 16 inconsistent with the Plan itself, i.e. 17 disregarding the criteria and policies of the 18 Plan, in addition to the advice we've given to 19 the practice of the Commission, also is 20 entitled to significant weight in that regard. 21 And let me say that's not to say, 22 if the Commission in its wisdom -- if Mr. 23 Fisher can persuade members of the Commission, 24 or alternatively if those people in the public 25 who don't think it's an appropriate practice, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 43 1 if they can persuade the Commission to do this, 2 the Commission can adopt a regulation saying we 3 will do not map amendments outside 4 cross-acceptance. That seems to me that that's 5 something that the Commission in its discretion 6 could decide to do. 7 So I'm not saying that the 8 Commission is obligated to do map amendments 9 outside cross-acceptance, I'd say it's 10 authorized to do it. But in the Jeffersonian 11 idea of the market place of ideas, Mr. Fisher 12 and those people who believe its inappropriate 13 can convince the other Commission members that 14 it's a better policy, doesn't make sense, 15 that's not to say the Commission couldn't say, 16 gee, we agree that we shouldn't be doing these 17 map amendments outside cross-acceptance. 18 MS. BYERS: Well, unless we change 19 the statutes to lengthen the time to meet 20 cross-acceptance, we're perpetually in 21 cross-acceptance anyway, so it doesn't matter. 22 MR. FISHER: One comment make it 23 every six years instead of every three years. 24 What it sounds like, though, is 25 that other than Center Designations, most of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 44 1 the changes that really come as a result of 2 corrections. It's where information either 3 wasn't brought to those that were making the 4 decisions or the determinations at the time of 5 the last round of cross-acceptance took place. 6 MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. As 7 I said, I think the very first map amendment 8 that was ever done was a map amendment that was 9 made somewhere up in Hunterdon County where it 10 was determined that in the incredible effort 11 that the original Commission members went 12 through to do the first plan, they missed the 13 tract of property that may be 100 or 200 that 14 was, in fact, sewered, and so they corrected 15 the map to show that it was sewered. 16 But as I said, the Commission 17 doesn't get -- doesn't have prerogative to 18 disregard the policies and criteria that have 19 been established in the cross-acceptance 20 process, but to the extent that information and 21 facts come to their attention that indicates 22 something should be treated differently, that 23 it is in the initial State Policy Map, they can 24 do that. 25 Again, it's up to the Commission to GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 45 1 decide whether they want to do that. If 2 certain folks think they should be doing it; 3 the majority of the Commission feels we 4 shouldn't be doing that because it's outside 5 cross-acceptance, then the Commission can adopt 6 a regulation saying we're not going to do that, 7 it's outside cross-acceptance. But that's 8 within the discretion of the Commission. 9 MS. BYERS: So is there a 10 recommendation from the Plan Implementation 11 Committee to move these rules to the June 12 meeting for adoption? 13 MR. FISHER: Shouldn't we hear from 14 the public before we -- 15 MS. BYERS: I was just going to 16 ask -- I just wanted to see if there was any 17 consensus to move it, then I was going to ask 18 the public if there are any comments. 19 Any members of the public wish to 20 comment on the proposed 2003 rules? 21 I think we've all beaten it to 22 death pretty well, so we'll move it along. 23 This is the June adoption today. Thank you 24 all. Then the 2004 proposal will be brought up 25 at the next meeting of the Plan Implementation GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 46 1 Committee. 2 We're ready to move on to our first 3 Center Petition. It's an accident, but we are 4 on time. 5 Paul, are you going to give us an 6 overview? 7 MR. DRAKE: Yes. 8 MS. BYERS: So, Paul, you're on. 9 MR. FISHER: Michelle, can I just 10 make one other comment. I know we haven't 11 included all the responses to the comments in 12 the working draft yet, but when you do, just 13 try to be -- my suggestion is try to be as 14 concise as possible in responding to the 15 comment. I know that some of them you have 16 responses to, and in a few of those it didn't 17 sound like you were responding to the comments 18 thoroughly. I'll give you the one example that 19 I had. But let's just keep that in mind. 20 There's nothing more frustrating 21 than commentors taking the time to comment on a 22 rule proposal, and then getting kind of a 23 partial response. So it's just a suggestion to 24 start. 25 MR. DRAKE: We're going to start on GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 47 1 Sparta Town Center discussion. We have our 2 representatives here from the municipality. 3 I'll have introductions in a minute. 4 We're going to go through this 5 Center, also Vernon Town Center. I have a few 6 slides. This is Sparta Township, Sussex 7 County. 8 I want to introduce I believe in 9 the audience is Douglas Martin, Councilman, 10 also member of the Planning Board; also part of 11 the Sussex County Road Committee. Scott 12 Seelgy, Councilman. William Hookway. Ernie 13 Hofer, who is chairman and vice-chairman of the 14 Planning Board. And also William Hookway, the 15 Sparta Planning Board Chairman. Also with the 16 Township is Henry Underhill, Township Manager; 17 Tom Collins, who is the Planning Board 18 Attorney; and Dave Troast who is the Director 19 of Planning in Sparta Township. 20 I believe are all those folks here 21 today? 22 MR. COLLINS: Except for William 23 Hookway. He couldn't make it today; his father 24 was ill. 25 MR. DRAKE: So we have a fair GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 48 1 representation from Sparta out here in the 2 audience. 3 I just wanted to sort of set the 4 stage. If they can control sprawl, it's really 5 about Smart Growth and building where we should 6 and preserving what we must. I think that's 7 something from the Commissioner. Grow in a way 8 based on sound planning principles and really 9 planning for New Jersey's future. 10 It's important to recognize that 11 "smart growth" in a rural environment, 12 according to the State Plan, means you're 13 looking to accommodate growth in centers, but 14 that growth clearly needs to be design 15 oriented, resource capacity based, and use 16 creative land use techniques. And from the 17 State Plan it's important to recognize today 18 they can be talking about two centers that have 19 a physical design component, and really a 20 physical design of our communities and their 21 environs and the way the space is physically 22 organized is key to State Plan Implementation 23 and critical to its fullest use and 24 objectives. 25 Again, I'm going to quote from GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 49 1 Albert Einstein which talks about, "The world 2 will not evolve past its current state of 3 crisis by using the same thinking that created 4 the situation". I like this on the backdrop of 5 automobiles because I think we are talking 6 about cars today quite often. 7 I only have two more design 8 oriented pictures here, but I always like to 9 use this quote from James Kunstler when he 10 talks about in his "Geography Of Nowhere", that 11 "The tragic landscape of highway strips, 12 parking lots, housing tracks, mega malls, junk 13 cities, and ravaged country sides is not simply 14 an expression over economic predicament, but in 15 large part a cost. It's the every day 16 environment where most Americans live and work, 17 and it represents a gathering calamity whose 18 effects we have yet begun to measure." I think 19 that's a very powerful statement from James 20 Kunstler. How that relates to the Town Center 21 I'm getting into right now. 22 We're dealing with Sparta Township 23 in Sussex County. And Sparta Township is in 24 Sussex County, roughly on the lower end of 25 Sussex County. When their petition was GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 50 1 submitted there were three proposed centers. 2 We've discussed with them, and Woodruffs Gap 3 and Blue Heron as shown here on the map are not 4 being petitioned, but are moving forward. And 5 we'll be talking today about the Sparta Town 6 Center proposal shown here in red on the map. 7 With regard to major issues which 8 we'll talk about today, I understand just 9 recently that we've had some discussions about 10 the Center boundary, adjustments to the Center 11 boundary, tweaking long the 517 bypass, and 12 certainly ongoing discussions about the final 13 PIA, and the amendments to the PIA. Those 14 discussions have been fruitful, and through 15 knowledge and discussions with the agency 16 representatives and public members, I believe 17 we're moving forward on resolving any issues of 18 concern for the Center. 19 The regional township profile; 20 Sparta Township, as I said, is situated within 21 Sussex County. It's approximately 39 square 22 miles. And a large portion, pretty much the 23 whole township is within PA-4, 4b and 5. It's 24 also situated within watershed management area 25 number two, which is the Wallkill River GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 51 1 Watershed Management area. Lake Mohawk forms 2 the headwaters of the Wallkill River, which 3 drains interestingly one of the only rivers in 4 the country that actually drains north as 5 opposed to south. 6 MR. ESKILSON: Just a clarification 7 here. I saw it come up a couple times in these 8 reports. 9 WMA-2 does not -- the watershed 10 management area, the Wallkill Wildlife 11 Management Area does not encompass the entire 12 watershed management area two. 13 MR. DRAKE: Sure. It's more of a 14 sub-watershed for the Wallkill. Thank you. 15 Certainly Sparta Township is a 16 growing municipality without question, and 17 we'll show you some examples. But I wanted to 18 point out, as I mentioned before, that within 19 the Wallkill River, Lake Mohawk is a prominent 20 feature in the Township. It was constructed 21 around 1926, the construction began, and 22 completed about two years later. It involved 23 the construction of a damn for the headwaters 24 of the Wallkill River. Created miles of shore 25 line. Ultimately lake homes surrounding the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 52 1 lake. However, Lake Mohawk is an integral part 2 of the Township; right now there's a wonderful 3 boardwalk and plaza, which I'll show you 4 photographs of. Both are listed on the state 5 national historic register. 6 But I think to their credit, Sparta 7 Township recognizes that with latch-on septic 8 on a lake there's a need to deal with water 9 quality aspects. And within the last several 10 years they've been proactive in improving the 11 water quality discharge to the lake through a 12 real agreement and an ordinance through the 13 town and the lake association. I think that's 14 helped dramatically to improve water quality at 15 Lake Mohawk and certainly the Wallkill River. 16 The Township has been involved with 17 their planning process for their Town Center 18 since as early as 1996. And ultimately in 1997 19 their Town Center Plan was adopted by the 20 municipality. They've had numerous public 21 meetings, workshops throughout this process. 22 Ultimately in 1998 their petition for town 23 Center Designation was submitted through the 24 cross-acceptance process within Sussex County 25 cross-acceptance report. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 53 1 In July of 2000 there was a 2 discussion at this very body, the PIC, 3 regarding this Sparta Town Center; it was 4 discussed several years back. Sparta Township 5 remains and continues to be active within the 6 Sussex County strategic planning process. So 7 they're intimately involved in that process in 8 the Township, as well, and in the County. 9 When I talk about design, I 10 indicated the most important task of design is 11 to facilitate the creation of placement, which 12 is basically design entities with a 13 recognizable identity in the state character 14 because it really plays on the physical 15 foundation in the community. And I'm here to 16 say to you that Sparta Township has really a 17 place in the community, and their pointed 18 efforts have continued to facilitate the 19 creation of place in their own Township. 20 In terms of the Town Center that 21 we're dealing with, it is a planning area 22 five. Within the town there are several 23 highway corridors which create not only demand, 24 but also issues to deal with transportation of 25 Route 15, County route 517, and several years GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 54 1 back a bypass, this 517 bypass that was 2 constructed. Also through their Town Center 3 Plan is developing according to a plan which 4 have very detailed design standards which allow 5 the town to prescribe specific design standards 6 for development in the Town Center. 7 It's an interesting place because 8 really you can say its's a center with two 9 identifiable downtowns, and I'll show you 10 photographs of what I mean. But their Center 11 does have a mixture of uses. COAH housing is 12 within the Center. They have focused not only 13 this year and during the last several years on 14 redevelopment opportunities, but also new 15 construction within the Center. And also their 16 Center actually conforms with the sewer service 17 area for the sewer plant downstream. 18 Here's a couple photographs of Main 19 Street in Sparta. You can see they've done a 20 lot of improvements. Just putting in street 21 lamps and the light I think has dramatically 22 improved the image. There's a fair occupancy 23 rate in all the buildings along the main 24 street. Here's another example of a building 25 that was recently renovated designed for some GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 55 1 mixed use building; second floor has apartments 2 for folks obviously living in the town; first 3 floor is several different, offices, including 4 an attorney. 5 When I said about having two 6 identifiable downtowns; actually in Lake Mohawk 7 this is part of what they call White Deer 8 Plaza. And it is constructed as part of Lake 9 Mohawk in an identifiable area, mixed use in 10 nature. Upstairs you can see the light is on. 11 The porch has a chair. So people are living 12 there, right downtown, right above the 13 building. 14 This is the boardwalk along Lake 15 Mohawk. Again, this is the Lake Mohawk Country 16 Club, but not many places you'll find a 17 boardwalk in Sussex County. Certainly this is 18 a beautiful one. This is another picture of 19 Lake Mohawk along the later portion of Lake 20 Mohawk. 21 When we talk about the Center, this 22 is a definable feature. This larger body of 23 water, as you well imagine, is Lake Mohawk. 24 The dam spillway actually discharges out 25 through here and through the Wallkill River, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 56 1 and eventually makes its way through the Town 2 Center and ultimately enters the Hudson River 3 several miles, tens of miles down river. 4 The terms of what we're dealing 5 with in the Center, as you can see from the 6 aerial photograph here, there is a mixture of 7 uses, including housing throughout here, 8 variety of retail stores. This is the Main 9 Street photo I showed you of the downtown area; 10 and this is the area of Main Street along Lake 11 Mohawk. And this was constructed several years 12 back. This was known as Sparta Bypass; and was 13 constructed several years ago. Here's 517. 14 But ultimately it is a mixture of uses in the 15 Town Center. 16 In terms of the guidelines and how 17 this application complies with the guidelines. 18 I think you'll find it generally conforms. 19 Right now the boundary is about one square 20 mile. We understand that even as we speak 21 right now in the hall there was some minor 22 tweaking adjustments of the Center boundary. 23 But we would approximate that it would be 24 between .91 and 1.007, depending upon the 25 ultimately final adjustments. But those GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 57 1 adjustments were taken out as environmental 2 areas, so it wouldn't effect the actual balance 3 of numbers shown here. 4 The population within the Town 5 Center in 2020, again, roughly 2,500 people. 6 That approximates at about 2,500 people per 7 square mile. Just a little lower than the 8 5,000 we'd like to see, but certainly is a fair 9 amount of people living within the Town 10 Center. Housing; about 840 housing units will 11 ultimately be constructed in the Town Center by 12 2020. That generates a density of about 1.3 13 units per acre; that's a gross density, not a 14 net acreage. 15 There is a fair amount of jobs in 16 the Center; 2,200. The jobs-to-house ratio is 17 a bit on the low side, but I think it's 18 certainly improving over time. It has 19 increased significantly with the Town Center 20 Plan. 21 To compare this town to Sussex 22 County and the Township, you'll see that within 23 the Town Center this is the number of new 24 growth by 2020, not the actual population. But 25 in Sussex County by 2020 they will add another GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 58 1 31,000 people to the Township. But to the 2 County, the Township is approximately another 3 5,000 people, and of that about 1,000 people 4 will actually be adding to the Town Center. 5 And certainly within employment, as 6 well, you can see that the numbers fairly 7 work. That they're adding employment both in 8 the Township, but also significantly within the 9 Town Center. 10 One issue which came to mind was in 11 prior reviews on this application was the issue 12 of the Sparta Bypass. I wanted to just sort of 13 point out this issue. This is a photograph 14 taken just the other day from the Sparta 15 Bypass. But I think it's quite interesting 16 when you look at development and the land along 17 the roads and bypass, traditionally this is 18 your view when you're looking from the car. I 19 think it's interesting when you think about 20 defining sprawl it's quite often defined by 21 your view from your own windshield. And I 22 think that alone is part of the problem, the 23 fact that you're viewing it from your 24 windshield. 25 But interestingly with the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 59 1 development on this site that we're talking 2 about, we've had several discussions, there is 3 proposals to add development along this area 4 here. But I think with the design standards 5 that are part of the Town Center Plan that are 6 adopted as an ordinance with the Township, 7 you'll see what they've accomplished from new 8 construction in the Township really equates to 9 buildings of this caliber. High detailed, 10 architecturally significant buildings that 11 really add and compliment the Town Center 12 Plan. Ultimately the design on the bypass 13 project will be subject to the same review 14 standards, and ultimately will have caliber 15 buildings, I'm sure, of significance, as well. 16 In terms of the environs -- I'm 17 sort of whizzing through here. Not doing too 18 bad. Within the Township there are larger lot 19 zonings for environs; however, open space 20 cluster is also permitted. In fact, it's 21 encouraged. There are two zones outside of the 22 environs. A zone called PCDZ zone, Planning 23 Commercial Development Zone; and the ED zone, 24 which are primarily warehouses, sand mines, 25 quarries and light industrial uses in the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 60 1 environs, primarily approximate to Route 15 in 2 the Township. And also the Township has been 3 active in the big program, and continues to be 4 active in the Open Space Act position. 5 I'm going to run through these very 6 quickly in terms of the capacity, what we're 7 dealing with in the Township as is detailed in 8 my report. Primarily issues on transportation 9 now and in the future will ultimately relate to 10 Route 15 in Sparta Township. The economic 11 development and redevelopment opportunities are 12 primarily focused on their Town Center where 13 they're really looking to work and enable their 14 Town Center to thrive with investment in the 15 Town Center. 16 In terms of water and wastewater 17 infrastructure, the Township has secured 18 capacity with the Sussex County MUA plant in 19 Hardyston to enable them to build their Town 20 Center Plan with sufficient sewer capacity. So 21 their entire Town Center is sewered, and the 22 capacity exists at the treatment plant to 23 enable that growth to occur. 24 Within the Township also, and also 25 in the Town Center they are COAH certified; GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 61 1 they're meeting their housing obligation under 2 COAH under Mount Laurel. They're looking 3 realistically at the number of community 4 facilities that continue to be in the Town 5 Center. They're working on a variety of 6 historical cultural resources. I think the 7 environmental record is also strong in that 8 they are looking at a host of environmental 9 issues, as well, as detailed in your report. 10 And in terms of our recommendation; 11 our recommendation is to approve the Town 12 Center. Substitute final PIA, which we're 13 working to actively complete. The 14 recommendation is in our report. 15 Also, that the Township is looking 16 to coordinate, continue to coordinate with the 17 state and county assistance, their plan and 18 efforts so that we're all on the same page. 19 They're also going to continue to promote 20 pedestrian linkages, and safety upon the 21 streets, and a number of crossings. They're 22 also looking at coordinating this effort as 23 part of their Master Plan; it's already 24 actually been part of their Master Plan, 25 coordinating safe and calm street crossings. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 62 1 I have two aerial photographs 2 showing Town Center boundaries as it was 3 proposed by us very recently. So the boundary 4 you saw just prior, we modified that slightly. 5 This was an area that was sort of an area that 6 was sloped along Sparta Mountain. There was a 7 request, and I think we discussed this with the 8 Township. Originally the Center boundary 9 extended out into this area. We recommended 10 pulling that area out of the Center, put that 11 in the environ centrally. There was recurrence 12 on that. We sent this proposal to the 13 Township, and there was some discussion about 14 it. And they responded back with a proposal 15 very similar, but a few minor modifications. 16 But, again, I think if I'm to 17 characterize the Center boundary, I would say 18 approximately about a 95% agreement. We were 19 hoping to have a 100% agreement before this 20 meeting, but obviously we're almost there. I 21 know just recently Rick was talking about it. 22 And this was a proposal submitted by the 23 Township back to us. I can probably sum up, 24 actually. 25 There were a few small points of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 63 1 detention on this map that we -- that you can 2 sort of make out the green line here; it's kind 3 of hard to see. That was our proposal. The 4 Township further asked if they can expand the 5 boundary back here; recognizing the original 6 red boundary here was their original boundary. 7 We subsequently pulled it back in here. They 8 asked to put it back out this way. And this 9 area up here ultimately referred to as the 10 finger; and I won't go there. But there was 11 certainly a concern from the Township that they 12 are active here. I'll move this a little 13 closer; the colors are little hard to see in 14 the back of the room, I'm imagine. 15 MS. BYERS: What is the blue? 16 MR. DRAKE: The blue is actually 17 the State Land Use Land Cover for freshwater 18 wetlands; and that was the wetlands, DEP land 19 coverage. So what they were trying to show, 20 this area here, and the area where we had 21 recommended pulling out of the Center, they 22 were able to show to us that they actually had 23 an LOI for a couple of properties. So clearly 24 with an LOI in hand, the wetlands delineation 25 is more accurate than it would ever be through GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 64 1 aerial photo interpretation. So it's not 2 unreasonable to say that the boundaries should 3 then follow the LOI line. 4 MS. BYERS: Including or excluding 5 the wetlands? 6 MR. DRAKE: Excluding the wetlands. 7 The wetland coverage is generally more 8 conservative and encompasses more area. 9 Depending on where you are in the State, also. 10 When you have LOI in hand, that's the formal 11 determination by DEP of where the wetlands 12 are. And so that was, again, a dispute or an 13 issue that we were trying to resolve before the 14 meeting, but I think we slowly ran out of 15 time. 16 But nevertheless, I don't know if 17 there's any -- I think with all that framework 18 in mind, I would like to defer to the Township 19 if they had any quick comments they'd like to 20 add on what I just presented. 21 And certainly take it away David or 22 Tom. 23 MR. TROAST: I'm David Troast. I'm 24 the professional planner in Sparta for the last 25 seven years; and prior to that I was in GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 65 1 Randolph. And those of you involved, I helped 2 bring forth to the Commission the first 3 endorsed Master Plan, which was Randolph 4 Township, back in the early 1990s. 5 I'd like to just briefly touch on 6 the Town Center, and specifically what I refer 7 as the mountain property on the north side of 8 the bypass where the delineation of the Center 9 is kind of in limbo. We have been following 10 the State Plan and have been trying as a 11 community to try to mirror the goals and 12 objectives and the policies of the State Plan. 13 We believe Smart Growth has to occur. And 14 we've developed ordinances which I believe are 15 unique. And I don't believe they exist 16 anywhere in the state. 17 The two Town Center zones, and 18 specifically the one with the mountain, has a, 19 and I'll use the residential term, it's a 20 commercial cluster, with an incentive. We 21 evaluated the property as to its development 22 potential as staff, and figured out how much 23 impervious coverage that would cover over the 24 111 acres. We then backed it back to a 4% 25 impervious coverage as of right; where within GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 66 1 the ordinance they would have to preserve the 2 mountain top, they would retain the ownership. 3 As an incentive we've increased the impervious 4 coverage to 7%, which is the number that is 5 where the property, the developable area is 6 built out, based on our analysis. But as we 7 all know, if you give something, then you can 8 ask for something. What we're getting in 9 return will be public ownership by the Township 10 of probably between 70 and 80 acres of the 11 mountain. So it will be under municipal 12 ownership. 13 We are willing to agree with the 14 line that the line will move based on any 15 on-site LOI that is issued. So the finger may 16 be reduced significantly if the developer goes 17 in, gets an LOI, and -- excuse me. Technology 18 at its worst. That line is going to be 19 flexible based on the DEP's further review of 20 that property and where the wetlands exist. We 21 understand that; and the developer understands 22 that. 23 We've gone through a process by 24 which there were hundreds of people back in the 25 early '90s looking at what was going to happen GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 67 1 on the bypass. We've built a consensus with 2 the community and with a very aggressive 3 developer to come to a point where we're all on 4 the same page. And I think it would be -- this 5 is a fantastic opportunity for the State to now 6 join in on that and really make a place that is 7 special and that has really truly gone through 8 the public process. 9 I think the cluster commercial 10 concept is unique. We're going to be getting 11 the most environmentally sensitive area under 12 public control, but yet we're allowing the 13 developer to develop land along a state 14 constructed bypass that was planned in the 15 '70s. 16 Housing of single family nature, it 17 would be totally inappropriate. In fact, it 18 would go up the mountain side; we've all seen 19 that happen. This ordinance would prevent 20 that. It would allow commercial development at 21 a highway interchange, and it would preserve 22 the mountain. Which, by the way, is an 23 absolutely important part of our character of 24 our Town Center. This is a rural center. 25 We believe that the ridge lines, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 68 1 the wetlands make our Center Sussex County. 2 And that's why originally the entire lot was 3 included, because the entire lot is in the 4 zoning plan, because that's the only way we can 5 gain control over it. 6 MR. COLLINS: I'll just echo what 7 Dave said. I'm Tom Collins. I'm an attorney 8 and a professional planner with a Master's in 9 City and Regional Planning. I've been a 10 planning board attorney for almost 16, 17 11 years. 12 And I'll just echo what he said, 13 that we definitely support the State Plan goals 14 and smart plan initiative goals. We think 15 we've carried it out and implemented it very 16 carefully, and the terms, very detailed terms 17 of the ordinances of the Township; which is 18 such a detail that you couldn't possibly know 19 about all the details about it. But we have 20 tried to, through our joint efforts and working 21 with our planning board and our counsel that is 22 very in tune with this, we have tried to carry 23 out and implement state plan goals in the very 24 details of the ordinances themselves. And some 25 of those pictures help highlight that. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 69 1 We do require the residential 2 appearance that you saw in some of the photos 3 for the new commercial. We do allow apartments 4 above commercial in the Town Center zones. 5 We've had some success in seeing some actual 6 buildings built; some of those buildings that 7 you saw are commercial below and apartments 8 above. All are going to be interconnected by 9 street-scape improvements identical to the 10 first slide which you saw, which is a town 11 funded street-scape improvement of Main Street. 12 MR. TROAST: $120,000 of public 13 funds out of the municipal budget. No state 14 aid. 15 MR. COLLINS: No state aid. And 16 improving that and setting an example of what 17 we then require of each new development, or any 18 new development that takes place in the Town 19 Center has to follow the same street-scape 20 requirements and interconnection pedestrian 21 scape. 22 So we urge your support, and we 23 urge you recommend it to the State Planning 24 Commission. 25 MS. BYERS: Thank you. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 70 1 What I'd like to do is have a 2 discussion within the committee, any questions 3 issues, et cetera, and then go out for public 4 comment. 5 So committee members? 6 MR. ESKILSON: Can we know just 7 where we are with the issue of the bypass and 8 the boundary? How close are we in resolving 9 that issue? 10 MR. DRAKE: I think, if I'm able to 11 ask Rick back there; if we have an LOI in hand, 12 is that acceptable to DEP? 13 MR. PURDIE: Which is the proposed 14 line again? 15 MR. DRAKE: Well, this is our 16 proposal, and the other proposal was... 17 MS. BYERS: Is there any way to 18 show it on this map so we can see the aerial? 19 MR. FISHER: Sounds like the main 20 purpose of the extension is to include lands 21 that would ultimately be, sounds like, if the 22 developer takes advantage of the cluster deeded 23 to the town anyway, it's open space in exchange 24 for I guess a modest increase in impervious 25 coverage, 4 to 7%. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 71 1 MR. COLLINS: That's a little bit 2 of line going up. 3 MR. TROAST: Not even that far. 4 That's all -- that's the wetland area right 5 there. 6 MR. COLLINS: Dave knows it 7 intimately from walking it and looking at it 8 and seeing it. 9 MR. TROAST: What we actually did 10 is we took -- we had actually an aerial from 11 2000, which unfortunately we couldn't download 12 the whole file and send it to you. What we did 13 is we took the USGS topographic maps and our 14 locks map, superimposed all three of them 15 together. And there is a -- and I'll call it 16 the finger -- there is a finger that goes back 17 in this direction that is developable from a 18 slope standpoint. 19 Now, it is adjacent to this 20 wetlands. And as I said before, we're willing 21 to live with whatever wetland, whatever those 22 wetland regulations impose on that portion of 23 the property. How much of that area is 24 developable; I don't think anybody knows until 25 we go out in the field. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 72 1 The other portion is this portion 2 right here, this is relatively flat, along with 3 this area here. The mountain, as you can see, 4 it goes up from about this point here; it goes 5 up and then back down. So the line that we 6 would propose goes somewhere like this, and 7 then back and loop in like that. 8 MR. PURDIE: We're conceptually all 9 right with that. We're going to take another 10 look at it, but that's taken care of most of 11 our concerns. 12 MR. ESKILSON: Can I ask one 13 additional question. 14 You mentioned subject of final 15 PIA. What is the outstanding issues and how 16 close are we to resolving that? 17 MR. DRAKE: We did receive a memo 18 back from Dave on some of the recommendations 19 of my report. And I think we're close to being 20 able to resolve any of those. In my report 21 they're usually in bold. 22 One of the things we actually did 23 talk about, which is of interest and maybe I 24 should talk about it here, is the notion of a 25 center designed to accommodate growth that GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 73 1 would ordinarily occur in the environs. One of 2 the things that we discussed staff-to-staff is 3 setting a target of 25% of growth that would 4 otherwise occur in the environs and the target 5 to send into the Town Center. 6 Now, recognizing that's also 7 predicated on -- right now their sewer capacity 8 is already maximized from what was already 9 allocated. But they're not inverse to looking 10 at sending additional density or additional 11 development into the Town Center, and again 12 reevaluating the Town Center once again as far 13 as zoning, but a lot of it is based on what 14 sewer capacity they actually have now. 15 MR. ESKILSON: And the sewer 16 service area boundary conforms is identical to 17 the Town Center Map? 18 MR. DRAKE: Yes. 19 MR. ESKILSON: That's a recent 20 amendment, correct; that was an EO-109 review? 21 MR. TROAST: There's two 22 exceptions, John. And this is where we did the 23 sewer back in the mid '90s. The Township 24 governing body and the planning board, as 25 Sparta has grown, we're looking at other public GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 74 1 facilities. One of the community needs is a 2 community center. 3 You can see that area up there is 4 part of Station Park -- 5 MR. ESKILSON: The immediate 6 question; it was a recent wastewater plan 7 amendment, correct? 8 MR. TROAST: Yes. Absolutely. 9 MR. ESKILSON: As recent as two 10 years ago? 11 MR. TROAST: That's correct. 12 MR. ESKILSON: That accommodated 13 the expansion of sewer service areas to 14 accommodate the high school -- 15 MR. TROAST: Yes. 16 MR. ESKILSON: And that was an 17 EO-109 review, correct? 18 MR. TROAST: That's correct. 19 MR. ESKILSON: Okay, thanks. Sorry 20 to interrupt. 21 MR. TROAST: There's two areas that 22 we'd like to include in the boundary, in the 23 Town Center boundary that are not in the 24 wastewater management plan, and those are that 25 one area up there on municipally owned park GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 75 1 adjacent to A.L. Polamer, which was a cleaned 2 up superfund site. We would like to consider 3 that as a site for a new community center. And 4 then over on -- right over there there's an 5 existing indoor tennis facility that has always 6 ebbed and flowed as to its viability. So the 7 Township has two sites identified in our plan 8 that we would like to consider within the next 9 five years to possibly do a community center. 10 So we're doing some advance 11 planning here in light of we're before you now, 12 and once the Center boundary is struck, the 13 change to wastewater management plan after that 14 is not going to be a good thing. So we're 15 asking that you consider those two areas. One 16 is an existing facility that may need sewer 17 capacity in the future, if the septic fails. 18 And the other is a municipal park where if we 19 don't build a community center, nothing is 20 going to happen there other than ball fields 21 and recreational facilities. 22 MR. PURDIE: So tell me again, 23 we're adding ball fields at the top? 24 MR. TROAST: There's ball fields 25 there already. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 76 1 MR. COLLINS: We would like to be 2 able to potentially in the future have a 3 Township owned, Township built community center 4 on a portion of that park land. 5 MR. PURDIE: Then we come back with 6 that when it's ready? 7 MR. COLLINS: We know where we want 8 it because of the physical location of existing 9 park facilities. So it seems like an 10 appropriate time to put it into the Town Center 11 Plan. It truly adjoins the Center. It's not 12 -- and the other one is an existing building 13 which -- 14 MR. TROAST: It's a large building. 15 MR. COLLINS: It is. It's a tennis 16 center, and it looks like a tennis center, and 17 it could be a perfect community center. 18 MR. TROAST: The only thing I'd say 19 to you, Mr. Purdie, is that quite honestly, and 20 no offense, we've been working on this, getting 21 our Center designated since '96. When you got 22 a community center ready to roll, we don't want 23 to spend five years trying to get through the 24 menagerie of bureaucracy to move a line on a 25 piece of paper. And I don't want to be blunt, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 77 1 but that's the honest truth. 2 We know now, and we figured we'd 3 bring it to the table now. We think it makes 4 sense. We don't think it's a deal breaker. If 5 Sparta public doesn't want to spend three to 6 five million dollars on a community center; 7 guess what, it's not happening. 8 MS. BYERS: Could you talk a little 9 bit about what the community center is, and why 10 you would want it on the outskirts of town, and 11 how people will get to it; and why you wouldn't 12 want to put it where the Town Center Cores 13 are? 14 MR. TROAST: We looked at the Town 15 Center Core; there's not a piece of property 16 that can accommodate the size and the structure 17 of the gymnasium, et cetera. And we don't have 18 control over that property, or would it -- 19 MR. COLLINS: We really don't have 20 enough public land without that. And it's not 21 really on the outskirts, it actually is right 22 adjoining the 517 bypass and Main Street. And 23 the existing park facilities, including an 24 existing outdoor pavilion, existing park shed 25 and maintenance facility, are right there GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 78 1 already. You can literally walk from the Town 2 Center. In fact, when people run in the Main 3 Street Run in April, they run from the tennis 4 center down to the other location where the 5 community center could be. 6 MR. TROAST: We actually have a 7 grant from NJDOT; we have bike paths through 8 the park connecting into the Town Center. So 9 there would be pedestrian and bicycle ways from 10 and through the area. So there's vehicular 11 connection; there's also a bicycle and 12 pedestrian connection. 13 MR. PURDIE: There's a pedestrian 14 connection for the school properties? 15 MR. TROAST: That's correct. 16 MR. COLLINS: That bike path was 17 built already, the one that goes right by this 18 location. 19 MR. TROAST: It's already in the 20 park. 21 MR. DRAKE: This is the school 22 here; and this is the property we're talking 23 about right here. 24 MR. TROAST: It's right there by 25 the tip; that cleared area right there. Right GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 79 1 where the hand is, that's where the community 2 center would be focused. 3 MR. DRAKE: And there are existing 4 parks, ball fields you can see; also the high 5 school is over here. And this is the high 6 school facility here. So there's a series of 7 interconnected paths. 8 MR. TROAST: That's correct. 9 MR. FISHER: So that doesn't have 10 anything to do with the finger? 11 MR. TROAST: No. 12 The other important thing to 13 understand is that as part of the sewer 14 project, through grants from the State of New 15 Jersey, we consolidated the point source 16 pollution along the Wallkill. The school, the 17 high school had two outdated wastewater 18 treatment facilities that have since been 19 closed as part of this Center effort. And all 20 the wastewater is now into the force main 21 that's constructed which goes to the SCUMA 22 plan. It will also -- we also have obviously 23 existing facilities in the Center where we will 24 be taking that wastewater and putting it into 25 the treatment facility, as well. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 80 1 So there's been a lot of benefits 2 to the Wallkill by virtue of the development of 3 the Center as far as removing major non-point 4 solution, or non-point source pollution 5 facilities. Coupled with the open space 6 concept within the Town Center, the 7 preservation of critical areas will also 8 enhance that. 9 MR. COLLINS: If the community 10 center was built, by the way - we got that 11 answer to Michele's question - it would 12 basically be at a minimum a basketball court 13 and play area for teens. We really need that. 14 Council is very committed to trying to keep 15 teenagers having something to be able to do, 16 preteens. If we can ever afford it, it might 17 include a swimming pool, but that's sort of a 18 dream. And then the typical senior citizen 19 activities related to the building. 20 So you have to get a fairly large 21 building, but we always do things carefully and 22 well in Sparta. And I'm sure it will be 23 designed well and fit into the character of the 24 beautiful Station Park that is already 25 existing; or if we had to go to the Town GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 81 1 Center, I'm sure we'd actually improve it. 2 So these aren't -- as Dave said, 3 this is not a deal breaker, be we just know 4 this is good planning, and our Planning Board 5 and Council felt that we should ask you for it. 6 MS. BYERS: Thanks. 7 MR. PURDIE: I have three things. 8 One, as I said, conceptually we are okay with 9 the revisions along the bypass. We want to go 10 back and check it. It appears to us that the 11 finger goes a little further north than we 12 thought it would. 13 MR. TROAST: We don't necessarily 14 disagree with that. 15 MR. PURDIE: We want to go back and 16 have another look at it. 17 We're not comfortable with the 18 ballpark at this time. It's really the first 19 time we're seeing this, and I need to 20 double-check that. We're not comfortable at 21 this point. It seems like it's something 22 that's been added on to the edge of the 23 Center. Again, it doesn't look connected. It 24 doesn't look integrated with the Center. 25 And a third point is that there is GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 82 1 a tributary of the Wallkill proposed to be 2 category one that is within the Center. And 3 it's north of 15; it's probably right in that 4 area on the right. And if there are vacant 5 lands in there, that's something that those 6 properties are going to be subject to a 300 7 foot buffer. 8 MR. TROAST: Can you point that 9 out? I'd like to comment on that. 10 MR. BROWN: Actually it's an 11 existing C-1. 12 (Whereupon, a discussion was held 13 off the record.) 14 MR. BROWN: Comes out of what we 15 call the Sussex Glen area -- Sparta Glen Park. 16 It flows down between these homes, and then 17 picks up at he Wallkill, which I believe comes 18 through here. So it's basically from here this 19 way. We looked at our numerous homes along 20 there, but we believe that it needs to be made 21 clear that -- actually, I can do it with a 22 cursor a little easier. Flows down right here, 23 through here, and into the Wallkill. There's 24 some homes on both sides and some businesses. 25 Needs to be some recognition that it's there. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 83 1 MR. TROAST: I don't know if any of 2 you recall, maybe this date doesn't mean much 3 to you guys, but it surely meant a lot to 4 Sparta Township, Sussex County, and we had I 5 believe the Governor up and we had several 6 Congress people up; August 12, 2000. It was a 7 thousand year storm. The C-1 stream that we're 8 talking about doesn't exist any more. There 9 has been literal destruction of the Sparta Glen 10 to it looks like a moon-scape. And if you want 11 to come up some time I'll be happy to show you 12 what it used to look like, and what it looks 13 like today. 14 The Township along with the 15 watershed group, in fact, Ernie Hofer is here; 16 he's part of that; he's also on our Board. We 17 thought we had a $350,000 grant as part of the 18 watershed initiative to try to reclaim the 19 stream. It got cut to $60,000, which half of 20 it is being taken up by administrative stuff. 21 When it rains the water is brown. There are no 22 trout in that stream right now. What has to 23 happen is we need funds to fix it. And just 24 imposing a 300-foot buffer on it is not going 25 to help anything. We need help. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 84 1 MR. COLLINS: By the way, this was 2 an area where I think 17 inches of rain fell on 3 about a thousand acres of undeveloped land that 4 is the Newton Water Supply, which we have done 5 things to try to help preserve, and which 6 basically by nature caused a bank collapse of a 7 major county road. 8 Now we're not -- we do things to 9 try to preserve streams, and we even have 10 special stream protection ordinances in our 11 codes, which we've had for years, and we're 12 cooperative on continuing to do those kind of 13 things. Obviously, though, somebody in that 14 Town Center portion of the stream corridor has 15 an LOI, or has DEP approval of an LOI. We 16 don't even control that; that's up to DEP. So 17 we're sort of -- we'll work with the DEP on it, 18 but I don't know that we should do anything in 19 the Plan Implementation agenda items to further 20 do something that we can't do. 21 MR. PURDIE: Well, be aware of the 22 rule proposal that will be out later this year. 23 MR. TROAST: Whatever the rules 24 are, we play by the rules. But I guess the 25 point I wanted to make is we're talking about a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 85 1 stream -- I really wish you'd come up and look 2 at this place. It is unbelievable. I mean, 3 we've had Congressman Frelinghuysen, 4 Congressman Roukema; we've had Senator Littell; 5 we've had Assemblyman Merkt. They've all been 6 there. In fact, Governor McGreevey was up 7 there just last year looking at it, and that's 8 how we ended up getting funding for -- the 9 County got funding to reconstruct Glen Road 10 because of the devastation that he witnessed. 11 And now it's going on three years. 12 And what happens is this water goes 13 into the Wallkill which goes into the preserve 14 which goes into Franklin Pond, which is also a 15 source of water for Franklin. I mean, I'm more 16 into trying to implement and fix what we know 17 we can do, rather than worry about a boundary 18 line. 19 MS. BYERS: I appreciate that. I 20 think they're all interrelated, though. And 21 whatever is projected for future growth and 22 expectations are clearly going to have an 23 impact on how that stream gets rectified and 24 protected over time. So I think we do have an 25 opportunity here having DEP at the table to GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 86 1 take a look at that and see what can be done, 2 both from a structural perspective and a 3 long-term planning perspective, and looking at 4 how the Center relates to that. 5 MR. ESKILSON: But we're not saying 6 C-1 can't exist, C-1 stream. 7 MR. PURDIE: No. 8 MS. BYERS: We have CES 9 designations. 10 MR. ESKILSON: There are ways to 11 deal with that issue inside the Center 12 boundary. 13 MR. PURDIE: Urbanized areas and 14 develop certain -- there are restrictions. 15 MR. DRAKE: I can propose we talk 16 about restoration of Sparta Glen and Sparta 17 Glen Brook as part of the PIA, then there's a 18 link right to that environmental initiative 19 right in the PIA. 20 MR. TROAST: That would be 21 wonderful. We own Sparta Glen. 22 MR. COLLINS: And we love Sparta 23 glen. So you don't have to worry about us. 24 That's a special place to Sparta. 25 MR. DRAKE: I guess before the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 87 1 flood occurred, it really did a number on all 2 the hemlocks in Sparta and Sparta Glen, and 3 pretty much a lot of that -- 4 MR. TROAST: We actually were a 5 case study for forestry Department of NJDEP. 6 So they've been up there on numerous occasions 7 trying to figure out how to control that little 8 bugger. 9 MS. BYERS: Anyone else have 10 questions? I have a number of things that I 11 wanted to raise, but I wanted to see... 12 MR. FISHER: Just a couple of 13 comments and one concern. 14 Overall I like what they produced. 15 I look back on the '97 Master Plan update, I 16 think the planning board of the town is right 17 on. It talks a lot about design and trying to 18 encourage mixed use. I like what they're 19 talking about in terms of the commercial zoning 20 flexibility, where they promote a cluster in 21 exchange for open space. 22 My concern just focuses on the 23 gross densities and housing densities and 24 jobs-to-house ratios that are all low. It's a 25 concern we seem to see on repeated Center GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 88 1 Designation applications. And I'm hoping, 2 recognizing that Sussex County is one of those 3 counties that has limited growth potential 4 based on planting areas up there, that a Center 5 such as Sparta, one of the primary centers in 6 the county, could accommodate more housing 7 density. 8 I recognize they're certified by 9 COAH, which is great, and they have some 10 inclusionary projects to meet those goals, all 11 of which are positive, and they're occurring at 12 the Center as shown on the map. But it would 13 be nice to see more in the housing section of 14 the staff memo and/or the Township that talks 15 about other housing opportunities, especially 16 in the Center, whether it's mixed use or in the 17 downtown area. 18 So that's my only reservation. 19 It's not one that would cause me to not endorse 20 the Center Petition. But I'm hopeful that over 21 time they can attract available sewer capacity, 22 more housing density to downtown Sparta, and 23 make it a more vital place and support the 24 business. 25 MR. TROAST: Just to give you an GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 89 1 update, we've actually gone beyond our COAH 2 certification. The zoning Board of Adjustment 3 just recently approved a senior apartment 4 building in the Town Center; 34 units on just I 5 think it's about an acre-and-a-half. So it's 6 within the sewer service area; there's capacity 7 for it. 8 We're also looking at a cluster 9 patio home development. And they will be 10 restoring an older structure and having four 11 rental COAH eligible apartment units associated 12 with that with the rehab of an old building. 13 So though we've met our COAH 14 obligation, we are thinking towards round three 15 and beyond. If I didn't do that as a planner, 16 I don't deserve to have my job. And we have 17 instilled that in the Center, it just hasn't 18 happened yet, or we haven't gone back to COAH 19 because quite honestly we're not sure where the 20 numbers are and we want to be in the 21 background. 22 MR. FISHER: Where or those 23 numbers? 24 MR. TROAST: That's a good 25 question. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 90 1 MR. PURDIE: We really didn't have 2 any major problems. We looked at the Sparta 3 Center; there's some issues that we went back 4 and forth with the agenda, and that we're still 5 going to resolve, I think. But the Department 6 has -- we have some real serious reservations 7 about what we're doing because when you stop 8 focusing on the Sparta Center and you come up 9 and you look at the entire Wallkill Valley, we 10 have some real serious issues that are in front 11 of everybody right now; everything from water 12 supply to water quality. 13 And right now we have the two 14 biggest townships in the county, with probably 15 the biggest growth potential, and we're -- not 16 Sparta Township, but the State Planning 17 Commission isn't really looking at the regional 18 planning aspect of this. And I think we might 19 be missing the big picture, because we are at 20 the tail end of a state sponsored road master 21 study in the County. And I'm concerned that 22 with going forward with some of these Center 23 Petitions, we might be just missing the results 24 of the County study. I want to bring that up. 25 We have some real problems with sort of picking GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 91 1 off individual areas in a region without 2 looking at the entire data set that might be 3 available to us at this time. 4 MS. BYERS: That's a good point. I 5 mean, I made that point for the last four years 6 specifically with respect to Sussex County 7 Center. And notwithstanding that, we've had a 8 lot of petitions come in, and I think we've 9 tried to keep our commitment to the towns and 10 do our best, but we still don't have the 11 benefit of a regional picture. Still we're 12 sort of reviewing these Center Petitions with 13 one hand tied behind our back in terms of what 14 the growth potential, the growth focus, the 15 scale and intensity of growth in Sussex County 16 relative to Newton and other centers; how does 17 Sparta; how does Vernon; how does Hardyston. 18 All of these centers really fit into the big 19 picture. The folks in Sussex County may know 20 that, they've been working on this strategic 21 planning project for a few years, but we don't 22 have that picture. 23 MR. ESKILSON: But we shouldn't 24 analyze these folks because the county plan 25 isn't ready; and these guys started with rules GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 92 1 that were in place in 1996 and 1998. We 2 changed rules, but we're moving these 3 applications through the process. We made a 4 decision to close the window in July of this 5 year. And I think it's unfair to hold these 6 guys up, or any center, for that matter, 7 waiting on some other regional plans that might 8 be coming forward in the next several months. 9 That's changing the rules after the fact. I 10 don't think we ought to do that. 11 MR. FISHER: I think it's important 12 to know, and I don't want to speak on behalf of 13 the County, but I know that we have worked with 14 towns to make sure that whatever towns are 15 looking to do is tightly coordinated with the 16 County so that we can sort of walk and chew gum 17 at the same time. Where we can look at the 18 County's bigger plan and make sure that folks 19 who are moving ahead who have done good work 20 fit into that county plan so that there is 21 coordination and communication. 22 I would just caution that we are 23 going to run into situations where counties are 24 behind the ball relative to municipalities and 25 vice versa, where municipalities are going to GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 93 1 be behind the curve compared to counties. 2 We're going to have to make sure the two work 3 together and that they are incorporated into 4 one another's plans, because I do think you're 5 right, we do need to take the blinders off and 6 look at this regionally. 7 But I think in this particular 8 case, I don't want to speak on behalf of the 9 Town or the County, but from our experience 10 they're working very closely together, and they 11 are coordinating their efforts so that while 12 the Town moves ahead, the County is aware of 13 their plan and incorporates and changes it into 14 the County Plan. 15 MR. ESKILSON: That is absolutely 16 accurate. 17 MR. TROAST: Just to let you know, 18 we have a member of the planning board that 19 actually is the chairman of the Sussex County 20 Planning Board. And we have three members of 21 the planning board and council that sit on the 22 Strategic Growth Plan. So we are absolutely in 23 tune with what's happening in the County. 24 And I don't want to take kudos -- 25 I'll take kudos for Sparta. I think our Center GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 94 1 is actually one of the starting points by which 2 the Strategic Growth Plan is evolving from. So 3 we're absolutely wedded to working with the 4 County to iron out, and even to improve our 5 Center as we go forward. 6 MS. BYERS: When will the County 7 Plan be released and/or at least in some draft 8 form be presented? 9 MR. ESKILSON: The target is to 10 have the draft ready by mid summer. That may 11 be optimistic. 12 MR. COLLINS: And we really need -- 13 we would really like your State Planning 14 Commission, and the Center Designation for the 15 Town Center in part because it's one of our 16 requirements of our last round of COAH. And we 17 have something -- we've already approved the 18 site plan for the Mount Laurel development; and 19 we do want to fulfill our obligations for 20 COAH. 21 So to wait another year or 22 something sounds small, but it's big in this 23 scheme of our planning and our 24 responsibilities. 25 MR. ESKILSON: I think the County GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 95 1 is committed to proving whatever information it 2 has available and sharing that with the Office 3 of Smart Growth and State Planning Commission; 4 that's not an issue. So whatever Sussex County 5 has, we're more than happy to share that with 6 everyone here. We just don't have the direct 7 documents at this point. I think some of the 8 build-out figures were actually used in this 9 presentation. 10 MR. DRAKE: Yes. 11 MR. ESKILSON: The capacity and the 12 data is available, and we're more than happy to 13 share that. I don't know the particular 14 questions you're looking to the County to 15 answer specifically, but perhaps we may have 16 already completed that work or done significant 17 work to that end. If we know the specifics, 18 perhaps we could help with that. 19 MS. BYERS: Well, I'm just thinking 20 in terms of growth projections. We're looking 21 at a County -- at Sussex County given its 22 primary planning area five water supply issues, 23 et cetera. 24 There are issues in my mind that 25 I've been waiting to hear on, which is where is GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 96 1 most of the growth going in Sussex County? Is 2 it Newton area, or is it a variety of different 3 centers? What about mass transit 4 opportunities? I know that's an issue that's 5 been discussed heavily in Sussex County over 6 the years. 7 So all of those questions, I know 8 that they're being grappled with at the County 9 level, but we haven't been privy to that. So 10 that's -- I'm not saying I'm in favor of 11 stopping this petition on that issue because it 12 wouldn't be fair to Sparta, and we already 13 passed many petitions for Sussex County, even 14 recently. But I just wanted to highlight again 15 how important that is. And we've got to get 16 the Sussex County plan. 17 I could envision a scenario where 18 Sussex County comes back with their County Plan 19 where there may be some disagreements with the 20 State Planning Commission over that plan, some 21 changes get made, and maybe the Center 22 Petitions or the centers that have been 23 designated would need to be amended. That's a 24 possibility. 25 MR. ESKILSON: We will be GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 97 1 presenting a whole new concept of planning, so 2 I can assure there will be lengthy 3 discussions. We are talking about landscapes, 4 not planning areas. We are talking about 5 identifying growth areas. But we're mapping 6 and separating the counties into at least 7 eight, up to a dozen different landscape types, 8 and assigning policies and procedures and 9 strategies to each one of those landscape 10 types, that not only exists, but that we'd like 11 to see exist for the future. 12 So it's a whole different concept, 13 and I'm sure you heard me talking about us 14 thinking outside the box. We're going to need 15 to get there. 16 MS. BYERS: Well, I'm looking 17 forward -- 18 MR. ESKILSON: But I don't think we 19 should distract from this conversation. I 20 think that's for another day. And some of the 21 questions like water supply simply are not 22 going to be answered. We are not going to have 23 an answer on regional water supply issues as 24 part of that study. So that answer is not 25 forthcoming as far as the county project. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 98 1 MS. BYERS: I appreciate that. My 2 only point is that what we decide on Center 3 Petitions now may be different once there's a 4 regional contact. 5 MR. ESKILSON: I think there's room 6 for that. That's part of the process. 7 MS. BYERS: I had a couple 8 questions and I guess some concerns primarily 9 related to the environs. 10 In terms of the bypass; I 11 understand that's a new bypass that was just 12 put in. I know we worked hard in the last 13 State Plan that was adopted recently on the 14 bypass policy. And I'd just like to get some 15 sense from the staff. 16 What is the relationship between 17 what's being proposed here and what the State 18 Plan policy on bypasses are? 19 Because I think this is an issue 20 that is precedent setting in many ways. We 21 have a bypass that does not have access on it 22 now. We're proposing to allow development 23 along that bypass. Most bypasses that get 24 permitted and go through in New Jersey are 25 limited access for obvious reasons. And I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 99 1 don't want to just go floundering through the 2 conversation without addressing the State Plan 3 policy on bypasses. 4 MR. DRAKE: That's a very good 5 question, Michele. 6 I think myself and knowledge of 7 this bypass is fairly intimate as I reviewed 8 the individual wetlands permit for this project 9 when DOT submitted it to DEP when I was working 10 at DEP. 11 In terms of the bypass and 12 consistency with the State Plan, the State Plan 13 policy on bypass speaks of growth and 14 development along bypasses should be 15 coordinated with limited access. Doesn't say 16 that what he's having proposed is when the 17 bypass was built; essentially bisecting this 18 land owner's land. He's building this project 19 on the side. It was an agreement, as I 20 understand it, that it have one intersection 21 permitable (sic) to be constructed. That 22 intersection will connect to this project; and 23 it will also run perpendicular and connect with 24 Main Street in the existing downtown. 25 So this is actually part of a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 100 1 linkage that has been part of their Master 2 Plan. And this linkage will be a controlled 3 intersection at a light where pedestrian 4 access, bicycle access will all be provided, so 5 that folks in this development area will be 6 able to access the downtown area. So it's not, 7 in a sense, allowing development to go rampant; 8 it's simply allowing one access at a controlled 9 light into that area on the other side of the 10 bypass. But there's no other permitted curb 11 cuts allowed on that side of the road. So this 12 is one controlled access point. 13 Is that a fair assessment? 14 MR. TROAST: This actually was a 15 great debate with DOT, the County and the 16 Township, and the property owner. This goes 17 actually back before my time. But what was -- 18 the old planning documents that I reviewed is 19 that you're absolutely right. There's going to 20 be a connector road from Main Street to the 21 bypass which will allow for access to that 22 internal property, that center spot between 23 Main Street and the bypass. All the 24 development on that tract must go off of the 25 that connector road. Connector road then has a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 101 1 light at the intersection of 517. It will then 2 go across and connect into the mountain area 3 that we've been talking about. That's the 4 central access point to that property. There 5 will be an internal roadway or parking lot 6 situation that will interconnect. And then 7 based on the agreement with the County and the 8 State, there will be an access point towards 9 Route 181 or Sparta Avenue, where it will be a 10 right in and right out only. So it will be a 11 controlled secondary access point for safety 12 reasons, because you wouldn't want one access 13 point for that development without having an 14 alternative. 15 So there's one access where you can 16 go in and out; and then there's one in and out 17 only. That will be down towards the lower left 18 hand corner, the right out. 19 MR. COLLINS: The connecting road 20 is required as part of the ordinances of the 21 Town Center Ordinance, so that with the 22 connecting pedestrian street-scape, too. So we 23 have planned for that; and I would point out 24 that when the bypass was acquired, they did not 25 acquire all the rights to prevent development GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 102 1 of these tracts. We were sort of faced with 2 that likelihood, and that's the way the DOT 3 acquired the rights to the highway. It did not 4 prevent access, it controls access. 5 MS. BYERS: The proposal, then, is 6 to have limited access at one point with a 7 light that would allow for prescribed 8 development. 9 Are there any plans in place for 10 the town to acquire for open space purposes, 11 other lands on the bypass so this issue doesn't 12 have to come back again? 13 MR. COLLINS: Yes. We have this 14 wonderful ordinance that Dave was telling you 15 about. I'm very proud of it. He and I drafted 16 it together. 17 The mountain top has the impervious 18 coverage with the Open Space Incentive Cluster 19 Provision. The central property of the 20 Township it will become a Township green, or a 21 commons area. 22 MR. TROAST: This area right in 23 here. 24 MR. COLLINS: Right behind an 25 existing Presbyterian church with a beautiful GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 103 1 church steeple and a beautiful graveyard, 2 believe it or not, cemetery. But that entire 3 green space is required to be dedicated to open 4 space if one impervious coverage, the lower 5 impervious coverage provision is used. And if 6 the higher impervious coverage provision is 7 selected by the developer, which he has 8 indicated he will select, that open space must 9 be given to the Township of Sparta, and will be 10 the Township's green space. And that is built 11 into those ordinances; and built into that sort 12 of circulation plan of the Town Center. And it 13 basically becomes a big square rectangle. We 14 have walkways already through the area, but 15 things will be even more circular, more of a 16 circuit. 17 MR. TROAST: It becomes our town 18 green. 19 MS. BYERS: I had another question 20 with respect to the environs. There are two 21 nonresidential areas proposed. One is -- I 22 think it's on page four of six. Plan 23 Commercial Development Zone of 100 acres, and 24 an ED zone of 600 acres. I know in the current 25 plan we have a policy of nodes; we have a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 104 1 designation of nodes which are sort of single 2 use developments that don't fit a mixed use 3 center. 4 The policy is no new nodes in 5 planning areas four and five; I believe I might 6 have it. Maybe includes planning area three; I 7 don't know. But we fought very hard in that in 8 our rewrite of the State Plan. There was a lot 9 of pressure put on the Commission to allow 10 non-mixed use development pretty much anywhere 11 to accommodate various sine-sundry (sic) 12 projects. And we drew the line by saying there 13 could be no new nodes. There could be existing 14 nodes, but no new nodes. And there's no 15 reference to that here in the report. 16 And I'm wondering are these indeed 17 nodes, and how does that fit in the State 18 Plan? 19 MR. DRAKE: That's a good 20 question. 21 Nodes, at least as I understand it 22 through Plan Endorsement, they're able to 23 designate a node. 24 MS. BYERS: The policy is no new 25 nodes. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 105 1 MR. DRAKE: What I anticipate will 2 happen -- Dave and I had this discussion. The 3 Center Designation is valid for six years. 4 They will be looking seriously at when this 5 expires Plan Endorsement will be their next 6 step. And will be participating in Plan 7 Endorsement through the County Plan, not only 8 through the County Plan, but also 9 individually. And we anticipate that that type 10 of growth and development in the environs 11 certainly could be part of a node planned 12 endorsement on the horizon. 13 MS. BYERS: I don't think that the 14 node in itself is directly related to Plan 15 Endorsement. A node is just like any other 16 designation in the plan. And when we're 17 looking at Center Petition, we're also looking 18 at what's happening in the environs. And I'm 19 concerned that by designating the Center as is, 20 we will also be endorsing, if you will, don't 21 use that as a legal term, but we will be giving 22 our approval to projects outside the Center 23 that are in compliance with the policies of the 24 plan. 25 MR. DRAKE: We looked at that in GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 106 1 terms of what uses are there. There are a 2 number of existing wells, managed and 3 facilities, industrial and non-industrial uses. 4 MS. BYERS: So you're saying that 5 this is an existing node, not a proposed new 6 node? 7 MR. DRAKE: For the most part that 8 PCDZ zone is mostly built out as existing node 9 number two. 10 MS. BYERS: That's not true. 11 MR. DRAKE: The ED zone was another 12 zone of potentially more acreage, but primarily 13 is right now a series of sand mines, some 14 quarries, or a quarry. Again, a potential 15 horizon is that that will all become part of 16 the planned endorsement for the future. 17 MR. ESKILSON: I think that issue, 18 sand and gravel pits, quarries, is a good issue 19 for the regional plan to deal with since there 20 are so many of them, and redevelopment and 21 restoration issues that are attached to each 22 one of those. 23 We're talking about Lime Crest 24 there? 25 MR. TROAST: We're talking about GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 107 1 Lime Crest; we're talking about Sparta Sand and 2 Gravel; we're talking about Micalatti; we're 3 talking about Granel Enterprises, Wilson. 4 There's a lot of existing facilities in that 5 area. 6 MR. ESKILSON: I don't think the 7 State Plan deals very well with that issue. 8 MR. COLLINS: It's preexisting; 9 nonconforming. These places have existed for 10 50 to 100 years. 11 MR. ESKILSON: Upon closure, what 12 do you do with them? What do they become when 13 they've lived their life? 14 MR. TROAST: I don't know if you've 15 heard of the Sparta Quarry Issue. If you 16 haven't, it's over 200 acres. Thomas Edison 17 started the quarry. And the last analysis from 18 the quarry engineers is that they have another 19 50 to 60 years before they're even thinking 20 about closing. 21 MR. COLLINS: The Township adopted 22 a quarry licensing and rehabilitation planned 23 ordinance requirement; and they've shown the 24 general rehabilitation plan to go to conforming 25 uses. But the likelihood of it happening in GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 108 1 the future, near future is almost nil. 2 MS. BYERS: I think there's a 3 distinction between something that's existing 4 and something that's new and proposed. And 5 that's what's unclear in the memo, and that's 6 why I raised it. 7 If both of those areas are existing 8 uses that are in place in the environs, then 9 we're not out to eradicate them and reinforce 10 them, although some of us might be. 11 MR. COLLINS: I guess I would 12 describe it as an area of existing, 13 preexisting, nonconforming quarry and center 14 gravel uses. And the ED zone and the planning 15 commercial development zone are basically in 16 that area. The PCD zone is surrounded by the 17 ED zone, and they are within an ear shot of the 18 crushers and the screeners of the sand and 19 gravel operations and those uses that shouldn't 20 be near residential. 21 So we see no -- we have found this 22 to be the appropriate current zoning. We're 23 not asking for a node designation. We actually 24 withdrew, or putting on hold our Center 25 Designation request for the ED-1 zone; it's a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 109 1 Mount Laurel zone. 2 MS. BYERS: Well, what I would like 3 staff to do, if you would, please, is to 4 further review those two sites with respect to 5 the policies and the State Plan on nodes, so 6 that we have some clarification about what's 7 there, what's being proposed, and what does the 8 State Plan say about it. I just -- I don't 9 want to just go through the Center Petitions 10 without having a thorough review of how they 11 relate to our State Plan policies, since I'm 12 feeling a little bit that we're missing some 13 pieces here. 14 And knowing that we're running a 15 little behind schedule, we have Vernon, unless 16 the members of the Committee have questions, 17 I'd like to go to the public so we can get 18 started. 19 MS. LANG: I just have one concern. 20 On page five it talks about growth 21 management mechanisms, and it talks about large 22 lot zoning and the environs. 23 On behalf of the Department of 24 Agriculture, we have a concern over large lot 25 zoning. We don't support large lot zoning GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 110 1 environs because it still creates the sprawl, 2 it still creates the need for the roads. That 3 if there is development in the environs, that 4 it should be a center base development, a 5 clustering type, or creative type of clustering 6 development that occurs, and not just large lot 7 zoning because you're still using air/land base 8 out there. 9 MR. TROAST: We have a five-acre 10 gross density, with a cluster provision. And 11 since 1998 when that ordinance was enacted, 12 every developer has selected the cluster 13 option; and the township now has over 750 acres 14 of free open space as a result of that. 15 MR. FISHER: What's that cluster 16 get you down to? 17 MR. COLLINS: With certain 18 provisions -- less than an acre if you use the 19 incentive provisions, which has a Mount Laurel 20 component, funding requirement. And we don't 21 have that many farms in Sparta; we have mostly 22 woodlands. But Dave works intimately with the 23 two to three farms that have families that have 24 properties, and we're extremely cooperative. 25 MR. TROAST: In fact, we just GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 111 1 bought one with our own open space fund. We 2 purchased one of the old farmers that needed to 3 get out, and he did not want to see housing 4 develop on it. So he gave us a very nice 5 price. 6 MR. COLLINS: And that farm 7 actually adjoins open space that we obtained 8 through the Rural Residential Cluster Provision 9 of the ordinance. So I would hope that we can 10 convince the Department of Agriculture that we 11 are trying to be supportive of Department 12 goals, as well. 13 MS. BYERS: And thanks for bringing 14 that up, Roberta, but, again, the State 15 Planning Commission acknowledges that large lot 16 zoning is one of the several techniques to 17 protect the environs. I appreciate your 18 concern, but I don't think that's something 19 we're about to take out of the equation right 20 now. The towns have that ability, it's been 21 upheld in court, and we will continue to be 22 working to make it better, as opposed to 23 creating sprawl. 24 MS. LANG: I don't doubt their 25 ability, but there are other options where they GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 112 1 can achieve the same goal without a straight 2 large lot. 3 MR. ESKILSON: I think we resolved 4 that language issue last month. We inserted 5 some language, and I don't where the sentence 6 is that dealt with that issue and identified 7 large lot zoning as one of several options. 8 And we might have even specified some of the 9 others. And we should do that even though they 10 already got that covered. 11 MS. BYERS: Okay notice to public; 12 comments on the Sparta Town Center Petition. 13 Please come up and state your name. 14 MR. TITTLE: Jeff Tittle. New 15 Jersey Sierra Club, Director. 16 I'm here for a lot of different 17 reasons, but I think most importantly, and 18 first and foremost is that we are deeply, 19 deeply troubled by these last minute Center 20 Petitions that have been around for a long 21 time. We were told last year after Neptune 22 that there wouldn't be any more centers. We 23 were told earlier this year that there wouldn't 24 be any more centers. That we were going 25 forward with the planned endorsement. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 113 1 We firmly object to centers going 2 forward when you don't have the planning in 3 place; you don't know what the water supply is; 4 you got questions raised over wastewater. To 5 me this is just endorsing everything that's 6 been wrong in the past. 7 Quite frankly, and no offense to 8 Sparta, they try to do some good things, and we 9 work with them at times on TV towers and 10 quarries and other things, but this is the 11 wrong place and the wrong time; that they 12 should come back for planned endorsement. 13 Again, we're not looking at the 14 environs. You've got more than 1.3 million 15 square feet of commercial office environs, 16 maybe more; at least 5,000 jobs. You've got a 17 wastewater issue that, quite frankly -- you've 18 got severe septic problems in Lake Mohawk. And 19 that was one of the reasons that set sewer 20 lines were run through open space and past 21 endangered species to bring sewers down in 22 Sparta; and yet when I read the plan it seems 23 that almost all the capacity is going into the 24 Center, not to Lake Mohawk, where there's leaky 25 septics and for new development. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 114 1 You've got an area that has had 2 environmentally sensitive, there's been 3 flooding problems and other things, yet they 4 have five times more housing development in the 5 environs and the Center; there is no transfer. 6 The only potential for transfer is on them 7 getting more sewerage capacity, which would 8 mean the expansion of the regional sewer plant 9 and discharge into a national wildlife refugee 10 to an impaired stream that's on the list to be 11 nominated C-1. I mean, it's just circular 12 logic. It doesn't work. 13 There's no mention of potential 14 future COAH obligations based on the amount of 15 development. And quite frankly, stuff along 16 the highway is highway sprawl, no matter what 17 you call it. It's single use; it's on a 18 bypass; it goes into areas of endangered 19 species; it goes against State Plan policies on 20 highways. That's what it is. 21 Going to the usual water supply. 22 This whole area has very limited water. Going 23 back to the old Sussex County 208 Report from 24 20 years ago, they basically said you need a 25 minimum of one house per five acres because of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 115 1 the -- especially because of the types of 2 soils, there is a lack of recharge, and yet 3 when we sought recharge areas to be paved over 4 as part of this. 5 There's no transfer. By the way, 6 down-zoning is a tool that does work. There's 7 no down-zoning. 8 Even a cluster ordinance is kind of 9 weird in a way, because it's five acres going 10 to one acre. Well, in this area when you look 11 at a nitrate model, you usually get two acre 12 lot size when you're doing well and septic on 13 the same lot. So even kind of goes against -- 14 even though you're creating some open space 15 around it, the lot itself, if you run a good 16 model, you'll see that you'll have high 17 concentrations of nitrates, higher than the 18 10mg over the standard. The State, of course, 19 wants you to go to a lower standard because 20 it's not reflective of environmental quality or 21 really protective of groundwater. 22 It just perpetuates everything that 23 we saw that's been wrong with the State Plan 24 over the last five or six years. And this is 25 at a time when we have a Governor who has GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 116 1 become a leader nationally on "smart growth", 2 on preservation of the Highlands, on protecting 3 our water. The Wallkill is on a list for 4 upgrade to C-1. There are sections already 5 C-1, and there are buffers. 6 To me it just says, you know, this 7 is the kind of project that if it goes forward, 8 it just underminds the public support to 9 everything that the Governor is trying to 10 accomplish. And I really think it does this 11 Commission a disservice. I think that this 12 should be tabled and should come back with 13 planned endorsement so we can use the tools 14 that hopefully come forward from the 15 legislature, like having the PDR bill in place 16 and impact fees. So that we do look at what's 17 happening in the environs so we don't stick a 18 lot of stuff up in areas along Route 15. 19 I just think you need to do it 20 better and do it right. And this is just 21 sending the wrong message to everyone. 22 One other thing, this whole area is 23 levels four and five in landscape projects, as 24 well. So there are endangered species issues. 25 MS. BYERS: Any other members from GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 117 1 the public? 2 MAYOR MARTIN: Doug Martin, Mayor 3 of Sparta Township. Active in the planning 4 board, and active in strategic growth and the 5 cross-acceptance plan for a number of years 6 now. 7 I'd just like to state that in 8 deference to what Mr. Tittle said, I understand 9 you've been waiting forever, but this is a 10 positive step forward. This is a Town Center 11 Designation which addresses planning that we've 12 done, and I believe in total concept with what 13 the office of Smart Growth desires to have. 14 And this is in conjunction with what Sussex 15 County has done. You talk to John privately he 16 says there's nothing in our plan that would be 17 opposed or in conflict with what Sussex County 18 wants in their plan. 19 The finger, or as our town manager 20 would like to say it's a thumb, not a finger; 21 it's a thumb's up, hopefully, and will 22 accommodate housing. So that is not single 23 use; there will be mixed use. There will be 24 housing. And that's a -- to a developer that's 25 an area where they'd like to do housing. So GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 118 1 that's positive. We want to have housing in 2 the Township. We are very concerned about 3 that. 4 We care, and Michele, you know, 5 you've worked with us. We've bought a lot of 6 open spaces in the environment to protect 7 that. Your organization has helped us fund 8 that. 9 So I'd just like to state as a 10 community, we've worked hard to make this 11 happen. And we want to make it happen and go 12 ahead with it. 13 Thank you. 14 MS. BYERS: I think we have Wilma 15 Frey. 16 MS. FREY: My name is Wilma Frey, 17 and I'm representing the Highlands Coalition, 18 which is about 70 or more organizations in New 19 Jersey. The organization is dedicated to 20 protecting the sustainability of both natural 21 and human or cultural resources in the State. 22 We're very concerned about a number 23 of issues with this center proposal. One of 24 the most important is the lack of the public 25 notice of this meeting, and the lack of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 119 1 availability to the public of any of the Office 2 of Smart Growth reviews of the project in 3 advance. 4 And since this is a matter of 5 public interest, and this meeting is open to 6 the public, we feel that the public is entitled 7 to provide comment. And that there are local 8 people and other Highlands Coalition people who 9 would like to be here, but because there was no 10 information available in advance, there was no 11 opportunity for them to have anything to 12 review. So I think on that basis alone this 13 petition should be postponed and no action 14 taken on it. 15 There are a number of major issues 16 which Jeff raised which Coalition would 17 certainly support. That Route 15 expansion is 18 a major issue. Environmental Defense has done 19 an analysis of the impact of Route 15 on 20 adjacent lands. Unfortunately Mr. Patrick from 21 EDA was not able to attend today; I asked him 22 yesterday. And that's an issue which impacts 23 this. 24 Wastewater and drinking water 25 capacity are part of this proposal, which the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 120 1 proposal does not touch on at all. In terms of 2 urban design, there are a lot of nice things 3 with this proposal, but this is a State 4 Planning Commission endorsement that is being 5 sought. And so broader issues than urban 6 design, the big planning issues need to be 7 considered. It's my understanding that 8 protection of the environs is supposed to be a 9 condition of center approval. And this is not 10 addressed. 11 The sewer service amendment issue, 12 and water resource issues, water supply, the 13 nitrate solution model, the issue of sewer, 14 which was mentioned by Jeff, these are things 15 that really need to be reviewed by the DEP and 16 within the context of the more forward thinking 17 process, which is going forth right now in 18 DEP. And when the Center Petition was begun 19 there was a different viewpoint about things 20 like that. 21 So while this proposal may have 22 been appropriate five years ago, the State has 23 learned a lot since then; is making great 24 strides toward really trying to protect the 25 water supply and water quality. And this is GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 121 1 not really under discussion. 2 In terms of how it fits in with the 3 County Plan, Mr. Eskilson has noted that that 4 plan is not going to answer some of these kinds 5 of questions. The County Plan is largely, at 6 least to my knowledge, is largely based on 7 municipal plans. I don't think it's as much a 8 different vision which looks at the entire 9 County as a compilation of the municipal 10 plans. 11 So I think there's really a lot of 12 work here for the State Planning Agency to do 13 in terms of renewing this. And probably the 14 best thing really would be to just, as Jeff 15 said, we were told last year that we're not 16 going to do any more centers; we're going to do 17 Plan Endorsement. And that's really the way 18 they should be handled. It should be 19 postponed, and there should be a look at the 20 entire municipality planning structure. 21 Thank you. 22 MR. ZELLNER: I just want to 23 address this. I don't know where people heard 24 in terms of process, but our rules clearly 25 state these are the last centers that we are GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 122 1 dealing with coming in the next few weeks that 2 when the adoption of our new rules in August we 3 will move to planned endorsement. So I don't 4 know where people got the impression that there 5 were not going to be centers. This is a 6 continuation, these are grandfathered 7 applications that were already in place, and we 8 are finishing out a process now. 9 MR. COLLINS: And that is certainly 10 what Sparta Township understood and was told. 11 And our documents, our public documents, 12 they've been on file in the Township and State 13 Planning Commission for years. So I disagree 14 with this objection that this is not known 15 information. This is very public information. 16 MR. TROAST: Just two points. The 17 Town Center will have public water. And I'm 18 very proud to have been acknowledged in the 19 Highlands News Letter, specifically in the 20 Township, we are the home of the 25 acre zone 21 in the environs. Nineteen percent of the 22 Township is owned by either a governmental 23 entity or a nonprofit. And the underlying 24 zone, if that is so, is one house for 25 25 acres. So I think we have done -- we have done GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 123 1 things that are on the cutting edge, and at 2 risk of being litigated against because we 3 believe in it. 4 MS. BYERS: Thanks. 5 Any other members of the public 6 wish to comment? 7 MS. FREY: What I was referring to 8 was not so much Sparta's proposal itself, but 9 the staff recommendation is not being available 10 at all in advance. 11 MS. BYERS: Right. I think that we 12 all understood that point. Thank you. 13 MS. HORSFIELD: Good morning. I'm 14 Tammie Horsfield. I'm president of the Sussex 15 County Chamber of Commerce, a group that 16 represents over 600 businesses and that 17 represent over 20,000 employees in Sussex 18 County. I'm also the president of the Sussex 19 County Economic Development Partnership with a 20 base of approximately 150 businesses who 21 actually contribute funds to support economic 22 development in our community. 23 I'm here today to talk about the 24 balance that's provided by Sparta. It's 25 probably one of the most balanced plans I've GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 124 1 seen moving forward in regard to a number of 2 issues; regarding preservation, as well as 3 economic development, which means job 4 creation. A very important piece of our 5 community. For those of you who don't know, 6 over 65% of our community commutes outside the 7 County for work every day, and we need job 8 creation in our community. 9 I think that Sparta certainly does 10 provide some of the balance that's necessary 11 there, as well as preserving the lands that are 12 necessary, as well, and protecting the 13 endangered species that we heard about 14 recently. 15 I think that this is the time to 16 move forward with a Town Center. I think that 17 it's long been waiting. We know the State 18 Planning process has certainly gone on for a 19 very long time, and we keep putting off issues, 20 and keep moving forward. It's time for us to 21 really move forward now and to get a Center 22 Designation in place. To find a balance growth 23 that is necessary for a community to survive 24 and to be healthy. 25 And I think that Sparta has done a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 125 1 great job in planning, and I commend you for 2 that. And I hope that the State Planning 3 Commission sees it, as well, and knows that 4 they followed the rules of the State Planning 5 Commission and what they present is something 6 that works for Sussex County, as well as New 7 Jersey. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 10 MS. McINTOSH: Pam McIntosh from 11 the Association of the New Jersey Environmental 12 Commission. I think Jeff Tittle just gave you 13 a very thorough rundown of the environmental 14 concerns I think with this Center Designation. 15 And so I would only just like to reemphasize on 16 page three of the staff report, the gross 17 population density in 2020 is estimated to be 18 less than 2,500. The guideline requires it to 19 be greater than 5,000. Now that's less than 20 50% of what the guidelines say. 21 Also, if you look at the 22 jobs-to-housing ratio, I know someone just 23 spoke about creating jobs, but that also does 24 not meet the criteria of one-to-one and 25 four-to-one guidelines for jobs-to-housing GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 126 1 ratio. So it's not really concentrating as 2 much growth in the Center as is required under 3 the State Plan Guidelines. And also on the 4 flip side of that, there's nothing in the PIA 5 that's requiring protection of the environs 6 that is resulting in less growth in those areas 7 from what is currently there without the Center 8 Designation. 9 So it's hard to see how this is 10 going to achieve the State Plan goals of 11 promoting growth in the Center and not outside 12 of the environs when there is no protection 13 provided in the PIA, or require them to protect 14 the environs in any additional way than what is 15 currently being done. 16 And furthermore I'd just like to, 17 Wilma also brought up that the information 18 isn't received until the last moment. I just 19 got the staff report yesterday, and this 20 morning coming into the meeting there is a new 21 packet of information that I haven't been able 22 to read and have much of a chance to look at. 23 So it would be great to get the information in 24 a more timely manner. So that getting this 25 information out beforehand would be very GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 127 1 helpful for people to analyze it in a more 2 detailed manner. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. COLLINS: Pam, I'd like to just 5 address something to you, and also to Mr. 6 Tittle, that you're missing. 7 In the Town Center one of the 8 things that happens in this zoning is that that 9 mountain top gets preserved either way under 10 the incentive or the non-incentive. And under 11 the incentive it is, under your theory, it's 12 environs. It actually gets dedicated to public 13 open space controlled by the Township of Sparta 14 in perpetuity. And it's, therefore, environ 15 being traded, as Dave said, a commercial 16 cluster for this Town Center impervious 17 surface. 18 That is very creative. That is the 19 only -- we think it's the only town in the 20 State that has that provision. If we're wrong, 21 I'm happy because then that means somebody else 22 is doing something right. 23 We have another zone in this Town 24 Center that says that the lands on the east 25 side of the Wallkill River have to be dedicated GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 128 1 to public open space. That the townhouses get 2 built off Main Street behind one of those 3 beautiful commercial office and apartment 4 buildings that you saw in the photos. I don't 5 know the acreage, it's small acreage, but it's 6 forever green space. And it's coming from the 7 environs being preserved in order for the trade 8 of density on the same property owners' 9 property, but it's really like transfer 10 development rights that we can't do yet. But 11 we accomplished it in the zone, and the 12 property owner is accepting it, likes it, and 13 is planning to come in before us shortly for a 14 site plan for it. 15 So, frankly, I think we should be 16 getting a gold star from some of these 17 environmental organizations. I think we're 18 doing it right. I recommend that you look a 19 little bit more closely at our ordinances, and 20 stop criticizing Sparta for what it's doing. 21 Because these provisions and our current RR 22 zone with clusters resulting in 700 acres of 23 pure public open space for three is ideally 24 connected to the State Plan. 25 We've listened to what you've said; GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 129 1 we're implementing it; and we have tools that 2 actually work. And no one should be 3 criticizing it; you should be promoting it and 4 trying to sell it to other municipalities. 5 So I think some of the criticisms 6 are a little bit unreasonable or unsupported 7 when it comes to the details of our Sparta 8 Township ordinances. And I urge people to take 9 a closer look. 10 MS. FREY: I just want to respond 11 to that. 12 We would applaud such projects that 13 are preserving land, but at the same time if 14 there's not any more general requirements that 15 are going to preserve the environs as would be 16 done under Plan Endorsement to look at the 17 picture more holistically. It's not looking at 18 the overall regional picture in a wholistic 19 manner. 20 MR. ESKILSON: As long as we're on 21 the inadequacies of the PIA at this point, I 22 think it's an opportunity for me to assert the 23 issue that I'd like to assert at this point. 24 Once again, I don't count a single 25 quantifiable measurable outcome by a State GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 130 1 agency by this Plan Implementation agenda. And 2 I think that continues to be a problem. I 3 certainly don't want to see this application 4 held up for that fact. But I think we're 5 actually doing worse in these things and not 6 doing better. I mean, if we've got at least 20 7 or 30 measurable quantifiable outcomes or 8 expectations from Sparta Township and not one 9 from a State agency. 10 Something is out of balance. 11 Something is wrong with that equation, and 12 continues to be. And I truly hope that at some 13 point that we're really going to rectify this 14 because we can't continue like this. 15 MS. BYERS: Any other members of 16 the public? 17 MR. HOFER: I guess I'd like to say 18 a few words. My name is Emmett Hofer. I wear 19 a number of hats. I'm vice-chair of the 20 planning department. I'm the right chair of 21 Lake Mohawk, trustee at Lake Mohawk. I'm also 22 technical specialist with WMA-02. 23 Just to make a couple comments with 24 respect to the commitment and the 25 aggressiveness to protect the environment. I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 131 1 want to talk with my hat on from Lake Mohawk. 2 Lake Mohawk has been a leader in 3 stormwater management for the past ten years. 4 In fact, they are a model lake community with 5 respect to stormwater management. The emphasis 6 on maintaining and improving quality of Lake 7 Mohawk is second to none. They have been able 8 to achieve a phosphorous reduction. And as 9 many of you know, DEP standard is .05mg per 10 litter. Lake Mohawk has taken the average 11 concentration from .1 to .02 to .03 in seven or 12 eight years to very aggressive measures, 13 including best management practices. 14 As stated before we have a septic 15 pumping ordinance which requires pumping every 16 three years. We have a phosphate free 17 fertilizer ordinance to protect nutrient levels 18 going into the lake. We have an aggressive 19 education and outreach ethic to remove all 20 metal septic tanks from our septic programs. 21 We have an aggressive education and outreach 22 program to remove buried well tanks to 23 aboveground. We have implemented the leading 24 technology approaches for preserving and 25 improving quality of lake because we recognize GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 132 1 the lake as the headwaters of the Wallkill 2 River. Our monitoring also includes fecal, 3 which is now a major initiative on the part of 4 DEP; not only lakes, but just about every river 5 flow path within New Jersey. 6 WMA-02 as the watershed specialist, 7 we have undertaken in cooperation and full 8 support of DEP extensive monitoring of all 9 waterways within Sussex County. For the past 10 14 months we have focused on the Wallkill and 11 the Black Creek. The Black Creek is just east 12 of the Wallkill River. We are in the process 13 of continuing our monitoring studies. So we 14 have a very ambitious three-year program to 15 fully characterize and establish the quality of 16 all our waterways. 17 That knowledge along with the 18 guidance and the historical data from DEP and 19 USGS will allow us to develop a comprehensive 20 management plan which will lead to further 21 restoration, improvement, and protection of all 22 of our surface waterways. 23 We've also worked closely with 24 Charlie Ryan, our town engineer, and other 25 officials within Sparta who have done extensive GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 133 1 work with regards to endangered species, water 2 recharge, nitrate dilution, steep slopes; all 3 water resource issues. We have worked with 4 other resource watershed management areas in 5 the application and various protection tools to 6 assess quality of water. 7 We have plans to work deeply -- 8 extensively in regards to water budgets, not 9 only for Sparta, but for Sussex County. 10 Unfortunately that program has lagged, and is 11 now several years before we'll have adequate 12 water budgets for all communities. But we have 13 an intense program to work closely with the 14 professionals and the people responsible for 15 that type of work. 16 I guess the message I want to leave 17 you with is that we have been able to overlay, 18 interject, and apply a lot of the fundamental 19 things, tools, databases, technology, issues 20 along with the current planning for Sparta. 21 And this applies to Sussex County, and we act 22 as a technical resource base were it moved. 23 Thank you for your time. 24 MS. BYERS: Any other members of 25 the public? I ask you to keep your comments GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 134 1 quick because we are behind schedule. 2 Thank you all. 3 Members of the Committee, we need 4 to move this along. I think we have a number 5 of options. We can recommend designation of 6 the Sparta petition to the Commission to its 7 next meeting, which I believe is in June. We 8 could recommend tabling this until the next 9 Plan Implementation Committee meeting, which is 10 also in June, to give knowledge that there's 11 not been adequate notice and information 12 provided, both. 13 I speak for myself, I didn't get 14 the petition until Friday before a long 15 weekend, and I know the public didn't get it 16 until I guess yesterday or a few days ago. I 17 think that's a problem of process that we have 18 with all of our petitions that really does need 19 to be rectified, because these are complex 20 issues, they take a lot of time to review. And 21 really the devil is in the details, as you 22 know, in all of these things. 23 We also could have that as an 24 option that we ask Sparta to defer this until 25 the County Plan comes in and we go for the Plan GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 135 1 Endorsement. 2 So I wanted to get a sense from all 3 of you on the committee where we should be 4 heading on this. I have my own particular 5 thing, obviously, but I'd like to hear from the 6 committee members. 7 MR. FISHER: I'll put mine out 8 there. I think we ought to move it. Mainly 9 because this is one that we know that we held 10 over from the list of petitions, which is down 11 to a handful at this point now that came in 12 under the old rules, and they had expended a 13 tremendous amount of time and effort in 14 developing a Center Petition and package, and a 15 set of documents that essentially comply with 16 our Center Designation criteria. 17 I'm somewhat disappointed that the 18 densities are low; I'd like to see them higher, 19 and that's my one concern with the petition. 20 But as I said before, I'm prepared to move 21 this. I think that it leaves room for future 22 development. And I like what they've done. 23 They've done a lot better than most other towns 24 in terms of coming up with creative ordinances 25 to preserve the environs. And I think they're GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 136 1 entitled to a decision by this group. And I'd 2 like to recommend the Commission to take it up 3 at its next meeting. 4 MR. ESKILSON: I fully agree with 5 David Fisher. This is a model community, and I 6 truly believe we ought to recognize that and 7 move this forward at this point. 8 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: And on behalf 9 of DCA, I would also like to support David's 10 point of view, that we should move ahead with 11 this designation. It's very clear that the 12 Township is being very proactive in meeting its 13 environmental obligation. They've been working 14 with DEP continually throughout this whole 15 process. It's just time that we move it along. 16 MR. PURDIE: We'd like to keep 17 working with the Township on resolving issues. 18 And take another hard look at the Planning 19 Implementation agenda. I'm assuming we can do 20 that pretty quickly with them. I think we can 21 go forward with them. 22 MR. LEWIS: We're comfortable in 23 moving ahead with the designation. I think 24 there possibly could be some room for some 25 additions in the PIA to better accommodate some GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 137 1 of the issues that have been put on the table 2 today. But I think those are minor things, and 3 I agree with Bill, they can be ironed out. But 4 overall I think the designation -- the petition 5 is very worthy of moving on. 6 MS. LANG: I agree with that, but I 7 do feel that we need to look into the other 8 issues by the next State Planning Commission 9 meeting and try to resolve them. 10 MS. BYERS: Well, in hearing all of 11 that, what I would recommend, and, again, I'm 12 making this recommendation with a sense of, I 13 think, in fairness to the town that's been 14 working on this so long. Not that I -- I think 15 it's a good thing to go on with Center 16 Petitions. 17 I guess I do have one question for 18 you. 19 How many more centers do we have, 20 and which ones are they? What are we looking 21 at here? Is this really coming to an end by 22 when and by who? 23 MR. ZELLNER: Well, by law we can 24 not go past August 15. So anything that 25 doesn't make the August 15 -- doesn't make the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 138 1 State Planning Commission Meeting pre-August 15 2 can not get a Center Petition. There are a 3 number of them that we're still looking at and 4 working with DEP and other state agencies to 5 see what's real and what's not. 6 MS. BYERS: So how many more will 7 we see before us? 8 MR. DRAKE: I would say five, and 9 that's probably a large number. But that's 10 also a work load that we're going to try to 11 juggle to see which ones of potentially five; 12 maybe three. 13 MS. BYERS: And how many of those 14 are substantial centers in terms of issues or 15 complex? 16 MR. PURDIE: All of them. 17 MR. ZELLNER: I want to remind 18 everybody in all of this process, we are here 19 for a reason. We are at the end of our list, 20 if you will, and I think all of the petitions 21 we're going to face have challenges in front of 22 them. I, frankly, think that's why they're at 23 the end of the list; the proverbial low hanging 24 fruit is gone. And this is going to be -- it's 25 going to show whether or not this Commission GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 139 1 has the resolve to be able to work out issues 2 that are complex with all the various 3 representatives across the table that are 4 here. 5 So, yes, there will probably be 6 three of the five; and they will be very 7 similar to this one, I would assume. 8 MS. BYERS: Well, I still have some 9 concerns that I'd like to see addressed. And I 10 say that with acknowledging that we ought to 11 move ahead and designate. But the concerns 12 that I have are still the bypass; I would like 13 a fuller discussion on the bypass issue. I 14 heard what you said, but I'd like to see the 15 language and policy and plan and go through 16 that. 17 The environs issues. The DEP 18 issues that sill need to be vetted. 19 And also I'd like to see the 20 planning and implementation agenda reflect 21 today's discussion, and all of this information 22 get out to the public at least two weeks before 23 a Commission meeting when it's voted on. I 24 just -- I think we can not exclude the public 25 from the process just by virtue of not having GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 140 1 the information available. That's a horrendous 2 problem that we've got that needs to be fixed. 3 So I guess there's two things I 4 would recommend. One is that we either come 5 back to the PIC with those issues in June; or 6 provide a way to involve the public in the 7 discussion of those issues in the finalizing of 8 the PIA before the Commission meeting. Whether 9 it's here through the PIC meeting, or whether 10 it's DEP willing to put together a public 11 meeting. I want the public to be involved in 12 the refinement and the further completion of 13 this petition -- 14 MR. PURDIE: We'll be happy to do 15 that. 16 MS. BYERS: -- before it goes to 17 the full commission. Because I've seen time 18 and time again once these things get to the 19 full Commission, even though there's public 20 comment, no one has the stomach to go and talk 21 about these issues in detail. It's pretty much 22 final and it's a done deal. And that's not 23 workable for further discussion of the issues. 24 And then the other thing I would 25 recommend, and I'll recommend this be attached GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 141 1 to the resolution for designation. That the 2 designation be subject to, or contingent upon 3 consistency with the County Plan, and with 4 commitment to go forward with Plan Endorsement 5 as soon as possible and not necessarily wait 6 for the six years of the Center Designation to 7 complete. We've got to address these issues. 8 We simply can't just designate and let 9 everything go. 10 And I also think, though, that it's 11 really important to work with the community. 12 And I do thank you very much, Sparta Township, 13 for all the work you've done, and the 14 willingness and patience that you've shown in 15 working through this. Over the long-term I 16 think it's important to keep that relationship 17 going. 18 So in that light I recommend that 19 we move forward with the designation, but with 20 an expedited plan to go to Plan Endorsement. 21 And with a guarantee or commitment that we're 22 going to have the ability for the public to 23 comment on the finalized planning and 24 implementation agenda before it goes to the 25 Commission. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 142 1 MR. ESKILSON: Michele, one 2 question. I don't know if I agree with the 3 expedited Plan Endorsement. If they are, in 4 fact, consistent with the County's Strategic 5 Growth Management Plan as endorsed by the State 6 Planning Commission, I would think that would 7 eliminate the need for them -- 8 MS. BYERS: Well, that would then 9 be -- 10 MR. ESKILSON: Why do we need to 11 state that, though? 12 MS. BYERS: I'm not certain that 13 that's going to be an easy automatic process. 14 MR. ESKILSON: I don't either. But 15 if the regional plans are going to have any 16 kind of effect, we need to do at least that. 17 That, in fact, consistency with an endorsed 18 regional plan confers upon the municipality 19 some level of endorsement of the local plan; 20 otherwise we have wasted our time with the 21 regional plan. So with that caveat I'll 22 certainly agree with it. 23 MS. BYERS: Okay. 24 MR. FISHER: Does that sound like 25 things that you can address with the Department GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 143 1 in advance of our next Commission meeting so 2 that amended PIA can be distributed to us? 3 MR. TROAST: I've worked well with 4 Paul, and I've been on the phone with Rick 5 Brown of DEP. We will work to resolve any 6 issues that we have. And I guess I'm proud to 7 say I'm the only full-time planner that works 8 for a municipality full-time in Sussex County. 9 My office has been available; it is 10 always available for the public to come in and 11 review any documents that I have. I'm a 12 hands-on planner. I meet with people, pro and 13 against initiatives that are before the 14 community. That's my job. And if a group 15 wants to come up and view the documents, I'll 16 be happy to show them anything that I have, and 17 explain why we're doing what we're doing, more 18 importantly. 19 MR. COLLINS: We would just ask 20 that Paul Drake be the key contact person for 21 us and for whoever wants to contact. I think 22 it should be him and the State Planning 23 Commission, not another Department because he 24 is your employee. 25 MR. FISHER: Paul has been duly GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 144 1 designated. 2 MS. BYERS: So in terms of our 3 schedule, then, the July meeting of the State 4 Planning Commission would be the opportunity to 5 take this to the Commission. 6 MR. TROAST: Do we have that date? 7 MR. ESKILSON: June. 8 MR. FISHER: When is the June 9 meeting? 10 MS. BYERS: The 18th. June 18th 11 and July 16th. So I'm assuming that we're 12 talking about the July, not the June meeting, 13 given the issues and the time that we need to 14 get to the members of the public so they can 15 review the revised and final planning and 16 implementation agenda. 17 MR. DRAKE: With a two week 18 expectation to get the public information, it 19 will be difficult, but we'll do what we can. 20 MR. COLLINS: Why don't we stay on 21 for June because Paul already received contacts 22 from different people, and we were comfortable 23 with most of the contacts that we heard about. 24 So Dave and Paul will work on the draft for 25 that PIA, and if it's not in two weeks before, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 145 1 then we'll have to go to July. 2 MS. BYERS: Well, we're already at 3 the 28th of May; and if we're talking about 4 June, we're looking at really three weeks from 5 today. And that means in one week's time we'll 6 have to have all of these issues ironed out 7 with the final planning and implementation 8 agenda on the web for the public; in one week? 9 MR. ESKILSON: If we don't make it, 10 we don't make it. 11 MS. BYERS: I'm not willing to 12 support this petition here unless there's 13 adequate time for public review. 14 (Whereupon, a discussion was held 15 off the record.) 16 MR. DRAKE: I'll work as hard as I 17 can, but I need commitments from DEP and also 18 the Township that we work together and that we 19 can pull this off. That's where I'm at. If 20 I'm looking to do this in a week, I'm not going 21 to have these things happen the last minute. 22 MR. TROAST: I think two weeks is 23 kind of aggressive. The Municipal Land Use Law 24 says that documents have to be available to the 25 public ten days prior to a hearing. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 146 1 MS. BYERS: Well, whatever the time 2 frame is, I think ten days would be fine, but 3 we've got to provide both ourselves, David - we 4 need the information more early than we've been 5 getting it - and the public certainly does. 6 They can't just come here and pick up a package 7 and read it on the day of the meeting. So I'm 8 not sure the time frame of three weeks to June 9 is workable and that it makes sense. 10 MR. ESKILSON: If they don't make 11 the deadline, they're off. Whatever the bar 12 is, ten days or two weeks. You set the bar at 13 ten days; if it isn't available, then we're 14 off. I don't see any harm in that. 15 MS. BYERS: Fair enough. 16 Let's wrap this up. 17 One more comment, Jeff, and that's 18 it. We have to move on. 19 MR. TITTLE: I think it has to come 20 back to the PIA. The reason is that at the 21 April meeting the Chair of the State Planning 22 Commission very pointedly told me that it has 23 to be done at the PIA, that's where the public 24 has input. That at the State Planning 25 Commission meeting itself it's basically a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 147 1 rubber stamp, so therefore they don't really 2 care what the public has to say. So if it 3 doesn't come back here, then it's a joke. 4 Thank you. 5 MS. BYERS: Well, that's another 6 option. I have no trouble with that, as far as 7 having the issue back at the PIC meeting in 8 June. 9 MR. ESKILSON: That's a whole new 10 issue, and that's not what we had consensus 11 on. And I would say if we're going to defer to 12 July and there's going to be some non-agenda 13 discussion in June, then we got a whole 14 different thing here. And we better notify 15 every effected party that there's going to be a 16 non-agenda discussion of this. 17 I suggest set the bar ten days; if 18 we make that, we make that. If we don't, then 19 we're off to July. And if we are off to July, 20 and we're going to have to talk about it in 21 June, we better notify all the interested 22 parties that we may have a non-agenda or agenda 23 discussion of this matter. 24 MR. BYERS: I think that's fine. 25 MR. COLLINS: Can we have a vote GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 148 1 today? 2 MS. BYERS: We don't take a vote 3 here. This is the advisory committee. 4 MR. COLLINS: The direction. 5 Okay. 6 MR. TROAST: On behalf of Sparta, 7 thank you very much. 8 MR. COLLINS: Thank you, very 9 much. 10 (Whereupon, a brief recess was 11 taken.) 12 MS. BYERS: Thank you all for your 13 patience. I just wanted to say we spent a lot 14 of time in the prior center talking general 15 issue items with respect to the Center 16 Designation process, so I'm hoping we don't 17 have to repeat the same discussion here and 18 maybe we can move Vernon along more quickly. 19 If everyone can try not to duplicate past 20 comments, that will be helpful. 21 We're going to start by having a 22 very quick presentation from Paul Drake on the 23 petition. 24 MR. DRAKE: I'll be quick on this. 25 Recognizing the time, I will go through a lot GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 149 1 of these faster, but I'll focus on the issues. 2 This is a Vernon Town Center. 3 We're looking at the Township of Vernon, Sussex 4 County, New Jersey. I'd like to introduce in 5 the audience Mayor John Logan, Neil Desmond, 6 Don Teolis, Township Manager, and Gene Osias is 7 the Health Director. Also I understand they 8 brought along with them a number of folks, 9 including their people from wastewater 10 consultants. Stuart Koenig is the attorney. 11 Fred Soljeck. Also some support from their 12 Chamber of Commerce Business Community. I 13 believe they're all generally in the audience, 14 but if the Mayor could just raise your hand. 15 MS. BYERS: Welcome. Thank you for 16 coming. 17 MR. DRAKE: I wanted to put right 18 in front and center the major issue which we 19 had discussions on for the last several periods 20 of time; issue regarding DEP. And that DEP is 21 in the process of reviewing a watershed 22 management plan amendment, or wastewater 23 management plan amendment. The DEP has 24 expressed concerns regarding wastewater water 25 supply. Ultimately the water supply wastewater GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 150 1 management plan amendment is approved. They 2 will need a NJPDES permit, as well as treatment 3 works approval and essentially freshwater 4 wetland permits. 5 Certainly within this area I'll 6 show you there's an issue regarding saltwater 7 aquifers. An issue on depleted water supply 8 and basic transfer of groundwater. Also, with 9 regard to Sussex County MUA, the discharge 10 limits into the Wallkill, there's various 11 wastewater allocations that have been allocated 12 for that. There's a proposal before DEP to 13 take wastewater from the development project 14 I'll tell you about, pump it to the sewerage 15 treatment plant, and then pump it back via 16 another network of pipes and discharge to 17 groundwater. We understand that discharge 18 limit runs roughly about 300,000 gallons, 330 19 per 280,000, but there's a significant amount 20 of water that will ultimately discharge to 21 groundwater. That's, as I understood, the 22 biggest issue that DEP has had. 23 Also there's an issue with DOT 24 regarding Route 94. Route 94 is a state 25 highway. There is obviously a desire among DOT GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 151 1 to move cars. Also if at times how does that 2 relate to the pedestrian oriented design of the 3 Mountain Creek proposal I'll tell you about. 4 But clearly there's an initiative on the part 5 of the Commissioner of Transportation to link 6 transportation and land use together with this 7 proposal. And also that these improvements, 8 various improvements are tied to Smart Growth 9 Land Use strategies that I'll be telling you 10 about. 11 Go through a variety of the goals 12 of the Town Center plan by Vernon Township. 13 Clearly they're looking at economic development 14 growth focused on natural resource based 15 tourism. There's an effort to support 16 concentrated mix use development. Maintain the 17 rural mountain character. Acquire open space 18 for farm land. Supporting jobs and housing in 19 and around the regional center, the Town 20 Center. And also implement the vision of an 21 active public participation process. 22 Go through a couple maps. 23 Showing where we're talking about. 24 Again, this is Vernon Township, Sussex County. 25 This is New York State right here. So we're GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 152 1 really at the tip of New Jersey. See here on 2 the New Jersey map. Vernon Township 3 essentially is this boundary right here, this 4 big sort of square. The Vernon Town Center 5 Plan is proposed almost dead center of the 6 Township. 7 Looking at the State Plan Policy 8 Map, you can see that the State Plan Policy Map 9 dictates, or talks about various planning 10 areas, strategies for primarily for planning 11 area 4, 4b and 5. Also you can see a variety 12 of lake communities exist. Vernon Town Center, 13 again, is right here in the middle of the 14 Township. 15 In terms of a regional profile, I 16 wanted to sort of give you a perspective. 17 We're well aware that Vernon Township is rich 18 in natural resources. It has a variety of 19 farms, forest and fauna; including some of my 20 favorites, the Bart Owl, Red Shoulder Hawks, 21 Brook Trout, and Black Bears. Also I've swam 22 many times in the Pochuck Creek, the Black 23 Creek, and Wallkill River. 24 I want to be able to say very 25 clearly that mountains and valleys define this GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 153 1 region. The Vernon Valley, which is the area 2 we're talking about, the Hamburg Mountains form 3 the eastern boundary, the Pochuck Mountains 4 form the western boundary of the Wallkill in 5 the Vernon Valley area. 6 The proposed Center we'll be 7 talking about does relate in many ways to the 8 other centers in the county. Currently there 9 are seven Centers designated in Sussex County; 10 this will ultimately make eight. The one we 11 talked about before made nine; Sparta. And 12 certainly Vernon Township, like Sparta, has 13 been active in the Sussex County Smart Growth 14 Strategic Plan. 15 To talk about Vernon Township 16 itself, it's probably one of the -- I think it 17 is one of the largest municipalities in the 18 state; approximately 68 square miles; 30% of 19 that municipality is developed with a series of 20 crossroads, settlements, lake communities, 21 conventional subdivisions, and stand alone 22 farmsteads. And 46% of it is also preserved as 23 open space. As I said before, it's planning 24 area 4, 4b and 5. A couple major highways go 25 through it, including Route 94. Route 515 and GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 154 1 517 are some of the County roads that traverse 2 the Township. 3 The way I'll describe is that in 4 Vernon Township there's places to shop, but not 5 presently an identifiable downtown. The 82% of 6 the population within Vernon Township actually 7 work outside of the Township. So gives you an 8 indication of where people are looking for 9 jobs. 10 I think Vernon Township should be 11 commended as part of their public participation 12 process. They've held numerous visiting 13 workshops. Just sort of come to the term of 14 what they wanted to see in their Town Center. 15 They subsequently revised their Master Plan, 16 created ordinances to essential enable the Town 17 Center district to exist. They created a Town 18 Center Advisory Committee. This whole process 19 was submitted as part of the county-wide 20 cross-acceptance. The petition was submitted 21 with the Sussex County Cross-Acceptance 22 Report. 23 July of 2000 there was a discussion 24 of the PIC in public; public meetings of this 25 Center Petition. And throughout the review of GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 155 1 this petition this office has had a series of 2 proposals which we've gone through. Ultimately 3 we feel the proposal that you'll see tonight is 4 worthy of designation. That was also 5 benefitted through the purchase of the Hamburg 6 Mountain property; or you might call it the 7 repurchase of the Hamburg Mountain property. 8 Sort of give you a feel for where 9 we're located. This is in red approximately 10 boundaries of the Vernon Town Center. This 11 boundary was subsequently revised slightly for 12 discussions with DEP. But what you can see 13 here is a ski resort that exists. This is 14 Hidden Valley. This is former Vernon Valley 15 Great Gorge Ski Resort. You can see a variety 16 of farms and forests throughout, a number of 17 lakes, and so forth. 18 Again, sort of give you a picture 19 of where this sits in relation to the State 20 Plan. The yellow is plan area 4; green is plan 21 area 5. We're really dealing with 4b and 5. 22 But today we'll talk about really a Center 23 that's essentially, for lack of a better term, 24 a two-core Town Center. We'll talk about the 25 Vernon Town Core, and also the Mountain Creek GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 156 1 Core. And collectively they will make one Town 2 Center. 3 This is looking at the aerial again 4 just to give you an idea where we're talking 5 about. This area here is what will ultimately 6 be known as the Mountain Creek Core, and this 7 will be the Vernon Town Center -- the Vernon 8 Town Center Core. Ultimately will be one Town 9 Center again with two cores, just sort of give 10 you an idea. 11 Give you a flavor for what the 12 Vernon Core currently looks like; these are 13 some photographs taken just the other day. 14 Interesting is this Route 515 coming down off 15 the mountain before it intersects with Route 94 16 which goes up to the Mountain Creek Center. 17 Currently an A&P shopping center here. And 18 also I think if you look at this photograph it 19 gives you a flavor that historically origins 20 was placed, have historic origins looking at 21 the architecture of this building. 22 The current footprint of what this 23 area looks like now is sort of shown here in 24 this aerial photograph. Again, this is more of 25 the core area, the Vernon Core. You can see GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 157 1 this is Route 515. This is county -- this is 2 State Highway Route 94. State Highway 94 3 actually comes like this and continues north 4 until it intersects with the New York State 5 border. And this is County Route 515 that 6 comes down off the mountain in Vernon. This is 7 the shopping center I just showed you. This a 8 farm pond. 9 But in essence what you're looking 10 at is this area will be redeveloped, 11 reexamined, re-energized, let's say, into the 12 Vernon Core to look at opportunities to enable 13 roads and in-fill development to occur in a 14 planned way. 15 Unfortunately this is a reversed 16 photograph. This is the A&P shopping center 17 over here. But what you can see in red are 18 existing buildings. In sort of a tan color are 19 proposed in-fill buildings within this core 20 area. And then in blue are proposed civic 21 buildings. And you can see there's discussions 22 about interconnecting parking lots; 23 establishing an interpretive center for 24 skylands visitors; talk about traffic calming; 25 street-scape improvements; provide senior GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 158 1 housing and residential housing throughout the 2 Center. So they really hit on many of the 3 hallmarks in the State Plan in just one core 4 area. 5 This is another project within that 6 core area, a more detailed scale of basically 7 what would be a new main street. This is Route 8 515 again; this is Route 94. And this will be 9 a proposed loop road. And you can see the 10 proposal for in-fill buildings which would be 11 mixed use two, three story buildings with 12 housing above retail as designed, sort of to 13 allow this area to really in-fill much of the 14 street frontage on Route 515 that's currently 15 now really under-utilized land. That would be 16 done through a redevelopment plan. But you can 17 also notice parking is tucked away in the back; 18 it's conservative in a sense of its 19 arrangement. And this road can provide some 20 more pedestrian through street. 21 Looking at the Vernon Core, to sort 22 of talk about in-fill opportunities. What 23 they're really looking at is being able to 24 develop in a planned way along Route 515 here 25 and into and along Route 94. And for the most GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 159 1 part that captures the Vernon Core. 2 I'm going to take you a ride up the 3 street, up Route 94 to the area known as the 4 former Vernon Valley Great Gorge Ski Resort, 5 will now be known as the Mountain Creek Core. 6 Mountain Creek's proposal to redevelop, reuse 7 and expand this ski resort area to really 8 become a year-round destination; and the 9 proposal is put forth by a corporation known as 10 Intrawest. And their opportunities are looking 11 at mixed-use, design oriented and capacity 12 oriented plans. 13 When you look at where we are in 14 relation to the Town Center, again, this is 15 that Mountain Creek Core. Their proposal for 16 the most part looks to take advantage of a 17 series of existing larger parking lots, 18 redeveloping this area. The two arrows show -- 19 point to the direction of the photographs. 20 I'll show you the next two shots so you get a 21 picture of where we're looking at. 22 This is obviously heading down 94 23 towards the Vernon Core Town Center area; and 24 this is heading away. And, again, this is 25 looking towards the Vernon Town Center Core GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 160 1 down Route 94; this is coming back the other 2 way, almost the exact same spot. This bridge 3 where I took the first photograph; and now I'm 4 looking back toward the bridge. To get an idea 5 of what we're dealing with is an area that is 6 along the state highway, but also would be 7 proposed to be redeveloped. But what's 8 interesting is the fact that what exists there 9 now are the remnants and certainly the in-fill 10 opportunity of buildings that formally existed 11 in the former resort area, including this 12 property. 13 This is a project known as the 14 Black Creek Sanctuary, which will ultimately be 15 rental or housing, resort oriented housing. 16 This is sort of was put up as sort of a show 17 piece building to sort of give the flavor of 18 the architect of buildings to come. But 19 ultimately now just serves as a real estate 20 office for Intrawest. But I think it was built 21 primarily as a showcase in anticipation of 22 what's coming. If you go inside there's a 23 variety of models of what you would expect to 24 get there. 25 This is looking at the proposal for GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 161 1 Intrawest for the Mountain Creek Core. Again, 2 we're dealing with a ski resort. Obviously 3 show a winter scene; but this gives you a 4 picture of what the architecture potentially 5 will look like. There's been various 6 characteristics as to will it take on an 7 Adirondack flavor with sort of a New England 8 feel. I mean, there's a variety of 9 descriptions on what the architecture will 10 ultimately be. But ideally and ultimately it 11 will be a mixed-use center area where there 12 will be residential housing. Not only resort 13 oriented housing, but also housing for folks 14 who are working at the Center; apartments above 15 retail and that kind of the like. 16 This is just a rendering again of 17 that area showing sort of the activity of 18 people on the street; a variety of things more 19 during the summer season. Again, they're 20 focusing on the theme that they want to look at 21 this as a year-round area, not just currently 22 for winter season. 23 To compare the Vernon Town Center, 24 again, we're combining the Vernon Core and the 25 Mountain Creek Core into one Town Center. By GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 162 1 all accounts, with few exceptions, the area 2 does meet the criteria for the Town Center. 3 The area is less than two square miles. Again, 4 it's approximately 1.6 when we last calculated 5 it, but with a few minor adjustments as of 6 late, it's probably more like 1.3 to 1.6. But 7 the adjustments for the most part don't affect 8 the numbers because they're really taking that 9 environmental areas, which couldn't be 10 developed anyway. 11 So the population figures for 2020 12 clearly show about 4,000 people. Again, we had 13 a discussion prior about population density. 14 Less than 5,000, but yet certainly it's getting 15 up there. Housing; there will be a fair amount 16 of new housing started by 2020. Housing 17 density will be low, but, again, it's on a 18 gross versus net. 19 Important is the number of jobs 20 being generated in the Center. The number of 21 jobs is quite significant; 4,000 jobs showing 22 very clearly that the jobs-to-housing ratio 23 meets our criteria. Which is a key factor in 24 Sussex County, trying to generate jobs in 25 Sussex County so folks aren't commuting outside GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 163 1 of Sussex County. And certainly, as I said 2 before, so people are staying within Vernon 3 Township. 4 To compare this to the Town Center 5 profile for the County and the Township, I 6 think it's quite startling. You look at the 7 numbers, 31,000 additional residents come into 8 Sussex County; about another seven plus 9 thousand will come to Vernon; and almost 3,400 10 of them will actually be new in the Center. So 11 clearly we're showing that a lot of growth to 12 population will be going into the Center; 87% 13 percent increase. And, again, here's a 14 jobs-to-housing ratio, coming back with 2,800 15 new jobs in Vernon Township to be predicted; 16 1,788 will be actually in the Center. That's a 17 remarkable thing. 18 I wanted to sort of get on the 19 issue of density. I sort of anticipated some 20 questions. When you look at density trying to 21 compare Sussex County to Vernon to the Town 22 Center, Sussex County is 521 square miles; 23 population density even by 2020 is about 337 24 people per square mile; Vernon Township has 476 25 people per square mile in 2020. The Vernon GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 164 1 Town Center, again, is small and has a large 2 population; 2,300, almost 2,400 people per 3 square mile. Showing that density, even in the 4 Center if it's designed well, can be 5 accommodated and attributed to planned growth 6 in the Center. 7 I would be remiss without talking 8 about the environs in Vernon because I think 9 it's an incredible place. This is a private 10 property that took a project formerly known as 11 the Wolf Paul Golf Course; it's now State land, 12 Green Acres bought it. But for several years 13 there was a debate on stream encroachment and a 14 wetlands permit on this property back and 15 forth. 16 Looking at the environs in Vernon, 17 you'll notice there's a variety of attributes 18 that really make it a special place, including 19 the built environment and the natural 20 environment. But what's interesting if you 21 look at the built environment, I certainly 22 wouldn't be doing my job to say that even 23 throughout Vernon and Sussex County, growth and 24 development is occurring, conventional 25 subdivision is not like any other place in New GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 165 1 Jersey. Some suggest if this building was 2 knocked down to build that development, but 3 nevertheless, growth and development is 4 occurring in conventional subdivisions, as well 5 as the planned growth. But I think the focus 6 of the Township is clearly in their petition, 7 is to focus on planned growth in centers, and 8 look to protect the environs so that large lot 9 development sprawling across rural Vernon and 10 Sussex County is not part of the norm. 11 And that goes again to the 12 protection of the environs where ongoing there 13 has been a number of Town Center design 14 workshops. They are participating in 15 cross-acceptance as anticipated here; they 16 submitted a petition. They're active in the 17 County Smart Growth Plan. And certainly that 18 plan will ultimately be for Plan Endorsement 19 process, which is forthcoming. They are 20 looking at down-zoning in the environs, but 21 interestingly upzoning in the Town Center. So 22 we do have sort of a yin and yang there working 23 and planning. 24 They're also actively looking at 25 acquisitions of open space; parking, and over GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 166 1 3,000 acres for farmland preservation. Also 2 looking at transfer development rights as a 3 realistic opportunity which is sending density 4 into the Center. We will be talking PIA target 5 of about 25%; that's the number we approached 6 Sparta on. Also their ordinances provide for 7 open space clustering. 8 I'm almost done here. 9 Looking at, again, their 10 circulation efforts in the Town Center area. 11 Clearly they also talk a lot about alternative 12 forms of transportation, not only just 13 automobiles, but, for example, looking at 14 traffic calming, looking at shuttle services, 15 discussions with New Jersey Transit about paths 16 and rail and train system improvements. Also 17 rail service to promote what they call "Ski 18 Train". But, again, these are all discussions 19 that are ongoing looking at alternative forms 20 of transportation. 21 But to get back out into the 22 natural world of Vernon, they're looking also 23 at the trails. There's a variety of trail 24 systems linking all the many natural attributes 25 of State lands in Vernon Township, including GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 167 1 the Appalachian Trail, Wawayanda State Park, 2 the Hamburg Mountain Wildlife Management Area, 3 and the Wallkill River Natural Wildlife 4 Refugee. 5 So to sum up, we've certainly 6 looked at discussions on transportation and 7 circulation. I think we heard in the past from 8 DOT about issues for Route 94, focusing on 9 economic and redevelopment opportunities to 10 clearly focus on investments in the Town 11 Center. There's a discussion pending before 12 DEP, and certainly part of this discussion 13 regarding water and wastewater infrastructure 14 to support the Town Center. Vernon Township 15 has submitted a petition for affordable housing 16 and is pending before COAH. All of their town 17 center and affordable housing obligations were 18 met in the Town Center; so their COAH issue is 19 really contingent upon Center Designation. 20 They're looking at a number of community 21 facilities in the Township that will be 22 center-base related. They understand and 23 respect their historic past; they're working on 24 that. And certainly the protection of the 25 environment; and I think we're going to discuss GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 168 1 in greater detail how to look at the protection 2 resources. 3 But to conclude I want to say that 4 future growth in the Town Center will result 5 from new construction, in-fill development, 6 adapt and reviews, and selective redevelopment 7 activities. I feel quite confident that the 8 Town Center plan is of mixed-use, design 9 oriented, and a capacity based plan for 10 protecting the environment and environs as an 11 integral component. 12 To implement the plan they're 13 looking at, certainly the SPC can designate 14 them as a center; will obviously attach a PIA 15 to that designation. Clearly there's a 16 coordinated partnership developing, and has 17 already developed between the Township and the 18 County, this Department, DOT, and also DEP. 19 The town is looking to implement a variety of 20 zoning changes to support their Town Center 21 Plan and protecting environs. Actually with 22 designed guidelines as a part of the whole 23 plan. They've instituted a number of 24 demonstration projects, including the 25 restoration of this building, which if you seen GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 169 1 it prior, this is a remarkable improvement. 2 But they're also looking very clearly for 3 predictable regulatory process. 4 Just to sort of segue on a short 5 story. This is the Appalachian Trail; I took 6 this photograph Monday, Memorial Day. This guy 7 just graduated college, and he's going to hike 8 the Appalachian Trail. And what was unique 9 about this is I actually worked on this 10 application when I was at DEP, it's a wetlands 11 permit. And I think it was very clear for us 12 to feel comfortable delineating this, issuing 13 this permit, an elevated boardwalk on pilings 14 through a wetland system, as you can see; but 15 the alternative to this has five-mile road walk 16 along Route 565, Maple Grange Road. 17 This proposal to issue a permit was 18 made quite easy by the fact that there was 19 already a plan in place. The Appalachian Trail 20 is a national trail; and in New Jersey one the 21 few states where the Appalachian Trail is 22 wholly contained within State lands. This guy 23 as he was hiking long the trail with his dog, I 24 guess I felt a little envious in some ways, but 25 not necessarily a real way. He had a very GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 170 1 heavy pack on his shoulder, and I was saying to 2 myself, you know, it's kind of cool, this guy 3 is hiking to North Carolina, but nevertheless I 4 was coming back to discuss the Center Petition 5 with everybody here. 6 But in terms of our final 7 recommendations, I highly recommend that we 8 approve the Vernon Town Center, with subject to 9 a final PIA ultimately discussed and approved 10 by the State Planning Commission. Clearly the 11 need for ongoing coordination with DOT for 12 Route 94. There's clearly a need for ongoing 13 coordination and discussions with DEP regarding 14 the water and wastewater issues. I think we 15 need to continue to support the proposed 16 pedestrian linkages and safer and calmer 17 streets. A lot of these natural plan 18 amendments we discussed will ultimately be 19 implemented. And there's clearly an ongoing 20 coordination with the County Strategic Plan. 21 Here's sort of the current proposal 22 for the Vernon Town Center. And I think I did 23 that in a reasonably short amount of time. 24 MS. BYERS: Mayor Logan, would you 25 like to add anything to the presentation? GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 171 1 MAYOR LOGAN: Well, I first of all 2 would like to thank the Commission for having 3 us here, giving us the time. I want to thank 4 Paul for his presentation. I'm glad you didn't 5 head down to North Carolina. I'm glad you came 6 and made the presentation for us. 7 It's really a story of balance. 8 I've been involved since 1997 when I first was 9 on the Council with a few members of the 10 community that are here today talking -- we 11 created a project called "Vision for Vernon". 12 We were trying to create a Town Center; and 13 it's really the Town Center that we spoke of up 14 here. 15 We recognize we have tremendous 16 natural resources in Vernon, and we've worked 17 hard to protect them. Within the last couple 18 years we did create an open space tax. As a 19 Republican I can't say that very loudly, but 20 since I'm 50 miles from Vernon, I can say we 21 did create a tax for open space, and we've got 22 great plans for that. We're developing a trail 23 network right through the center of town that 24 Paula alluded to that hopefully at some point 25 will be a bike trail and pedestrian trail to GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 172 1 connect Hardyston to the south, and perhaps New 2 York State and beyond to the north. So we feel 3 it can be a real regional amenity for us. 4 Mountain Creek obviously we look at 5 as an opportunity. They came into town about 6 four years ago and took what was a continually 7 physically challenged operation and have 8 brought really world class standards to it, and 9 we're very excited about that. We had actually 10 Governor McGreevey up here twice last year, and 11 his quote was, "Through a partnership between 12 state government, businesses and the 13 environmental community, we've again proven 14 that we can protect our environment and its 15 sensitive resources while still allowing 16 economic development and growth to move 17 forward". 18 So that's really the story that we 19 have. We think we can create this economic 20 tourism based core, while at the same time 21 preserving the environment. And we think they 22 feed off of each other, because the reason 23 people are going to come to Vernon is for the 24 environment. So we need to protect the 25 environment, and that's really what we're GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 173 1 trying to do and look at it wholistically. 2 It's been a number of years. We've got -- half 3 the room back here is filled with professionals 4 that we've spent money on to try to get the 5 best information and the latest knowledge as we 6 pursue this. 7 So I appreciate your consideration. 8 And hopefully we can address any concerns that 9 you may have. 10 Thank you. 11 MS. BYERS: Members of the 12 Committee, comments, questions? 13 MR. FISHER: On the wastewater 14 plant they're actually conveying the wastewater 15 to Sussex County to treat it to groundwater 16 standards then pump it back and discharge, or 17 is it going to be treated when it gets back? 18 MAYOR LOGAN: We have some of our 19 professionals. Why don't you come up here, if 20 you don't mind. 21 MR. CERENZIO: My name is Peter 22 Cerenzio. I'm with the firm of Cerenzio and 23 Pinero. 24 The criteria that was established 25 based on studies that the town had done GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 174 1 initially was that any wastewater would have to 2 be returned to the aquifer. So with that as a 3 criteria we looked at a number of alternative 4 ways of achieving that. And we found that the 5 most viable way and the most economically 6 feasible way was to convey it to the existing 7 Upper Wallkill Treatment Plant, and treat that 8 flow separately from the rest of the flow to a 9 higher level; class 2A groundwater standards. 10 Return it after it's treated back to a site 11 that we've located upgradient of the portion of 12 the aquifer where the water will be taken and 13 recharge the aquifer with all of the water that 14 will be utilized. 15 MR. FISHER: To a disposal bed of 16 some sort? 17 MR. CERENZIO: Yes. It will be 18 disposal beds, actually. We looked at a number 19 of different ways of recharging the aquifer; we 20 met with DEP, and they preferred disposal beds 21 to any other method. 22 MR. FISHER: And that was more 23 economical than treating it at the place? 24 MR. CERENZIO: Yes. We looked at 25 the costs of a new treatment plant in the area GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 175 1 to provide that treatment capacity. We looked 2 at the costs of acquiring a local treatment 3 plant, a privately owned treatment plant, and 4 it became the most economical way and the least 5 risk way financially of accomplishing it. And 6 we just felt that from a technical standpoint 7 it was the best means because that treatment 8 plant is well staffed with people who know what 9 they're doing. With lab technicians, with 10 electricians, and every kind of level of 11 expertise you need and that it can be properly 12 treated on a 24-hour basis there. 13 MR. ESKILSON: That alternative was 14 selected as a result of the consumptive 15 depletive analysis that was done as part of the 16 wastewater plan amendment? 17 MR. CERENZIO: Yes. 18 MR. ESKILSON: And that was part of 19 the EO-109 analysis? 20 MR. CERENZIO: Exactly. That was 21 the first thing we did. Before we even looked 22 at means to treat it, we looked at that, at 23 that depletive consumptive analysis. And 24 actually it was Vernon's consulting engineer, 25 Killam Associates, who did that analysis. And GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 176 1 as a result determined that to maintain the 2 base flow in Black Creek during drought 3 conditions that we would need to return all of 4 the effluent and recharge the aquifer at that 5 point. 6 And once when had that criteria 7 established, then the next step was to locate a 8 site that we can do that. And so that was the 9 next step. We located through quite a few 10 studies that were done, and quite a bit of 11 money was spent to locate a suitable site. 12 Once that was located, then the next step was 13 to determine the method of treatment; and we 14 looked at a whole host of options for that. 15 MR. ESKILSON: And that's received 16 County 208 approval at this point? 17 MR. CERENZIO: Yes. It received 18 the 208 pack approval. It went to the Board of 19 Freeholders; they approved it. It's been 20 forwarded to DEP. I believe Alan Chang is in 21 the process of reviewing it right now. And, in 22 fact, we've met with Terry Polarski (ph.) and 23 the groundwater discharge people. We've had a 24 number of pre-application meetings. And the 25 formal application to discharge the groundwater GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 177 1 at that site will be submitted in about two 2 weeks. 3 MR. ESKILSON: And the Center 4 boundary is identical to the wastewater sewer 5 service area? 6 MR. CERENZIO: That's correct. 7 MR. FISHER: I don't have anything 8 else. 9 I think what looks so good about 10 this proposal for the Center is the fact that 11 they've really concentrated on residential, 12 nonresidential development for the future in 13 the Center, and contemplated that trade off and 14 density. Whereas the residential potential 15 outside the Center, even though it's 3,500 16 acres, is almost municipal. In terms of 17 protecting the environment and environs, it 18 looks like it's there; they're concentrating on 19 growth that this facility obviously will 20 attract. And I think from a design standpoint 21 and all the other issues that Paul mentioned it 22 looks good. 23 MR. ESKILSON: Question for the 24 Mayor. 25 John, there is some commitment on GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 178 1 the part of DOT for funding the Route 94 2 improvement; is that the case? 3 MAYOR LOGAN: Yes. Absolutely. I 4 believe the number was in the area of 5 $4,500,000 over a period of time to provide 6 upgrades in front of -- in that area of 7 Mountain Creek, as well as the Town Center, the 8 Town Center Core to facilitate smooth traffic 9 flow. 10 MR. ESKILSON: That was reconfirmed 11 by Commissioner Lettiere? 12 MAYOR LOGAN: It was reconfirmed by 13 Commissioner Lettiere. It originated a year 14 ago -- two years ago. 15 MR. LEWIS: Let me just add to 16 that, Michelle. I certainly can confirm that. 17 My comments about the Center 18 Petition were going to be very favorable 19 because I think we're very comfortable with it 20 proceeding, and just bring up the point of the 21 funding commitment to make those up to 22 $4,500,000 improvements along Route 94. That's 23 going to be subject to a project agreement that 24 we're in the process of working out with the 25 town and Intrawest Corporation. And that GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 179 1 commitment does come with two conditions. And 2 one of them is that there be a pursuit of Smart 3 Growth planning; which I think the Center 4 Designation perfectly fits in and complements. 5 But I think what we would be 6 looking for in the PIA, Plan Implementation 7 Agenda, is just a simple commitment that the 8 town pursue a petition for Plan Endorsement at 9 some time in the future. And the other 10 condition in the letter is the pursuit of an 11 access management plan along 94 which we talked 12 about before, and that's going to be subject to 13 the details of the project agreement. So I 14 think we've already incorporated that in the 15 PIA. 16 So I think with those simple 17 conditions, I think the Center Petition, the 18 Center Designation should go forward. And I 19 think that sets the stage for the provision of 20 the commitment and once we work out the details 21 for that and the time table. 22 MAYOR LOGAN: We're on board with 23 all three of your conditions. 24 MR. ESKILSON: Can I just add what 25 I mentioned earlier when Michelle brought this GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 180 1 up. 2 If, in fact, the County Plan is 3 endorsed sometime in the next year, let's say, 4 and if, in fact, Vernon Township is shown to be 5 consistent with that plan, I assume that would 6 satisfy the requirements pursuing Plan 7 Endorsement? 8 MAYOR LOGAN: I think that's what 9 we have to look at. And I think that your 10 developing the Strategic Regional Plan 11 certainly sets the stage for that. 12 MR. ESKILSON: Again, I think for 13 the regional plans to have any kind of meaning 14 that's bear minimum, that we have to have those 15 kind of conditions in this. In fact, if local 16 plans are consistent with the endorsed regional 17 plan, that confers upon them some level of 18 endorsement; endorsement to proceed under an 19 agreement with DOT. 20 I think we have a real opportunity 21 here with this center application to deal with 22 some of the PIA issues that we've been talking 23 about; quantifiable measure. We have a real 24 opportunity here. 25 And I agree with what Jim is GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 181 1 saying; I'd like a little more meat on that 2 bone. I don't want to hold things up for 3 that. But I think we are in this case, unlike 4 the Sparta PIA, I think we are moving in the 5 right direction. 6 MS. BYERS: Well, let me just ask. 7 You said Plan Endorsement some time in the 8 future. Center Petition, Center Designations 9 are good for six years, and I assume that the 10 county plan being completed this year and a 11 movement towards Plan Endorsement would even be 12 sooner than six years. 13 So rather than just have your 14 condition, Jim, be some time in the future, 15 wouldn't you want to say -- 16 MR. LEWIS: I think we had put out 17 on the table within one year, that there would 18 be a petition for planned endorsement. 19 MS. BYERS: Okay. 20 MR. LEWIS: The process started. 21 And, of course, I acknowledge John's comments 22 because we don't know where the County Plan is 23 going to come out, and that's certainly going 24 to need to be looked at with what the town has 25 already done. And I think the Township has GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 182 1 done considerable -- made considerable progress 2 in protecting the environs, which Paul has 3 recounted in his report. So I think those 4 things need to be packaged together to present 5 us a full picture that we're all going to be 6 comfortable with in just meeting the 7 Commissioner's conditions. 8 MR. FISHER: Better yet, following 9 up on your comment about the County Regional 10 Plan, whatever that's called, why don't we make 11 it within a year of the release of that so that 12 they have time to digest what's being 13 recommended from that Strategic Plan and give 14 them a little bit more flexibility. 15 MS. BYERS: I think as long as the 16 point is made that this is only one step, and 17 that Plan Endorsement is the outcome that we're 18 working towards, then I think that makes sense. 19 MR. ESKILSON: Plan Endorsement on 20 the regional and county plan is playing an 21 important role. 22 MR. ZELLNER: I'd just like to add 23 that we do envision that these local plans are 24 consistent with regional plans, and the 25 regional plan will come in together as an GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 183 1 umbrella. 2 MR. ESKILSON: If nothing else, it 3 provides a practical opportunity for you to 4 off-load some work to us. Not that we need it 5 of. 6 MR. TEOLIS: Does it change in any 7 what we need to be doing right now with DOT 8 with regard to the access management plan, or 9 are we waiting out for the County Management 10 Plan? 11 MR. LEWIS: No. The Access 12 Management Plan needs to start to unfold itself 13 between you and us about how that's actually 14 going to take place. I think the commitment to 15 pursue that is what we're talking about in the 16 PIA. How it operationally proceeds, we need to 17 work those details out. 18 MR. PURDIE: Paul, we had some 19 discussions previously about tweaking the 20 boundary and all that. 21 The southern area off to the right, 22 the south east side, was that -- I guess it 23 backs up to Hidden Valley; is that actually in 24 the wastewater service plan? 25 MR. DRAKE: I'm not sure. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 184 1 MR. PURDIE: I thought we had 2 talked about turning that back -- 3 MR. DRAKE: Originally it was much 4 larger. I can show you another version of this 5 same boundary; it was actually much larger. We 6 actually did trim this back. It went up to as 7 far as this slope right here, and we took that 8 area out on your recommendation. 9 MR. PURDIE: Then that doesn't seem 10 to match the wastewater boundary, then, along 11 that whole side. 12 MR. DRAKE: Where is that? 13 MR. PURDIE: I guess from the red 14 field up there on the right-hand side. 15 MS. BYERS: Is that out of the 16 wastewater management? 17 MR. PURDIE: That's out. Out of 18 existing. 19 MR. ESKILSON: Was it approved by 20 county 208? 21 Based on what the Department has 22 approved, my question is with respect to the 23 wastewater boundaries that were recently 24 approved, a center match. 25 MR. BROWN: I wouldn't know. I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 185 1 think that's one of the things we wanted to 2 resolve. 3 MS. BYERS: Bill and Rick, what 4 outstanding issues are there from your 5 perspective on this petition, and what still 6 needs to be done? 7 MR. PURDIE: Over all, it's the 8 same thing with Sparta. We still have the 9 regional issues with the water supply, and the 10 Wallkill, and current allocations. And just 11 the sort of two ships passing in the night; 12 this petition and the County information. If 13 we can plug that in to see what the growth 14 projections are in the future for that, that's 15 all going to be accommodated. So that's our 16 over arching issue; we seem to be missing that 17 opportunity. 18 MR. BROWN: To add to what Bill 19 said. We have a concern, and same concern 20 about Sparta that OSG had suggested that towns 21 encourage and institute TDR. We think TDR is a 22 great idea, but there's a caveat in the report 23 that says provided that there's adequate sewer 24 capacity. And part of the problem up here in 25 both of these towns is that there really isn't GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 186 1 adequate sewer capacity, and both of them are 2 going to have to deal with this issue. And I 3 think we'd like to see TDR as more of an 4 integral component of the centers with their 5 existing capacities as they are now, or with 6 the capacities as they are proposed. 7 It seems, I guess in my view, a 8 little disingenuous to say do TDR, see if you 9 can get more sewer capacity. I think we'd like 10 to try and work with the towns on what they 11 have today and what they're proposing today and 12 try to get a little more -- transfer some of 13 the development from outside and the environs 14 into the Center, and take more advantage of 15 what they have today. 16 But these are things that we 17 believe we can work with Paul and the Vernon 18 Township folks between now and when the 19 commission would meet again. 20 MR. FISHER: That's as long as the 21 TDR can be setup so that it can adjust later to 22 presume the higher density. The whole 23 construct of the TDR ordinance is going to be 24 based on these numbers and the Town Center 25 density, and if you change that later on, it GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 187 1 really upsets the whole ordinance. 2 MR. BROWN: From my concern more 3 like why -- we shouldn't say do TDR if you can 4 get more capacity if getting more capacity is a 5 problem. I think it creates like a false 6 impression. Oh, they're going to do TDR. 7 Well, if they really can't do TDR, or they're 8 not doing it right now, we shouldn't pretend 9 like they are going to do it, or they could do 10 it in the future. 11 MR. FISHER: But you need adequate 12 density to make it work, though. 13 MR. BROWN: Yes. Exactly. 14 One other thing to add, there's an 15 existing category one stream, the northeastern 16 portion of the Center. And again, what we 17 intend to do is in PIA, we are going to 18 recommend that the town essentially -- we'll 19 give the town the idea where the stream is, and 20 same with Sparta, make people aware that 21 there's a category one stream there, and the 22 proposed rules would place a buffer of up to 23 300 foot around that stream, even though it's 24 largely developed right now. So it will really 25 only largely effect redevelopment of those GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 188 1 areas. 2 MS. BYERS: Just a question for 3 both of you in terms of timing and resolving 4 some of these issues. 5 What are we looking at, weeks or 6 months, or do you see them as longer term 7 issues that need to be resolved as we head 8 toward Planned Endorsement? 9 MR. BROWN: The big issue with the 10 TDR is the longer term. Hopefully in the short 11 term we can get some of the wastewater stuff 12 resolved. The Department is actually 13 undergoing review. As the manager mentioned, 14 Al Chang of our staff actually has the plan 15 amendment up under review. 16 In a perfect world we'd have all 17 these answers nailed down in time for this 18 meeting, but it's not perfect, so... 19 MS. BYERS: And one of the issues, 20 I guess, is the reconciliation between the 21 wastewater management boundary and the Center 22 boundary. 23 MR. BROWN: We can do that pretty 24 safely. 25 MR. ESKILSON: You mentioned need GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 189 1 for information from the County. 2 What is it specifically you're 3 looking for in the next week that would help 4 with this decision, or help you resolve this 5 matter? 6 MR. PURDIE: I don't think it's 7 something we need next week. I'm just talking 8 about long-term. And I guess the strategies 9 for the entire Wallkill, and how to plug in 10 those projections, and build-out into water 11 supply remaining allocation and all. But, no, 12 that wouldn't fit into that now as far as this 13 goes. 14 MR. BROWN: We very much want to 15 see the County Plan. Part of this is that we 16 have to fend off criticism that this is a 17 piecemeal approach to planning in the County by 18 approving these centers without the overall 19 County Plan. So from our standpoint, the 20 sooner we see the county plan, the sooner -- 21 MR. ESKILSON: You're absolutely 22 right. We have a rule; we set that rule; we're 23 inside that rule; and these guys are operating 24 under that rule; and we need to finish that. 25 And in August of this year everything changes, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 190 1 if that stands up, and I assume it will, and 2 then we have a different animal. But for now 3 we have some rules, these guys are playing by 4 the rules, so I don't think it's fair again, as 5 in the Sparta case, to make these guys wait on 6 the County Plan, which may or may not be 7 forthcoming this summer. 8 MAYOR LOGAN: I think it also 9 should be added from a population standpoint 10 between Vernon and Sparta you're talking about 11 almost a third of the county right away. So 12 we're in a sense kind of, John is handling the 13 County, but we're addressing components that 14 are ultimately going to be your County Plan 15 right here. 16 MS. BYERS: So I think we're in the 17 same boat as the Sparta petition, and that is 18 that we're wanting to move forward because of 19 the commitment that we made, and we want to 20 treat all of those commitments fairly, but we 21 also are acknowledging that there's a County 22 Plan that has yet to be endorsed or approved by 23 the State Planning Commission, and there's a 24 Planned Endorsement Process that's about to 25 kick in; so whatever is approved as a center GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 191 1 today is going to be subject to any changes 2 that come about through the County Plan and 3 through Planned Endorsement. 4 So this is not a fixed Center 5 Designation, and there may be some changes 6 since we are at the moment not able to look at 7 the center regional context, but we will at a 8 later date. 9 Any other comments from the 10 Committee or questions? 11 I'd like to -- anything else, 12 Mayor? I'd like to go to the public and get 13 public comment. 14 MR. BROWN: Michele, one question 15 real quick, and it has to do with the 16 conclusions in the back. And perhaps Ms. Lang 17 can mention what this is. 18 But in the comments and 19 recommendations it talks about an ag advisory 20 committee should consider resulting impact of 21 Town Center. And then down there, one of the 22 bullet items is planning techniques to channel 23 growth and to mixed-used compact development 24 farms. 25 What is a mixed-use compact GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 192 1 development farm, and what are we agreeing to? 2 MS. LANG: What page are you on, 3 Rick? 4 MR. BROWN: Page 8 of 8. 5 MR. ESKILSON: It's probably a 6 typo. It's probably forms. 7 MR. BROWN: Okay. 8 MS. LANG: You didn't know; that's 9 a whole new farmland preservation. 10 (Whereupon, a discussion was held 11 off the record.) 12 MAYOR LOGAN: Could I clarify one 13 thing. I know there was some confusion about 14 the boundary. 15 The wastewater -- the sewered area 16 is actually smaller than the Town Center 17 boundary. So I just want to make that clear. 18 It's not the same. We don't have a plan to 19 extend it at this point in time. 20 MS. BYERS: We need to get those 21 mappings straightened out. 22 MR. BROWN: We'll work to do that. 23 MS. BYERS: Members of the public. 24 MS. BAKER-SKAFIDAS: Good 25 afternoon. My name is Kathy Baker-Skafidas. I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 193 1 am a consultant for the Vernon Civic 2 Association. Just to give a little 3 background. For five years now -- I resigned 4 last fall to become a full-time mom, but these 5 past five years I was director of an 6 environmental nonprofit called Skylands Clean 7 in Passaic County, western parts of Bergen 8 County, and parts of Morris and Sussex County. 9 So I've been before the PIC on many occasions 10 in the past; and this is the first time under 11 the McGreevey administration that I've been 12 back. 13 I was asked -- my clients asked me 14 to come down today and discuss some issues. 15 And I'm hearing now, too, that there's a big 16 discussion on sewers. Currently there's 17 210,000 gallons per day generated in the 18 Township of Vernon. There's 170,000 gallons 19 that are allocated elsewhere in the Township, 20 which totals about 380,000 gallons per day that 21 is a plan in the works in the Township. For 22 this Town Center Plan they are looking for 23 approximately 265,000 gallons per day. And 24 there's a little bit discrepancy between the 25 sewer amendment plan in February, that just GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 194 1 came out in February, and the Town Center Plan 2 that's asking for 315,000 gallons per day. So 3 we were wondering where the 50,000 difference 4 was coming. 5 We were also -- I also spoke with 6 Alan Chang at the DEP. We are concerned that 7 out of -- there are 21 lots considered at the 8 wastewater management amendment of this 9 February that were outside the sewer service 10 area. Only three of them were undeveloped and 11 had any executive order 109 analyses done on 12 them. And that was a concern to us, a grave 13 concern because it basically takes 166,000 14 gallons that are going to be generated by 15 Mountain Creek Intrawest that were not approved 16 under the 1997 sewer amendment plan. The 17 mountain overlay zone that will allow the 18 development at Mountain Creek was approved 19 after the 1997 sewer amendment; sometime I 20 believe around 2000, 2001. 21 So we brought this to the attention 22 I think a week or two weeks ago to Alan Chang; 23 and he was going to go back to Cerenzio and 24 Pinero, the consultants to the Township, and 25 acquire this information. So therefore it was GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 195 1 just -- it's a lot of wastewater. And to only 2 be doing executive order 109 on three lots is 3 just ridiculous. 4 And one of the other concerns that 5 we had is that in the Wastewater Management 6 Plan it totaled that eventually Vernon is 7 looking to have a total allocation of 645,000 8 gallons in their February, 2000 plan. Not 9 being applied for now, but it's assumed that 10 eventually Vernon is going to get to that point 11 of 645,000 gallons. That's a lot more sewerage 12 than the Town Center requires. That means that 13 that's going to be lot of sewers into the 14 environs. And as a consultant to Vernon Civic 15 Association I thought it was very important to 16 bring that point to the PIC here today because 17 I think that we're looking at a lot more growth 18 in Vernon than what is actually being talked 19 about in the Center Petition. 20 Another thing that came to my 21 attention was in the last three or four weeks 22 the Legends Resort Facility, which is partially 23 within the Town Center and partially within and 24 without the community development boundary, 25 just received an endorsement from the Township GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 196 1 of Vernon Council within the last couple of 2 weeks for a sewer resolution to allow this 3 facility to move forward. They have an 4 existing package treatment plan of 20,000 5 gallons per day, and are looking, I believe, to 6 expand to approximately 500,000 gallons per 7 day. They're currently -- this resort facility 8 is currently before the Zoning Board for 674 9 townhouses. And, again, this is not in the 10 Town Center Plan; and this is a lot of 11 development happening in planning area five 12 that's not being discussed in the plan. 13 Another concern that we had was in 14 the natural constraints -- under the natural 15 constraints section of their Town Center Plan. 16 Back in 1997 under the Township's code 7:17, 17 the Vernon Land Use Subcode they adopted a 18 scenic vistas and a 15% percent slope 19 ordinance. This was, again, adopted in 1997. 20 Then in I believe it was 2000, 2001, Mountain 21 Creek or Intrawest received a mountain resorts 22 overlay zone which allows for more housing 23 developments on this property. And in 24 actuality it basically takes this 15% slope 25 ordinance and the scenic vistas ordinance and GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 197 1 it totally neutralizes it. 2 And they're basically trying to -- 3 I believe the plan said that they were going to 4 be -- I'd have to look again. There's a couple 5 hundred developments that are planned for this 6 property. And let me take a look and see 7 exactly what the number was. Okay 430 units. 8 And this was -- this is in their CR zone, which 9 is 1.5 units per acre. So, again, you know, 10 it's just -- they tout that they're 11 environmental stewards of this critical 12 landscape that we're talking about up there; 13 and, again, they're rezoning in recent years to 14 permit these 430 units on I believe it was 600 15 acres. And it, again, shows that the Township 16 I believe is a little bit more pro-development 17 than what they're actually touting in their 18 Town Center Plan. Instead of doing an overlay 19 zone, they should have amended the Master Plan 20 and created a new zone that way, which probably 21 would have been a little bit more lawful. 22 Another concern that the Vernon 23 Civic Association has is the discussion of 24 down-zoning. They're talking, you know, 25 potentially five to ten acres. Vernon has had GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 198 1 many years to put down-zoning in place. As in 2 my prior job working for Skylands Clean, we 3 were working in townships like Wanaque, 4 Bloomingdale, West Milford where there were 5 different things that were placed into the 6 Planning Implementation schedule and that were 7 never adhered to. And we believe that this 8 down-zoning -- TDR's are very difficult to get 9 off the ground. And this is one of the reasons 10 why we believe that the Township should be 11 forced to look at Plan Endorsement rather than 12 a Town Center Plan because you really need to 13 look at the whole entire Township. You need to 14 put the zoning in place prior to getting town 15 center endorsement. 16 Another example of -- they're 17 touting that they're active in open space 18 preservation and acquisition. There's a farm 19 in the Township off of 94 called the Van 20 Dockenberg Farm (ph.) which is an eco 21 agricultural zone. It's a current farm right 22 now that the Township is talking about swapping 23 it with a preserved town park to became ball 24 fields. So the farm will become a ball field, 25 and the town park will become condos. And, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 199 1 again, this is just something that we wanted to 2 bring to your attention. And it's not 3 something that's being discussed at all in the 4 Town Center Plan. It's something that's been 5 swept under the carpet. 6 Also in the town center document 7 versus the sewer amendment plan that was just 8 submitted in February; in the sewer plan 9 amendment it states that they are trying to 10 obtain 200,000 square feet of commercial 11 building spaces; and in the Town Center Plan 12 it's 170,000 square feet of commercial space. 13 We were wondering what it's going to be. It's 14 not a huge difference, but it's something that 15 we need to be clarified. 16 Also under section 52, which is the 17 build-out analysis table, it talks about their 18 R-1 and their R-2 zones, which are in the 19 environs. The R-1 zone has over 1,300 acres. 20 And they're talking that it's only going to 21 yield 22 units. They're also talking the R-2 22 zone, which is again a two-acre zone, it has 23 over 1,500 acres in the environs that's 24 undeveloped; and they're saying that if it were 25 to be developed, it would only yield 70 units. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 200 1 And we just don't understand; we've been over 2 the numbers. Those numbers just don't match; 3 and these are the numbers that are in the Town 4 Center Plan. 5 So it's giving -- by saying that 6 you have over 3,000 acres that's in the 7 environs on R-1 and R-2 and it's only going to 8 yield 92 units, that's just not going to 9 happen. There's going to be a lot more units 10 that comes out of those once it comes before 11 the Planning Board, whether it's waivers or 12 variances or what have you. So that's also a 13 major concern that the Association has. 14 On top of that, it's our 15 understanding that the Township has not 16 submitted a COAH petition for round two to the 17 Council on Affordable Housing. The staff 18 recommendations that Paul Drake wrote said they 19 have received certification; they have not, as 20 far as we have been told. They have not 21 received certification. This plan should not 22 move forward until they have put in place round 23 two locations and sites, and they should also 24 put into place vacant properties or future land 25 holdings, or what have you, for round three. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 201 1 This needs to be a plan that is a 2 vision for the future; it is not a vision for 3 what happened two years ago or four years ago. 4 It's something that you want to contain the 5 development in the center; you want to protect 6 the environs. You want to know what the 7 build-out of this Township is going to be in 8 this plan, and it just clearly is not there. 9 I've been looking at a lot of 10 development numbers because the residents that 11 I'm working for attend these Planning Board 12 meetings and Zoning Board meetings, and there's 13 things going on in the town that the Township 14 is not telling you about. 15 Also the Township hired I believe 16 it was Killam Associates to do a water balance 17 study. Vernon Civic Association, and I have 18 the documents here, has hired a 19 geo-environmental research to do a rebuttal or 20 critique of the water balance study. 21 We believe that it has not proven 22 sufficient water resources for full build-out 23 for the entire Township. It uses Ringwood 24 Creek, which is in Ringwood, New Jersey, 25 Passaic County, which is a vastly different GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 202 1 rivering system. The Black Creek Basin, which 2 is in Vernon, has higher and steeper slopes, 3 has different surface water hydrology, 4 different soils, different geology. It flows 5 naturally. The Ringwood Creek has two sewerage 6 treatment plants upstream from the plant in 7 Sterling Forest, New York. And it also has 8 regulated flows because of that. And it also 9 is a stream gauge station area; it has a dam. 10 So for many of those reasons, we 11 have brought down a copy of the critique; it's 12 quite lengthy. We'd like a water professional 13 at the PIC here to take a look at the findings 14 that the VCA has pulled together. In addition 15 to that the consultant that the Vernon Civic 16 Association hired to critique this plan 17 discusses at its published data on aquifer 18 parameters that was completely ignored. 19 Drought conditions; record drought conditions 20 were not used when they simulated low 21 precipitation periods. Aquifer recharge was 22 not examined for future or proposed 23 developments. 24 And, again, back to the same thing; 25 we're looking at a Town Center Plan that is GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 203 1 very short sighted. It's not looking at 2 potential developments. We're talking about 3 something like 675,000 gallons eventually that 4 Vernon hopes one or many sewerage treatment 5 plants will be picked up. And that's a lot of 6 development in planning area 5. 7 The public needs to know what the 8 ultimate build-out is now and what's going to 9 be approved. Because it can't be small little 10 things that continue to trickle into the 11 township through the years. I found personally 12 that the PIC does a great job, and the Office 13 of Smart Growth does a great, but you are not 14 enforcers, and you are not always enforcers. 15 And you can't hold their feet to the fire when 16 dealing with their planning and implementation 17 schedule, and with a lot of other things that 18 they have verbally committed to; it just 19 doesn't always happen. 20 Also the McAfee section in the Town 21 Center Plan is considered for a future town 22 center. The Vernon Civic Association is 23 concerned with this area because the Black 24 Creek is on the 303-D list for water impairment 25 for high fecal and high phosphorous. And we GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 204 1 are concerned that one more center, another 2 center, and West Milford had up until a couple 3 years ago 13 centers and villages and hamlets, 4 and now they've moved back down to one center. 5 So it's a concern that it's this continual -- 6 it just looks like there's a continual need for 7 expansion. 8 We do agree in the staff report 9 that the Township should do a wellhead 10 protection plan; and that should be in place in 11 the next year or two. But all in all we 12 believe that the petition should be postponed. 13 It should be made to conform to the Plan 14 Endorsement criteria. Vernon seems to not be 15 forthcoming with proposed developments, actual 16 sewer amendments, the overlay zone, current 17 open space and farmland, swapping and 18 dismantling. And affordable housing has not at 19 all been addressed. And for those reasons we 20 are very concerned. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 23 Kathy raised a lot of issues, 24 Mayor. Would you like to respond? 25 MAYOR LOGAN: Well, what I would GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 205 1 like to do is take advantage of our bevy of 2 experts that we have here today. I'd like to 3 ask Stuart Koenig to come up and address the 4 mountain overlay zone issues that were raised. 5 Stuart, if you could. 6 MR. KOENIG: I heard a legal 7 opinion given, but I didn't hear there was a 8 lawyer in the room giving the opinion. There 9 was a question raised about the propriety of an 10 overlay zone of the Mountain Creek 11 Development. 12 The overlay zone is a perfectly 13 valid way to do a development of that nature. 14 An overlay providing for a zoning configuration 15 of a development over the underlying zoning 16 base; it's a simple process. COAH even 17 recognizes it as a tool to be used. It's 18 perfectly legal and valid. 19 MAYOR LOGAN: Thanks. 20 Thank you, Stuart. 21 Anybody have any questions for 22 Stuart? 23 Pete Cerenzio, perhaps he can speak 24 to some of the allocation questions that came. 25 MR. CERENZIO: I think the easiest GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 206 1 way to respond is to basically explain what 2 we're proposing. Because there are a lot of 3 numbers thrown around, which I think were a 4 little bit confused. And I'll try to do it 5 without pulling graphics out and see how it 6 goes. 7 Right now the existing sewer area 8 in Vernon Township is served by the Vernon 9 Sewerage Transmission Company, which is a 10 private utility, which discharges to the 11 existing Upper Wallkill Plant. That private 12 utility has an allocation of 380,000 gallons a 13 day at the Wallkill plant to provide service to 14 Vernon Township. Right now the flows from the 15 sewer area, which is predominantly the Stone 16 Hill Condominium Development, Great Gorge 17 Condominium Development, Mountain Creek North 18 and South ski areas, and some other ancillary 19 facilities. And it totals about 210,000 20 gallons a day; a little higher when there's 21 rain, but that's approximately what it is. 22 The remainder of the 380 is 23 allocated in various ways. Mountain Creek has 24 approximately 72,000 gallons per day of that 25 380. And the rest is allocated to various GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 207 1 developments for fill in, and some other things 2 that are planned within the existing sewered 3 area. So all of that allocation is called 4 for. So that's a grand total 380,000 gallons 5 per day. That will continue to flow to the 6 Wallkill Plant. 7 The flow -- the additional flow 8 that is required for the Vernon Center area, 9 the 515, 94 area is about 99,000 gallons per 10 day; and Mountain Creek needs another 166,000 11 gallons per day, on top of the 72 that it has 12 within the existing allocation. And that 13 totals 265,000 gallons per day. That is what 14 is being proposed to be conveyed to the 15 Wallkill Plant, and then brought back for a 16 groundwater recharge. 17 So, yes, the grand total is 18 whatever 380 and 265 add up to, but all of that 19 380, the 380 that is allocated to the Wallkill 20 Plant is already called for, and it's within 21 the existing sewer service area. And 22 predominantly those developments already 23 possess treatment works approval permits from 24 DEP, and all of the other necessary approvals. 25 Relative to the Legends Plant, the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 208 1 new plant that was discussed -- or the existing 2 plant that was discussed. It's going to get a 3 renewal of its existing permit. The existing 4 permit allows it to discharge 350,000 gallons 5 per day. During the summer months it's spray 6 irrigated; in the winter months it goes to 7 Black Creek. The new permit that's being 8 issued is for the same 350,000 gallons per day; 9 it's not being expanded. Within that 350,000 10 gallons per day it will serve the existing 11 Legends Hotel, which it has for many years, and 12 it will serve that 640 unit development that 13 was addressed. But that is not an increase in 14 the permitted flow; that has been permitted for 15 that amount for many years. That's basically 16 what's being proposed. Nothing more than 17 that. 18 As part of the Town Center 19 Petition, and I don't believe the Legends 20 Treatment Plant is part of that; it's a 21 separate entity. It's a privately owned 22 treatment plant. And this new approval that's 23 being given as to form a utility to own that 24 plant. Right now the Legends Plant is owned by 25 the hotel. In order to serve the hotel and GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 209 1 that other development, they need to develop a 2 public utility. And that's the recent approval 3 that's been given, to convert it from a 4 privately owned plant to a public utility. 5 So in a nutshell that's what's 6 being proposed; nothing different than has been 7 discussed all along in the petition. And 8 unless you spend some time looking at the 9 numbers, there can be a lot of confusion in the 10 numbers, but I assure that's all that's being 11 proposed. 12 MAYOR LOGAN: Anybody have any 13 questions for Pete? 14 MR. OSIAS: Can I add to that also, 15 John? 16 MAYOR LOGAN: Yes. 17 MR. OSIAS: Gene Osias, O-s-i-a-s. 18 Health Director for Vernon Township. 19 On the Legends, I just want to 20 correct something Pete said. He said it had to 21 do with the ability to serve the units that are 22 proposed. That's not correct. It could have 23 actually stayed in private ownership and served 24 the homes. It was the Township that felt that 25 it would be better served if it's a utility GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 210 1 under BPU authority, and that's why they gave 2 approval for that to move forward. It could 3 have moved forward the way it was and a private 4 utility could have served those homes, but it 5 serves Vernon Township's ability much better if 6 it's a utility under BPU authority. 7 MR. TEOLIS: I'd also like to add 8 something else to that. I believe it's 670 9 units that are being proposed were the result 10 of a prior approval from long ago. Vernon did 11 challenge that approval, and we came out on the 12 negative side. So it is now before the Zoning 13 Board, and it's under the jurisdiction of the 14 MLUL. It's nothing that we have power over. 15 And to what Pete Cerenzio had just 16 mentioned, it isn't the part of the Town Center 17 designated area for the very reason that we do 18 not want to expand into the environs in that 19 section of town. So we kept that in mind when 20 we came up with the boundary in that area. 21 MAYOR LOGAN: Segue from water 22 going out to water going in. Tom Grau, there's 23 some questions about the water balance study 24 that you did for Killam. 25 I actually have a copy of a GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 211 1 rebuttal report that you produced back in 2 January of last year in response to that. 3 Maybe that should go into the record. 4 MR. GRAU: I guess regarding the 5 Wastewater Management Plan issues. The 6 Wastewater Management Plan that we prepared on 7 Vernon's behalf in February addressed three 8 issues that needed to be modified from the 9 presently approved Vernon Wastewater Management 10 Plan. And the Vernon plan, by the way, is 11 encompassed in the county-wide Wastewater 12 Management Plan. 13 Number one, we're proposing to 14 modify the sewer service area around the Vernon 15 Town Core area that Mr. Drake spoke about at 16 the outset. That involved the addition of the 17 21 lots to the presently approved sewer service 18 area; 18 of those lots are already developed; 3 19 were undeveloped. So Wastewater Management 20 Plan proposed that modification to the 21 boundaries of the sewer service area. And that 22 encompassed, like I said, only the area 23 surrounding the Vernon Town Core area. 24 The Mountain Creek project is 25 located entirely within approved sewer service GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 212 1 areas that are reflected in the presently 2 approved Vernon Township WMP, and also in the 3 County WMP. So no expansion of the sewer 4 service area is proposed or is contemplated for 5 the Mountain Creek project. 6 And Alan Chang did, in fact, call 7 us and ask us to respond and clarify those 8 issues. We put a letter together with tax maps 9 and the sewer service area maps to clarify 10 exactly where all those lots are and where the 11 wastewater will be originating from. 12 The issue of the 166,000 gallons 13 per day of additional wastewater treatment and 14 disposal capacity was not addressed by us from 15 an Executive Order 109 perspective, and that 16 was because that will be generated from 17 properties which are already within the 18 approved wastewater management area, sewer 19 service area. The Executive Order 109 analysis 20 was relegated only to the lots which we 21 proposed to add to the presently approved sewer 22 service area. And those are the 21 lots that I 23 mentioned earlier. 24 I think Pete Cerenzio addressed the 25 issue with the 645,000 gallons per day. Again, GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 213 1 it's not a monumental increase. There's 2 already an approval for 380,000 gallons per day 3 to be taken by the SCMUA facility with their 4 plant in Hardyston from Vernon Township. The 5 existing sewer service area of Vernon Township 6 treated and disposed of it to the Wallkill 7 River. The 265 which we are proposing to again 8 treat at the Upper Wallkill Plant and bring the 9 entirety of that back for discharge within 10 Vernon Township, within the sub-basin or 11 watershed that it's going to be generated 12 within was the subject of this WMP. And when 13 you add that to the 265 to the presently 14 approved 380, you come up with the 645. So the 15 increase is really just the 265,000 gallons per 16 day. And that was also reflected in the 17 Wastewater Management Plan Amendment. 18 And finally the site sight which 19 the treated wastewater will be discharged is 20 going to be located within Vernon. It's in 21 their presently approved sewer service area. 22 It's in the McAfee section of Vernon near the 23 intersection of Route 94 and 517. And that 24 site was also identified and part of the 25 Wastewater Management Plan Amendment that's GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 214 1 under review by the Bureau of Watershed 2 Management. 3 Regarding the water balance study; 4 the wastewater management element of this whole 5 Town Center Petition obviously was integral to 6 the viability of the petition before you. And 7 in recognition of that, Vernon commenced the 8 Wastewater Management Planning aspect of this 9 thing right at the outset. We've been at this 10 for five years now; since the end of 1998. And 11 one of the first studies which was done was 12 this water balance evaluation. And the subject 13 of it was really to evaluate whether it was 14 appropriate to simply extrapolate or expand the 15 present concept of taking wastewater generated 16 within the Black Creek section, or Black Creek 17 Basin of Vernon, bringing it to the Wallkill 18 Plant, treating it there, and potentially 19 discharging it to the Wallkill River. 20 DEP has an increasing concern with 21 exporting water from one sub-watershed, or one 22 basin to another. This report was prepared to 23 address that, and to attempt to quantify the 24 potential impacts associated with an 25 extrapolation of that wastewater treatment GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 215 1 concept. And the outcome of the study was that 2 it was recommended to bring the treated 3 wastewater back into the Black Creek Basin from 4 where it was generated in order to maintain 5 that balance. And that's, in fact, the plan 6 that has been pursued to this point in time and 7 is undergoing approval down at the DEP. 8 I think that was it. I have Bob 9 Starcher from my staff here who is the 10 groundwater hydrologist. Dr. Starcher did the 11 majority of the technical work and the computer 12 simulation with the water balance study. To 13 address a lot of the detailed comments that 14 were raised earlier, I think it's going to go 15 to a level that is going to be hard for most of 16 us around the table to grapple with. But as 17 the Mayor said, we did present a detailed 18 technical rebuttal to the critique that was 19 done of our water balance study, and that was 20 presented last January, I believe, and is 21 available for entering into the record. 22 MAYOR LOGAN: Thank you. 23 I asked Don to comment on the yield 24 and COAH. 25 MR. TEOLIS: As far as the zoning GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 216 1 was concerned there was a comment made that we 2 have 3,000 acres in our R-1 zone, and I believe 3 1,500 in the R-2 zone. And that it was 4 unrealistic to provide the outcome that is 5 specified in the petition with regard to 6 development in those areas. 7 I can tell you I have some numbers 8 here, and of the 67 building permits that were 9 issued last year in Vernon, six of them were in 10 an R-1 zone, and 19 of them were in an R-2 11 zone. That means that over half of those 67 12 were in the smaller areas, in the private lake 13 communities and R-4 zones and smaller lots. To 14 say that it's unrealistic to come up with a 15 figure of -- the figures that are there, and I 16 forget what the numbers were, I don't think 17 that is the case. 18 There are hardly any R-1 lots 19 available in Vernon now for development. There 20 are no applications on the table in that area 21 but for one, which includes, I believe, 9 22 lots. So we're looking right now at a 9 lot 23 subdivision pending in an R-1 zone. There are 24 hardly any left beyond that in the R-1 zone 25 that are practical for development. Because if GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 217 1 you look at the constraints involved in those 2 areas, there are ESA's and there are reasons 3 why they haven't been built on to date. The 4 R-2 was a little bit more popular for building; 5 and as I said there were 19 building permits 6 issued. But that is dwindling; if you look at 7 the numbers, you see less and less every year 8 for the same reason. That some of these lots 9 just aren't practical for building, and there 10 aren't many -- there is not a lot of clustered 11 acreage available for large subdivisions like 12 once occurred in Vernon say 10, 15, 20 years 13 ago. So that issue, I believe, is a little bit 14 unrealistic. 15 As far as COAH is concerned, I'm 16 pretty shocked to hear that the assumption is 17 that we haven't had anything going on with 18 COAH, that there's been no activity. Because 19 to the contrary we've been in contact with 20 Shawn Thompson quite often. We do have a plan 21 in place that Shawn is quite aware of; it has 22 to do with a piece of property across the 23 street from our municipal center. And short of 24 working out some of the issues with the 25 landowner, we are extremely close to being able GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 218 1 to effectuate our COAH plan. And I could 2 probably say that by next year we will be able 3 to move on that issue, so... 4 MR. DRAKE: Just for 5 clarification. It's correct that my report 6 indicated that Vernon was certified; it should 7 have reflected that Vernon's certification is 8 pending. We have had discussions with Shawn 9 Thompson ourselves at our office, and he 10 assured us that this Center Petition, that 11 their COAH certification is pending designation 12 as a Town Center. So basically they do work 13 hand-in-hand. And with discussions with him 14 the petition also reflects that. The center 15 for housing, affordable housing, COAH housing 16 is within the Town Center Plan area. 17 MS. BAKER-SKAFIDAS: What about 18 future sites for future rounds? 19 MR. TEOLIS: Well, the other 20 alternative for us, besides the parcel that I 21 just mentioned, is in the Town Center itself, 22 which is what Paul had mentioned in his 23 presentation. That's the secondary. That 24 would be another phase. 25 MS. BAKER-SKAFIDAS: And that's GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 219 1 been identified in the plan, the Town Center 2 Plan? 3 MR. TEOLIS: I believe it has. 4 Paul? 5 I believe we do mention the 6 three-story structures, the mixed uses that 7 we're proposing. The third story would be a 8 residential unit for use for COAH purposes and 9 low-income housing. So that would be a second 10 phase. 11 There are other parcels of land 12 that we do have in mind that are municipally 13 owned. We're not there yet, but we're 14 certainly considering them. 15 MS. BYERS: Continue. 16 MAYOR LOGAN: If I can just finish 17 up a couple points. There was one regarding 18 open space with a potential swap of land that 19 the town currently owns some land that we were 20 looking to build a park. We've lost a 21 significant usable chunk of that due to some 22 historical considerations. So now we have a 23 proposed swap with a piece of property that's 24 currently being farmed. I know there's the Van 25 Dockenberg track. We've had Mark Masalee (ph.) GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 220 1 Assistant DEP Commissioner of Natural Resources 2 walking the site with us. He was very enthused 3 about the potential for that site for a park. 4 The current piece of property that 5 we own had been zoned industrial. It is not 6 sewered. And the comment of it being filled 7 with condos at some point I think is highly 8 speculative. 9 In terms of down-zoning activities; 10 I personally am involved with that on the land 11 use subcommittee of the planning board. We're 12 looking to take our R-1 zone, which is 13 currently three acres, and move it up to five 14 acres; looking to move R-2 from two to three; 15 and we're looking to move some of the current 16 R-2 zoning into R-1. So we're actually in the 17 process of working that at the Planning Board 18 level. 19 I would note the irony that Dennis 20 Miranda who was the president of the Vernon 21 Civic Association, was also the chairman of 22 Vernon's Planning Board for a couple of years, 23 and I'm not aware of any activity toward 24 down-zoning during his time in that position. 25 So we are in the process of taking GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 221 1 action there, and I'm personally involved with 2 that. 3 MS. BAKER-SKAFIDAS: Is the ten 4 acre zoning being concerned? 5 MR. TEOLIS: Not at this point. 6 MR. KOENIG: I'm just going to say 7 this. 8 We gave common courtesy to the 9 folks who had the seat before. The Mayor is 10 answering the questions of the committee. I 11 would expect the same common courtesy; 12 questions should not be coming from the 13 audience to the folks testifying before the 14 Committee. If you want to have questions, 15 raise your hand and we'll recognize. 16 MS. BAKER-SKAFIDAS: That's fine. 17 I'm sorry. 18 MS. BYERS: Anything else, Mayor? 19 MAYOR LOGAN: I think we covered 20 it. 21 MS. BYERS: Thank you. I'd like to 22 continue with public comments, please. 23 MR. TITTLE: Jeff Tittle, New 24 Jersey Sierra Club. I'm actually going to try 25 to be brief. It's been a long day, and I still GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 222 1 haven't had any breakfast or lunch. Just one 2 of the problems that we get into at these kind 3 of meetings. I also wanted to state for the 4 record that since I didn't get anything ahead 5 of time, in a way I didn't have as much time to 6 review things. 7 The Sierra Club has been involved 8 with the State Planning Commission for a long 9 time. And what really concerns me, and I know 10 it concerns other environmental groups, I know 11 the Environmental Federation are pushing on a 12 lot of these issues, is that by pushing forward 13 with these Center Petitions now, even though 14 the Planned Endorsement is supposed to be 15 around the corner, it's going to make these 16 areas purple on the new map. Which means that 17 you get back to the whole issue of circular 18 logic. You're designated for growth, and, 19 therefore, under the streamlining that's 20 supposed to be occurring under our Smart Growth 21 agenda, you, therefore, get the infrastructure 22 that you may not have gotten if you didn't 23 designate for growth because the area is 24 environmentally sensitive, and probably 25 shouldn't get the kind of growth that it's GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 223 1 getting based on analysis. 2 So what you end up doing is by 3 putting designation ahead of planning, by 4 putting designation ahead of environmental 5 analysis, and ahead of really what we should be 6 doing in New Jersey, which is closely linking 7 water supplies, sewers and infrastructure to 8 environmental and natural resource protections, 9 you end up creating a catch 22 situation where 10 you basically say it's a growth area, so, 11 therefore, it should get growth no matter what 12 those areas are. 13 And that's what really disturbs me, 14 and I know it disturbs many of the other 15 environmental groups in the State of New 16 Jersey. Especially as we have worked fairly 17 hard with this administration in trying to go 18 forward with Smart Growth and protection of 19 water in the State of New Jersey, then we see 20 C-1 streams and we're looking at depletive 21 uses. 22 And quite frankly, I think the main 23 reason for this whole situation to be put on 24 hold or time out to go forward with Plan 25 Endorsement is I sat here, and I've actually GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 224 1 commented on the '97 Wastewater Plan, so I know 2 it pretty well; I sat here totally confused. 3 Maybe it's because of the time of day, but 4 quite frankly, and I'm fairly knowledgeable on 5 this whole issue, and I have a hard time 6 following it. I don't know how this Commission 7 will do that. And quite frankly, your way out 8 ahead of yourself. 9 What's the impact of running a 10 sewer line all the way down to basically 11 Hamburg and running another line back out? 12 What's the impact of putting that water back 13 into the ground? The sewer plant in Vernon 14 doesn't meet those levels of treatment now. 15 Who's paying for that level of treatment? How 16 is DEP going to be permitting that level of 17 treatment? What happens to the additional 18 discharges in that plant that they have to 19 raise the level of treatment; who's paying for 20 that? Are the other towns in the region going 21 to get hit with huge sewer bills and have to 22 severely upgrade the Vernon Plant to handle 23 this wastewater so they can pump it back and 24 into the ground? 25 What happens with groundwater GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 225 1 discharge with that size of an area with steep 2 slopes and a lot of rock out crop? Does it in 3 the springtime cause high levels of groundwater 4 which may cause septics in adjoining homes to 5 fail? What about the existing problems in 6 Vernon with small lot development on septic 7 that causes high levels of nitrates, are we 8 dealing with it; no. All the sewer capacity is 9 basically for new development, yet we have lake 10 communities with lakes putrefying; every lake 11 in Vernon is impaired with phosphorous, but yet 12 we're going to run sewers all the way up there, 13 but we're not going to help the lakes, and 14 we're not going to help the people who have 15 failing septics and people who spend $25,000 to 16 put in a new system because we want all that 17 capacity for new development. And that new 18 development, in turn, is going to be adding 19 more non-point pollution to the already 20 stressed streams like Black Creek. It just 21 goes against everything that we stand for when 22 it comes to natural resources. 23 From a planning standpoint it 24 doesn't even make sense. You're going to be 25 creating a town center that has two cores. I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 226 1 don't know of any town center that has two 2 cores, quite frankly. In fact, one core is 3 going to be competing against another core. 4 These aren't even -- and you're calling them 5 existing villages; when you look at the 6 criteria they don't even fit most of the 7 criteria for town centers. You go through the 8 list on job ratio, housing density, and all the 9 other factors, other than employment it doesn't 10 even fit the criteria. So this is really a 11 planned town, not an existing town, but want to 12 call it an existing town; you're going to have 13 two competing cores. 14 Quite frankly, many of our members 15 were involved in the division process in 16 support of the concept of the Town Center in 17 Vernon; and quite frankly I still think that's 18 a good idea, providing you can handle the 19 wastewater and have adequate water supply. But 20 now you're going to have another core down the 21 road that's going to compete with it. Or is it 22 a closed community because it's a resort, and, 23 therefore, it goes against the whole concept of 24 Smart Growth which is a closed resort type of 25 community; or is it going to compete with GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 227 1 Vernon and undermine Town Center where it's 2 appropriate. 3 Quite frankly, if you want to look 4 at proper planning and you look at how most ski 5 resorts develop. That type of development 6 really should be in Vernon's Center with 7 shuttle buses or other types of transportation 8 to get people to the mountain and not be down 9 the road; or maybe do it the other way and not 10 have a town center and do it there. But I 11 think the Town Center actually makes more sense 12 from a planning standpoint, but to have that 13 kind of competition between the two. 14 Other things I just noticed in 15 going through some of the different issues. It 16 seems to me still that the environs is 1.5 17 million square feet of commercial, and that's 18 huge. Again, that's two Quakerbridge Malls; or 19 it's a Waynetown Center and Willow Grove. 20 There is not a transfer. 21 One of the discrepancies that I've 22 seen, and forgive me, but I didn't know that 23 endangered species actually stopped 24 subdivisions in New Jersey. I really have 25 never heard of that happening. So when I look GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 228 1 at those areas that are vacant lands and the 2 environs and see such low numbers, I know that 3 they can get developed because we don't really 4 protect the endangered species. In fact, when 5 I look at the Regional Center Report they 6 talked even the larger center, about 1,800 7 units going outside of what was the Center 8 boundaries then, and there we're talking about 9 200 units, so I see that discrepancy. 10 One of the things that bothers me 11 is that the Sussex County Smart Growth Plan had 12 done independent numbers of rural towns, and 13 not to have them included, I think it would be 14 good to see what their numbers are for 15 build-out because their numbers may be 16 different; and I have a feeling they very well 17 might be. 18 And then getting back to the issue 19 of COAH. I don't know how many of these 20 different Centers have come forward where we 21 don't know what the COAH numbers are, what the 22 plan is. We have to take for granted that 23 there's actually a plan going forward since 24 it's only been applied for, and we don't really 25 know what it is. I don't what their numbers GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 229 1 are. And it should be somewhere stated in one 2 of these documents what's Vernon's number and 3 how are they going to reach that. I think it's 4 just a lack of proper oversight. 5 And in getting back to just the 6 whole issue of sewers and water supply. I just 7 think that you're putting this designation way 8 out in front of what your knowledge is, and the 9 fact is that once you do the designation, that 10 designation is going to be used as a battering 11 ram against DEP to give it approvals, and 12 that's exactly the opposite of how things 13 should be done. This is an area that's 14 environmentally sensitive. There are water 15 issues. I know going back to the old Sussex 16 208 Plan, which is still a fairly good 17 document, 20 years ago talked about the very 18 limited water supply in this area, but here 19 they're putting tremendous amount of 20 development and concentrations of development 21 in an area that quite frankly has seen 22 groundwater levels drop and wells go dry. 23 We've seen flooding. We've seen all the major 24 environmental impacts happening in Vernon. 25 And, again, I don't necessarily GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 230 1 blame the town because the town is going 2 forward with the rules that you're sort of 3 setting forward, but you shouldn't be allowing 4 these designations to come forward now. It's 5 just inappropriate a time when you're so close 6 to doing Plan Endorsement. When hopefully 7 we're going to get a legislative package in 8 that's going to give towns more tools to do 9 better planning. When we're trying to do many 10 more things to protect our water supply in New 11 Jersey. This is the past. And what you're 12 doing is you're undermining your own future 13 with the past. And I quite frankly think that 14 this should be held up until the issues of 15 water and sewers really are properly 16 addressed. 17 I just want to give you one quick 18 bit of history. Sierra Club was been involved 19 with three lawsuits in Vernon on Hamburg 20 Mountain over the last dozen years. And quite 21 frankly, I'm glad that the mountain is 22 preserved, but I also want to make sure that 23 what happens in the valley is done properly; 24 that it doesn't undermine the investment that's 25 been made by the public in preservation of that GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 231 1 area. 2 And quite frankly, I think that 3 they can do some very good things here, but I 4 don't know if this is necessarily that good 5 thing because until you figure out what you're 6 doing about water and sewers, how can you go 7 forward with developments of this magnitude. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 10 I just want to get a show of hands 11 as to how many other members of the public wish 12 to comment and acknowledge that we're way over 13 time. We have some representatives here from 14 Lawrence Township that came up from Cumberland 15 County who have been waiting. 16 I ask everyone at this point to not 17 repeat what some have already said before; be 18 as concise as possible. And I know that Mayor 19 would like to rebut what we just heard. 20 MAYOR LOGAN: First of all, I think 21 we've addressed the water and sewer issue. So 22 I think that's been addressed appropriately, 23 and scientifically. I think we have to base 24 these on science, not on emotion. 25 The idea of Mountain Creek's GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 232 1 community competing with our Town Center -- 2 first of all, they're a mile apart. And when 3 the initial plan on Mountain Creek came in they 4 talked about that kind of a closed community, 5 that would be almost a bridge over 94 and 6 depress 94 so it looked like the Cross Bronx 7 Expressway, and this whole thing would be 8 separated from the community. 9 We didn't really like that. We 10 wanted this to by incorporated into the 11 community, and that's exactly what they're 12 doing. It's going to be on both sides of the 13 street, it's going to be part of the community, 14 and we feel they're going to compliment each 15 other. And frankly there's a certain degree of 16 speculation occurring right now in our Town 17 Center by businessmen that know these things 18 better than I do, they're speculating the 19 success of our Town Center because of the 20 Mountain Creek plans right down the street. 21 So I don't know that -- I let the 22 businessmen address that and take that risk, 23 but I think the people see the success that 24 Intrawest has had in other markets, and I think 25 they see it happening here, as well. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 233 1 Well issues; we've had some well 2 issues predominantly higher in the mountains. 3 This is in the valley. I'm not going go get 4 into the hydrology, but there is a separation 5 there. 6 And as far as overall septic issues 7 on the mountain top; yeah, that does exist, and 8 there are problems that at some point we need 9 to address. But you know what, who's going to 10 pay for that. 11 What we're trying to do here, part 12 of the reason we're here is to create a viable 13 economic base in Vernon so that we have a 14 sustainable tax base so that at some point 15 maybe we can afford to address some of these 16 issues on the mountain top. So the economy in 17 Vernon will help the environment on the 18 mountain top if we can move forward. 19 So that's really why we've working 20 on this for all these years and we're trying to 21 finally get to the next step and move into 22 action instead of just talk. 23 So, again, I appreciate your 24 patience. 25 MR. FISHER: Michele, just on GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 234 1 affordable housing, I found it in the report. 2 It's 125 dwelling units. 3 MS. EMILIUS: My name is Mary 4 Emilius. I was active in the beginning with 5 Vision for Vernon. There was the concept that 6 we loved our environs, that's why we live 7 there. And we had a definite sense of urgency 8 to work towards protecting them, so the Vision 9 for Vernon was begun. And it was, in fact, at 10 the time I think unusual because we were 11 working in direct compliance with the State 12 Master Plan; agreed with the wisdom of the 13 Master Plan; and worked towards the concept of 14 a town center in order to comply with that 15 because we understood the urgency to protect 16 Vernon's environs. 17 A lot has gone down, and I don't 18 want to spend a lot of time because I'm not an 19 expert. I am a business owner in Vernon; I am 20 a taxpayer in Vernon, and I'm here to represent 21 the taxpayers. Because you can say that a lot 22 of outside groups have come in and expressed 23 concerns about what's happening in Vernon. And 24 the point of this approval process is to allow 25 Vernon and the taxpayers a way to protect our GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 235 1 environs because it is our greatest asset. One 2 of our only assets. Manufacturing will never 3 be very big in Vernon, I can assure you of 4 that. 5 I would like to remind the Board 6 that the tax burden in Vernon is 94% paid by 7 the residents because there is no commercial 8 development. We don't want commercial 9 development. We would love to live in the 10 woods where we chose to buy our homes. We do 11 want an avenue for which we can afford to do 12 that; and an avenue for Vernon to proceed into 13 the future by protecting its environs. 14 I give a pat on the back to the 15 manager and the Council for going through 16 heroic measures to develop the plan and to 17 comply and jump through all the hoops that were 18 required over the years of which those hoops I 19 might add have changed over and over. They 20 have done -- and it's been years and years, 21 we've been at it since 1994 with this Town 22 Center Concept. I would like to remind the 23 Board that they have acted in good faith and 24 absolutely have not attempted to deceive anyone 25 on any level. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 236 1 And I would recommend that this 2 plan be approved by the Board simply because it 3 was what was dictated that they had to do, and 4 it is in compliance with that. And it is in 5 compliance with the general wisdom that by 6 building a Center and allowing the higher 7 density in this Center, we will be able to 8 protect our environs. That is of vital 9 importance to me as a taxpayer, to me as a 10 Vernon mom. And I just ask that you keep all 11 that in mind. 12 Thank you 13 MS. McINTOSH: Pam McIntosh from 14 the Association of New Jersey Environmental 15 Commissions. And I'll just be brief. 16 I think this is another example of 17 why the Center Designation process isn't 18 working in these rural areas. It's a broad 19 process to be moving on to Plan Endorsement. 20 And then I'd just like to say, I 21 think the Mayor talked about changing their 22 zoning from two to three, and three to five; 23 that they were considering doing that. And I'd 24 just like to recommend that the PIC consider 25 negotiating with them to have more substantive GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 237 1 down-zoning to ten acre down-zoning. 2 Thank you. 3 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 4 MS. HORSFIELD: Tammie Horsfield, 5 President of the Sussex County Chamber of 6 Commerce, and also the Sussex County Economic 7 Development Partnership. As I mentioned 8 before, representing over 600 businesses and 9 over 20,000 employees throughout those 10 businesses. 11 I'm here today to, number one, 12 commend Vernon for doing a great job on their 13 plan, and for actually accepting and recruiting 14 Intrawest to be a part of our community. What 15 I do ask is that you consider the designation 16 for the Center now; I think we need to approve 17 that. Not only has Vernon been waiting, but 18 also Intrawest, a nationally recognized company 19 through tourism, has been waiting as well. And 20 just a reminder, tourism is the second largest 21 industry in New Jersey. Let's not ignore the 22 fact that there are two sides of the State. 23 And that tourism certainly is something that 24 can be shared throughout the State of New 25 Jersey. We're talking about over 4,000 jobs. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 238 1 I talked about job creation earlier when I 2 spoke about Sparta. 3 I talk again about Vernon. I grew 4 up in Vernon, so I am a part of Vernon, and I'm 5 very close to it. And I think it's important 6 that we take a look at the entire map. We 7 talked about the two cores; I think they're 8 both important. And if not both cores, well 9 maybe then that was the idea, was to take the 10 whole map of Vernon and make it a Town Center. 11 I have to comment in regard to some 12 of the Center Designation concerns from groups 13 such as the Sierra Club and the Highlands 14 Coalition that they don't want Center 15 Designations. And quite honestly, I don't 16 believe they want any Center Designations in 17 Sussex County. I think they want to preserve 18 it for all to look at and not to walk on. 19 We need jobs. We the people who 20 live in Sussex County, who live in Vernon, who 21 live in other areas through the County want 22 balanced growth. We want to preserve, we want 23 to protect. We also want to live here; we want 24 to have our jobs here; and we don't want to 25 have to commute every single day out for work. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 239 1 We want to love what we do and live what we 2 live right in our own communities. 3 So we really do need a balance. We 4 need the jobs desperately, job creation. We 5 want balance; we want preservation. And you 6 know what, we can have it all with properly 7 plan. 8 And Vernon, I think you've done a 9 great job moving forward, and I hope that the 10 State Planning Commission thinks so, too. 11 MS. FREY: My name is Wilma Frey. 12 I'm here on behalf of the Highlands Coalition. 13 I don't want to repeat, but I do 14 definitely want to strongly endorse Jeff 15 Tittle's comments. That this Planning 16 Commission not endorse prior to proper 17 evaluation and planning. And essential to that 18 I think is a DEP analysis of what is going on 19 here that is available to the public prior to 20 further discussions on this. We have not had 21 the opportunity to have any kind of a DEP 22 analysis, along with the OSG analysis. And we 23 didn't get the OSG analysis until yesterday, 24 either. 25 So, again, it's a matter of we need GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 240 1 this material in advance. And we need to -- 2 and the Committee really needs to allow the 3 planning and analysis of these mega issues to 4 take place. It's not just about designating 5 neat little centers with nice urban design 6 within them. It's about water supply. It's 7 about water quality. It's about septic and 8 about groundwater quality. And also including 9 things like threatened and endangered species 10 protection. But really it's mostly about the 11 water issue. The mega issue is can this 12 actually work. So I strongly urge you to put a 13 hold on this until it's really been clarified 14 by DEP analysis that this actually can work. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. BYERS: Is there anyone else? 17 MS. ASHMUN: Candy Ashmun. 18 Coalition for Housing and Environment. 19 I'm not going to repeat all the 20 issues that have been raised here, but it seems 21 to me that there's nothing in the rules for 22 this Commission or the law that says that every 23 single Center Designation that has been in the 24 pipeline for a few years, or every single one 25 that was identified during cross-acceptance has GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 241 1 to be designated. 2 I think that that was foreseen for 3 the ones where there weren't huge issues. 4 There are huge issues in this one, including, 5 from my point of view, not only the 6 environmental issues, but certainly the COAH 7 certification. We have no guarantees as you 8 sit here that any affordable housing is going 9 to take place. 10 So I would suggest that this is one 11 that needs to move to endorsement because the 12 issues are the whole town. 13 MR. SMITH: My name is Jacob 14 Smith. I've been a resident of Vernon Township 15 for 25 years. I'm a local businessman. I've 16 had several different businesses, one of which 17 is in the lodging industry in Vernon. I'm also 18 a landowner; I have a farm in Vernon. I also 19 have a piece of property which is adjacent to 20 the Town Hall. 21 And I want to advise this 22 Commission that I've been in negotiations with 23 the town to solve their COAH obligation, COAH 24 situation. Those negotiations are sincere, 25 they're in earnest, and I believe that we're GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 242 1 going to have this resolved in the near 2 future. I wanted to go on the record with that 3 fact. 4 Also, as Mary had mentioned 5 earlier, 94% of Vernon's taxes today are paid 6 by residents. We need a balance. If you look 7 at all the industries that are available to us, 8 tourism is the most likely and the cleanest 9 industry that we can find to put within our 10 Town Center; within our Township. Not just our 11 Township, but within our County. We want to 12 preserve open land. I, myself, have personally 13 dedicated and donated land to be preserved. 14 I've done that as long as 15 years ago, and 15 I've continued to work along those lines. 16 So while I may be a business 17 person, I'm not 100% on one side of the line or 18 the other. I try and achieve balance. I've 19 raised my family that way; and I run my 20 business that way. And I would urge you to -- 21 I've also been involved with the Vision for 22 Vernon. I've worked actively with the Town on 23 these proposals. And I would urge you to look 24 favorably upon this application. 25 Thank you. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 243 1 MS. BYERS: Is there anyone else 2 from the public? 3 MR. KRINGLE: David Kringle. I'm 4 the campaign director for the New Jersey 5 Environmental Federation. I'd also like to 6 echo Jeff Tittle's comments and just make a few 7 brief points. 8 We're talking about some of the 9 most environmentally sensitive wildlands in the 10 most densely populated state. And, yes, we 11 need to understand and respect the needs of 12 folks that live in Vernon and Sussex County. 13 But it's ultimately the state that holds the 14 lands in public trust, and in many ways all of 15 New Jersey belongs to all of New Jersey, so we 16 need to keep that in mind. 17 Approving this today is truly 18 putting the cart before the horse. The water 19 rules that exist in this State are severely 20 deficient. This administration is making a 21 legitimate effort at fixing them. And 22 approving this Center today will provide a 23 gaping leap hole in some of the most 24 environmentally important areas of this State 25 before some of those protections can be in GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 244 1 place. 2 I heard the Mayor say we need to do 3 this based on science not emotion, and he's 4 absolutely correct. And if you approve this 5 today, you will be putting emotion before 6 science. You will be putting emotion above 7 the needs of the people in Vernon and Sussex 8 County. Above the science of what is the 9 non-point loadings; is there enough water 10 supply; what are the groundwater quality 11 impacts; what are the surface water quality 12 impacts. That is science, and that has to be 13 understood before this goes forward. 14 Further, this administration has 15 made a lot about fixing it first. There are a 16 lot of problems with water quality and water 17 supply in Vernon Township. And fix it first 18 should not only apply to roads, but it should 19 also apply to water. Again, there's not enough 20 capacity identified at this point for water 21 supply or wastewater in Vernon Township if 22 we're going to fix it first, as well as provide 23 some level of economic growth. 24 And finally this administration has 25 made major initiatives in terms of Smart GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 245 1 Growth. And actions like moving this forward 2 today belie that initiative. And maybe we 3 should talk a little more about a "big joke" 4 instead of a "big map". 5 Thank you. 6 MAYOR LOGAN: If I could get our 7 hydrogeologist, I think it would be important 8 if we address this water issue because it keeps 9 on coming up, and we don't have a -- 10 MS. BYERS: At this point I think 11 actually it would be better to defer that issue 12 to DEP because I don't think any of us are able 13 to serve as arbitrators over the water issues 14 here. I think there's been a lot of 15 information presented, but I think that's going 16 to be something DEP needs to analyze, but thank 17 you. 18 (Whereupon, a discussion was held 19 off the record.) 20 MS. BYERS: Let me hear from the 21 Committee Members. Where is everyone at at 22 this point? 23 My recommendation at this point 24 would be to ask DEP to do further review of the 25 wastewater and water supply issues, and bring GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 246 1 that back to the PIC at the next meeting. I do 2 think there's a lot of merit in the Center 3 Petition. I understand all the concern about 4 moving ahead on these petitions right now, and 5 that we need to be Plan Endorsement. I also 6 know that I don't have a lot of support with 7 the rest of the Commission Members on that 8 issue, as well. 9 So what I really think is 10 important, however, is that we get a response 11 from DEP and analysis of all of the questions 12 that have been raised. I don't feel 13 comfortable moving forward without that. I 14 don't know how the rest of you feel. 15 MR. ESKILSON: Are we creating a 16 new standard for this application as opposed to 17 Sparta? We did not require that two hours ago. 18 MS. BYERS: I don't think that 19 Sparta had the level of questions and 20 uncertainty about where wastewater is coming 21 from and water supply. 22 MR. ESKILSON: I think that's set 23 on a lot of applications here. And now we hear 24 COAH, and there's some notion that you have to 25 be not just submitted to COAH, but certified GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 247 1 before you can move. How many applications 2 have we moved where that's not been the case? 3 MS. BYERS: I think in this 4 instance -- 5 MR. ESKILSON: Are we now creating 6 a new standard for this application at this 7 time at the 11th hour of center -- 8 MS. BYERS: Excuse me, John. I 9 think there was just some confusion because the 10 staff report did say there was certification, 11 and we come to find out that's not exactly 12 right. 13 MR. ESKILSON: I understand that. 14 MAYOR LOGAN: If I could just add, 15 just for the record, and for what it's worth. 16 We have a little concern, perhaps 17 Michele, I know you've been involved with 18 litigation against Vernon; I believe it's 19 current litigation. So I don't know if that 20 creates a conflict, but obviously it's a 21 concern that I did want to express at some 22 point while we're here. 23 MS. BYERS: Let me acknowledge that 24 we did, in fact, talk to Dan Reynolds, the AG 25 about this ahead of time. The litigation that GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 248 1 my organization is involved with with the 2 Township in the Valley is settled. And the 3 litigation on Hamburg Mountain is essentially 4 moot and is under settlement as we speak. That 5 was a major concern. 6 MAYOR LOGAN: I guess my attorney, 7 I asked him the status, and it was his 8 impression that the litigation was still alive 9 in the Valley. 10 MS. BYERS: No, that's not true. 11 The litigation of the Valley has been settled. 12 MAYOR LOGAN: Well, it still 13 remains does that create a perceived bias? I 14 mean, just as a reasonable person I would 15 suggest that it does, but I leave the Committee 16 to look into that. 17 MS. BYERS: Well, I think we all 18 have our biases; there's no question about it. 19 And I did go to our AG and specifically asked 20 him that question, and he said no. So I'm 21 going by his opinion. I'm very sensitive to 22 that. I brought it up. I've actually spoken 23 to a number of members about that. 24 MR. ZELLNER: John, what is your 25 desire, go before the State Planning GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 249 1 Commission? 2 MR. ESKILSON: That was my 3 recommendation, correct. 4 MR. LEWIS: Well, I understood 5 John's comment to be that we're going to follow 6 the same path as we did, agreed to follow on 7 Sparta. That if we can resolve the issues 8 before the next step is required, then we 9 will. And if we can't, then when we reach that 10 point we'll decide to defer it to the next 11 meeting. 12 MR. ESKILSON: We did not require a 13 final resolution on the water supply issue with 14 Sparta, or any other municipality that I'm 15 aware of in the two years plus that I've been 16 here, so... 17 MS. BYERS: Final resolution I 18 think we're looking for more information. DEP 19 even indicates that they need to answer some 20 questions. And in the Sparta situation DEP has 21 agreed to do further analysis and then have a 22 public participation, public review before we 23 go to the plan. 24 MR. ESKILSON: I get concerned when 25 we just asked for more and we're not specific. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 250 1 What specific piece of information is needed at 2 this point in time so we can make a decision? 3 I don't think just more is enough. I get real 4 concerned when we talk about that in vague 5 language because then always we need more. 6 MAYOR LOGAN: And frankly it's my 7 understanding that there is a deadline in the 8 sense of a certain point of time. This is all 9 the evidence we have, and to start over again, 10 we've worked too many years to discard all the 11 effort and time and taxpayers of Vernon's 12 dollars. I think we're looking for 13 reasonableness. 14 MS. BYERS: I appreciate that, but 15 I'm also hearing that people just got 16 information, and this is a complex issue, and 17 that then raises another discussion at the next 18 meeting, and from there move on. I don't think 19 that's unreasonable. I don't think a month 20 delay is unreasonable. 21 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: I'll tell you, 22 I've listened carefully, I've heard what I feel 23 are creative solutions to existing conditions. 24 And having been in the engineering field for 25 many years, I actually welcome some of the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 251 1 solutions that you are proposing here. And I 2 believe strongly, maybe it's with John or not, 3 I think we've got to move this thing forward on 4 the State Planning Commission. I think we have 5 to. Permits will always have to be issued by 6 the Department of Environmental Protection; we 7 don't control that. That's still another issue 8 that will have to be addressed on its own 9 merit. 10 I've heard a lot of discussion here 11 today about DEP already having the water 12 information, the wastewater information, and 13 the independent analysis by the Community 14 Association then rebuttal information back. It 15 sounds to me like Mr. Chang at DEP is already 16 working on issues which have been raised here 17 today. I heard that clearly. 18 I agree with John. I haven't heard 19 issues before with absolutely having to be COAH 20 certified at the time that a plan or a project 21 moves to the State Planning Commission, but 22 certainly I heard the Mayor commit to clearly 23 following through on COAH certification. I 24 also heard the Mayor clearly commit to working 25 through a Plan Endorsement along with the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 252 1 introductory of the County Plan. 2 And Jim, I think I heard you say 3 that DOT would request a Plan Endorsement 4 within a one-year time frame, and I heard 5 discussion, which I would support, of one year 6 pending the receipt of the County's Regional 7 Plan. I understand that you as the Mayor and 8 the Town committed to that. That satisfies me. 9 MAYOR LOGAN: Absolutely. 10 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: I have to tell 11 you I'm satisfied. I think the level of work 12 done here is clear. I think the citizen 13 involvement has been active; sounds like from 14 the start both from the vision committees to 15 the concerned citizens committees to the 16 environmental groups that are represented here, 17 as well. I have to tell you that I think it 18 should be granted for a long time. In the end 19 it will come down to the permit from DEP, the 20 proposal. And I have to tell you, in this 21 field, and also being a planner, I think the 22 design is a design that deserves the value. I 23 think you guys are taking a place where you're 24 taking the kind of design that we'd like to 25 see; increase the density, cluster the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 253 1 development, research the environs; all of that 2 stuff you're getting at today is exactly 3 evidenced in your Center, and you don't ignore 4 the rest of it. And I don't think that this is 5 the end of this. I think it's just the 6 beginning, and I certainly expect to see Vernon 7 and the entire county back before this Board in 8 the years to come. 9 So I strongly recommend that we 10 move to send this to the State Planning 11 Commission. 12 MR. FISHER: I also don't object to 13 move on the State Planning Commission. I think 14 it should become an approved center. I had 15 some initial concerns regarding COAH because of 16 the inconsistency in the report, but looking 17 back at their petition, their compliance plan 18 is specific in terms of rehab versus 19 inclusionary sites and PIA. They indicate that 20 those inclusionary sites as well as rehab take 21 place within the designated center. I think we 22 need to make sure, and it is conditioned at 23 receiving COAH certification those move 24 forward. 25 And as far as water supply goes; I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 254 1 know that in your memo, Paul, there was mention 2 of wellhead protection program and whether that 3 becomes incorporated in the PIA. As long as 4 the Town is willing, I think that it's a good 5 recommendation. I think beyond the wastewater 6 issue, there just needs to be trust between the 7 department and what's been done already and 8 those issues be resolved. They have a Center 9 to implement. But I would think that at this 10 point in time there's enough information and 11 work and research that's gone into the 12 alternative, and that if the Township is 13 willing to commit and move forward on that 14 basis, then I don't know that we should 15 necessarily stand in their way. 16 I think -- the way I view this is 17 there needs to be trade-off. There's been a 18 lot of trade-off in Vernon's history with the 19 mountain being preserved. And although I'm not 20 from that part of the state, I read enough 21 about it to understand that already a 22 substantial portion of the Township has been 23 researched, and I think this is the Center that 24 needs to be come under the economic viability 25 that sustains the Township's efforts. And I GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 255 1 think the rest of the issues from a technical 2 standpoint need to be resolved. 3 If there's anything else that needs 4 PIA, or have discussions in terms of issues 5 with DEP, I'm sure they can be resolved, and 6 whether it be at the June or July meeting, they 7 can still get approved before August. 8 MR. PURDIE: The Department wants 9 some additional information. 10 MS. BYERS: I think that this is 11 exactly the way we need to go, but I'm confused 12 after hearing all the testimony today as to 13 whether sewerage capacity is actually going to 14 foster development outside the Town Center more 15 than what is laid out in the report. So I'm a 16 little confused and uncertain as to what is 17 actually going to be the result and how much 18 development is going in the environs versus the 19 Center. So I want to have an analysis from the 20 DEP as to what exactly the wastewater plan is. 21 That's my major concern. 22 MR. FISHER: Something we've done 23 for other projects that's already approved. 24 And I agree, I think the Township should pursue 25 a franchise for that. That's better for you GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 256 1 and better for the residents of the community. 2 That's the major component outside of the 3 Center. 4 MS. BYERS: So where we are here? 5 Just to try and wrap this up. The Committee 6 feels it should move to the Commission going on 7 the parameters that the information discussed 8 be submitted at least ten days before, and 9 having the public be able to see the final Plan 10 Implementation Agenda before the meeting. I 11 think we have to move that as standard. 12 MR. ESKILSON: I accept that so 13 far. 14 MS. BYERS: Absolutely. And also 15 with the provision of moving toward Plan 16 Endorsement. We reiterate that this is just 17 one step, and the outcome really we are looking 18 for is planned endorsement. 19 (Whereupon, a brief recess was 20 taken.) 21 MS. BYERS: I apologize to the 22 folks from Lawrence, Cumberland County for 23 taking so long, and everyone else that we're 24 still here an hour-and-a-half after we said we 25 would adjourn. This does not make me happy not GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 257 1 sticking to our time frame, but here we are so 2 let's move on quickly. 3 We have Lawrence Township, 4 Cumberland County. 5 MR. DONALD: Joe Donald with the 6 Office of Smart Growth. 7 The Township of Lawrence first came 8 before you back in February. You had 9 recommended designating a State Planning 10 Commission. Subsequent to that we had 11 correspondence from the Township with some 12 concerns relevant to the time frame and the 13 activities that were in the Planning 14 Implementation Agenda. 15 Essentially what we have is a 16 hardship situation where the Town has asked us 17 to give consideration to time frame and to 18 those activities in the Planning Agenda. They 19 do not wish to withdraw their petition. 20 They're quite comfortable working with us, but 21 they've asked for some consideration. I've got 22 five recommendations I'd like to present to 23 you. 24 Firstly, that we extend the 25 conditionality of the expiration period from GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 258 1 one year to two years. Second, that we permit 2 the Township two years to complete their 3 housing element and Fair Share Plan. Third, 4 that we remove the requirement that the 5 Township undertake the Regional Water Supply 6 Capacity Study because we feel that's more of a 7 regional issue, and shouldn't necessarily be 8 incumbent upon the Township to do that. That 9 we provide the Township with a listing of 10 potential grant opportunities. And lastly, 11 that our office work closely with the Township 12 to move their planning activities forward. 13 We also have Tony Stanzione here 14 from the Cumberland Development Corporation who 15 will speak to this. 16 MR. STANZIONE: Thank you, Joe. 17 And I thank the Committee for listening to 18 Lawrence Township's concerns. 19 I guess the first thing I want to 20 talk about is to recognize that the area I work 21 for, including Lawrence Township, is full of 22 overworked very enthusiastic employees. And 23 really the concerns the Mayor expressed in his 24 letter have to do not so much with the 25 technical things that needed to be done and the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 259 1 things they needed to consider in the next one 2 to three years, but when they look around they 3 have two full-time employees and they don't 4 have a lot of resources to carry out the 5 implementation agenda within the time frame 6 that was listed. And they want to do what 7 you're asking them to do, so they say, okay, 8 we'll do it, and not really understand how 9 they're going to do it or what it is they have 10 to do. 11 I'm here today because the Mayor 12 couldn't be here. I just want it to be clear 13 and understood that we're continuing to work, 14 and I think you know that we have very limited 15 government and very limited employees. In 16 fact, my discussion with the Mayor took place 17 in the car on the way here today because I 18 didn't get the call until 9:15 this morning to 19 represent them because nobody could be here. 20 But we went through the items in the Planning 21 Implementation Agenda one by one, and I found 22 that the Mayor really didn't have major, major 23 concerns in terms of the resources of people 24 and money that would be spent, it more had to 25 do with the time involved. And I think Joe has GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 260 1 addressed that in some of the suggested 2 changes. But I'll go through them real 3 quickly. 4 I know you've had a long day, and 5 based on my discussions, the one that dealt 6 with water Joe has already dealt with, and 7 that's a much bigger regional issue than 8 Lawrence Township and Cedarville Village Center 9 can deal with on their own. 10 In terms of Developed Land Use 11 Regulation, the town has completed a new Master 12 Plan and a new zoning ordinance adopted very 13 soon. I say maybe as soon as tonight, maybe 14 next week, I forget exactly. And there will be 15 a conservation distribution within that plan. 16 So one of the things that's on the planning 17 implementation agenda is probably already 18 done. 19 And there are several others, 20 rather than going through each one, there are 21 several other items that were addressed already 22 by the Town. Maybe not to the extent that the 23 Planning Commission would like to see it. 24 Protecting the floodplain areas. 25 Again, there's no objection to that, they will GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 261 1 consider it. If it requires amendment to the 2 zoning ordinance, which they are now ready to 3 adopt momentarily, they would like to have more 4 time to do that rather than have to go to the 5 expensive of amending the zoning ordinance 6 again within a year. So on that particular 7 time frame they would like to have more time. 8 Let's see if are there any others. 9 In terms of protecting the area 10 around the wildlife management area, they don't 11 have a problem with that. It was not addressed 12 specifically in the new zoning ordinance and 13 Master Plan. So that is something they would 14 definitely consider. 15 Farmland preservation, as well, if 16 it is into the same category. They're 17 basically a farm community, so they're 18 certainly in favor of the farmland preservation. 19 They do not have that -- they do not have that 20 as an element. So, again, that would be 21 something they'd like to have time to work on 22 versus having to go through the expense of 23 amending the Master Plan and zoning ordinance 24 again in a short period of time. 25 I'm just going to look through my GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 262 1 notes real quick. 2 COAH. They are going to consider 3 getting their certification from COAH. I can 4 tell you all the towns I worked for, as you 5 know, I think we've submitted a grant 6 application on their behalf. They have not 7 really participated and have been, what's the 8 best way to say it. I think they've really 9 been afraid of COAH. So we're trying to take 10 small steps at a time to bring these into the 11 system. They agree they're willing to go 12 through the petition for certification; so they 13 will be working on that. The town clerk agreed 14 to track it. They only have 25 housing starts 15 last year, so they're willing to track their 16 housing start over the next several years to 17 see why or whether there's a pattern to those 18 housing starts in agricultural areas versus 19 areas that are zoned forest dense. 20 I think that pretty much covers my 21 notes from my conversation with the Mayor 22 today. I think their concern, again, is their 23 resources and their ability to really do what 24 you're asking them to do. So that still needs 25 to be addressed. And at sometime I asked them GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 263 1 to -- they need a contact person, a primary 2 person to be the appointed person to make sure 3 the planning implementation is accomplished. 4 At this point it's not my role, it's not -- 5 they hired a planner that just completed the 6 Master Plan and zoning ordinance with them but 7 they haven't designated him. So because of 8 that we wind up with me coming here to talk to 9 you with very little notice today. That's 10 something I think the town definitely needs to 11 work on. This process will be ongoing, so a 12 year from now, two years and three years down 13 the road they address some of the issues. 14 They have done down-zoning in their 15 new Master Plan and zoning ordinance, which is 16 real shortly. It may not be to the extent that 17 was talked about here, but they did do that. 18 They have done some cluster zoning within their 19 agriculture areas. Again, based on 20 conversation with the Mayor and also with Harry 21 Dare (ph.) whose is the planner who put their 22 master plan and zoning ordinance together for 23 Lawrence Township, there's large environs 24 around this relatively small village center. 25 These towns are still struggling with the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 264 1 concept that they really need to aim their 2 development towards the center. They have to 3 make sure there's someone either hired or on 4 board or a consultant to move this process 5 forward, but they don't have the staff. So I 6 would ask that you -- with the recommendation 7 that Joe made, I think Lawrence Township could 8 live with that. 9 MR. DONALD: And holdings from our 10 office, and that's really the way we foresee 11 getting this done. 12 MS. BYERS: Are we being asked to 13 do anything or just here having the 14 discussion? 15 MR. FISHER: Sounds like they're 16 asking for some, I guess, of the time frame to 17 be relaxed. I think we can move forward on the 18 endorsement because of all the work that they 19 did put into it. And I think the whole center 20 concept down there makes sense from the 21 standpoint of what little development does 22 occur. At least it's going to occur hopefully 23 in the Cedarville Village Center for the most 24 part. I'd be willing to look at the amendment 25 to the PIA to accomplish what the town is GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 265 1 looking for, and I suspect hopefully with some 2 assistance from the Office of Smart Growth we 3 can help them get there. 4 MR. DONALD: And they're working 5 very closely with the County in the strategic 6 planning activities that are currently 7 underway. So it all ties in. 8 MS. BYERS: I agree with David, and 9 assume that we are going to see amended PIA 10 memo that describes what the changes are. 11 MR. DONALD: Yes. 12 MS. BYERS: So then we'll have 13 something to consider. 14 MR. BROWN: I think what Lawrence 15 is going through is experienced by a lot of 16 other communities around the State. And I 17 really think the State needs to start thinking 18 about not just telling people to do something, 19 but it falls in with what Mr. Eskilson had 20 mentioned, many times PIAs say what the State 21 is doing. I think -- I mean, I've been in 22 State Government for a while, and it seems one 23 thing is it's constantly out of money. And I 24 don't see us having money to throw at towns for 25 them to do a lot of things. I think we really GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 266 1 need to start -- the State actually through 2 their expertise needs to be doing some of those 3 things. And I think it comes down to 4 rethinking how State Government does business 5 and how budgets are cut for things. 6 MS. BYERS: Lawrence is pretty 7 typical of a small town in a rural area. We 8 are hit like this everywhere we go. And from 9 my own municipal experience, folks dream about 10 doing great things and talk about what it's 11 going to cost to do, but as soon as we have to 12 spend one dime, they back off. And even when 13 they want to do good things, we are going to 14 run into this time and time again. 15 MS. LANG: With respect to the 16 regional plan; the regional plan focus being 17 Lawrence somehow deny the Center Designation -- 18 shouldn't it take the more regional approach? 19 MR. STANZIONE: Lawrence's position 20 is they want to get it done. They went back to 21 the study that was done on the CAFRA areas of 22 the county; it seemed rather simple. But the 23 regional plan is probably at least six to nine 24 months away. We now have the advisory 25 committee and subcommittees of the advisory GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 267 1 committee working on solutions to some of the 2 problems that have been identified. We have 3 not gotten yet to the trade-offs that had to 4 take place. Some of the hardest work to do is 5 in the last six to nine months. And as a 6 person who's been leading that process along 7 with your consultant, who gets calls like I did 8 this morning, it's hard to get these small 9 rural towns to buy into regional -- approaching 10 things regionally. They have done that, but 11 they haven't had to bite the bullet yet in 12 terms of what to do. 13 To answer your question, if 14 approval for the Center Regional Plan for 15 endorsement today from this committee, it would 16 include the Cedarville Village Center because 17 it's historically there. And we'd like to have 18 that, but we haven't been able to do that 19 because they fight the battle, which every 20 rural town does that. Farmers sell their land 21 equity. They want to be able to sell their 22 land; that's still a problem. Most of the 23 towns trying for a center development in one 24 spot and not letting the farmer have the equity 25 originally hoped for in his land. GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 268 1 MR. DONALD: Within the last year 2 we made an agreement with Lawrence Township, 3 with Fairfield Township that we would accept 4 their Center Petition prior to the commission 5 of strategic planning. So one of the things we 6 are looking for are all of these participating 7 municipalities coming in for planning 8 endorsement on the completion of the plan. But 9 some townships really couldn't wait because of 10 their distressed conditions and looking for 11 additional benefits by virtue of receiving a 12 designation. So we had agreed essentially to 13 review their Center Petition prior to the 14 completion of the strategic planning. 15 MR. FISHER: In this case we 16 already approved Cedargrove. 17 MR. ESKILSON: Rick Brown is right, 18 we're going to have to look at creative ways to 19 help some of these smaller municipalities. I 20 don't know what the answer is. Some of the 21 answers might lie within county agencies and 22 creative partnerships. One of the things we 23 are going to look at is the administration of 24 COAH obligations through taking in the 25 developer fee ordinance in the county for GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 269 1 interlocal agreements. Is that going to work; 2 I don't know. Did two municipalities work on a 3 county-wide basis; I don't know, but I think 4 that's the kind of creative thinking we have to 5 look at. Can we force that; I don't know. Can 6 we facilitate it; probably. 7 MR. FISHER: The one good thing 8 that we're probably after this August is to not 9 have Lawrence Township coming to us any more 10 with just their limited resources. We have a 11 group of municipalities in a more regional 12 context, and hopefully that type of cooperation 13 in the system assistance to the downs regional 14 partnership can be more or less approved. 15 MS. BYERS: Anyone from the public 16 wish to comment? 17 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: Don Kirchhoffer, 18 New Jersey Conversation Foundation. I always 19 come up and everybody is more interested in 20 leaving. 21 I would like to make two points. 22 First is that what you just heard is so 23 symptomatic of what happens in the south where 24 I work with the four southern counties. It's 25 so important to their problems, but knowing GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 270 1 this is the last place that we can say whether 2 we have farmland, really have open space and 3 significant environmental protection. 4 The only thing I would disagree 5 with in changing the proposal is I would not 6 let them up on COAH. They're asking for two 7 years to get COAH certification. In Salem 8 County and Cumberland County I think they're 9 four towns that are COAH certified. I know 10 personally of three where their builders remedy 11 suits that are destructive of everything that 12 everybody here thinks about. 13 And you all are -- am I correct 14 that you asked for a grant to do just cause 15 certification? 16 MR. STANZIONE: Yes. 17 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: There are three 18 towns to your Smart Growth plan, and I think 19 all got COAH certificates. But anyway it's 20 terribly important to give them the money to do 21 that. It will be, I think, the biggest step 22 that anybody can take to stop intense 23 development in appropriate high density 24 development in those two counties. And we have 25 before us Cumberland County. And that's the GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 271 1 only point I want to make. 2 MS. BYERS: Thank you. I think 3 we're all done. 4 (Whereupon, the meeting was 5 concluded at 2:50 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 272 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I, KAREN L. DeLUCIA, License No. XI01888, 9 a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary 10 Public of the State of New Jersey, do hereby 11 certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate 12 transcript of my original stenographic notes 13 taken at the time and place hereinbefore set 14 forth. 15 16 17 18 ____________________________________ 19 Karen L. DeLucia, CSR 20 21 Dated: July 2, 2003 22 23 24 25 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES