1 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 3 OFFICE OF SMART GROWTH 4 PUBLIC HEARING 5 -----------------------------------X 6 IN RE: : 7 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE : 8 -----------------------------------X 9 10 11 12 Transcript of proceedings taken at the 13 Department of Community Affairs, Conference Room 14 129, 101 South Broad Street, Trenton, New Jersey, 15 on July 1, 2003, commencing at 9:18 a.m. 16 17 18 19 20 21 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 22 824 WEST STATE STREET, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08618 23 (609) 989-9199 1-800-368-7652 24 (FAX) (609) 989-1607 25 http:\\www.renziassociates.com 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 BOARD MEMBERS: 3 Michele Byers, Chairman, Public Member 4 Tim Touhey, Public Member 5 Marge DellaVecchia, Community Affairs 6 John Eskilson, Municipal Official 7 David Fisher, Public Member 8 Joanna Dunn Samson, 9 Environmental Protection 10 Bill Purdie, Environmental Protection 11 Donna Pearson, Public Member 12 Roberta Lang, Agriculture 13 14 15 STAFF: 16 Adam Zellner, Executive Director, 17 Office of Smart Growth 18 Joseph Donald, Office of Smart Growth 19 William Harrison, Highlands Coordinator 20 Vanessa Zoe Morin, Research Analyst 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 A G E N D A 2 PAGE 3 4 Chair's Remarks 4 5 2004 Rule Proposal 9 6 Seaside Heights Town Center Petition 73 7 Fairfield Township 115 8 (Expansion of the Bridgeton 9 Regional Center) 10 Public Comments 11 Tim Dillingham, 108, 179 12 American Littoral Society 13 Robert Brewer, 123, 142, 152 14 Cumberland County Planning Department 15 Anthony Stanzione, 182 16 Cumberland Development Corporation, 17 Executive Director 18 Pam McIntosh, ANJEC 193 19 Donald Kirchhoffer, 198 20 NJ Conservation Foundation, 21 Delaware Bay Watershed 22 Project Manager 23 Jacqueline McGowan (ph.), 202 24 Crystal Springs Builders 25 Adjournment 204 4 1 MS. BYERS: Good morning, everyone. 2 We're going to get started. I'm 3 sorry for the delay. I guess a couple of people 4 got stuck in traffic, but we're moving on here. 5 I would like to welcome everyone 6 this morning to the Plan Implementation 7 Committee. We have a fairly short agenda 8 relatively speaking to some of our other 9 meetings, but I do want to try to keep to the 10 time schedule. 11 Just a couple very quick remarks, at 12 the last Plan Implementation Committee, we had 13 quite a bit of discussion about the centers 14 Sparta and Vernon. And at that meeting, there 15 were many issues raised, it was quite complex, 16 there were a lot of public in attendance and 17 uncertainties about the centers. I want to thank 18 the staff because I think even though we were not 19 able to bring that discussion to another Plan 20 Implementation Committee for further discussion, 21 I know the staff worked very hard to make sure 22 that those petitions got on to the Office of 23 Smart Growth website in advance of the meeting, 24 as was requested by the Committee, and that's 25 something that we haven't had before and I think 5 1 that's really helpful and we need to keep doing 2 that, so I just want to thank the staff because I 3 know they were under a big deadline and they 4 jumped through all kinds of hoops to get that 5 done. And I understand that those two centers 6 will be on the Commission Agenda for July 16th. 7 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: Yes. 8 MS. BYERS: Okay. 9 I just want to sort of recap where 10 we are in case you don't know the context for 11 this. 12 During the last few years, 13 particularly in cross acceptance, many 14 communities wanted center designation and were 15 told by the Office of State Planning at the time 16 that their center petitions would be heard as we 17 move forward. The clock on the moves for center 18 designation is running out, so I know the staff 19 has been under a lot of pressure to try to make 20 good on these promises; but at the same time, 21 moving to plan endorsement for many of the 22 centers doesn't make sense to deal with in a 23 vacuum any more and those communities really do 24 need to move to plan endorsement so I know the 25 staff has been working hard with all of those 6 1 towns to encourage them to move to plan 2 endorsement, keep them in the loop, not alienate 3 the communities, make them feel that there is a 4 broken promise, but let's keep moving toward the 5 ultimate goal of getting regional planning to 6 happen. 7 I know the staff has been working 8 hard on that, but there are a few centers still 9 that are hanging out there that for whatever 10 different reasons we feel compelled to move 11 forward on. Two of those are on the agenda 12 today, Seaside Heights and Fairfield Township. 13 My understanding is that Middle Township in Cape 14 May County is the last sort of floating out there 15 center petition that has not yet been resolved. 16 So what we want to do today is to 17 have a full discussion on Seaside Heights and 18 Fairfield and should all the issues be resolved 19 and the Committee feels some consensus about 20 moving forward, those two centers would go to the 21 State Planning Commission on July 16th. 22 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. 23 MS. BYERS: Now, in the case of 24 Middle Township, I think there has been a special 25 meeting scheduled for July 29th before the full 7 1 commission and we do not have right now a Plan 2 Implementation Committee scheduled to review 3 Middle Township. 4 As the Chair of the Planning 5 Implementation Committee, I don't think it is a 6 good process to go straight to the Commission, 7 especially with a community like Middle Township 8 where there are multiple centers. There are 9 major issues of water supply, water capacity. 10 It's really on the scale of a regional planning 11 issue. 12 My recommendation is that if we're 13 going to hear Middle with all that, that we have 14 to have a Planning Implementation Committee 15 meeting in order to do that. I don't know what 16 the scheduling is and when that can happen, but 17 if not I would recommend that we move straight to 18 plan endorsement with Middle Township because I 19 don't want to set a precedent of having detailed 20 complex petitions like this go straight to the 21 Planning Commission. It doesn't give it its due. 22 It doesn't give us an opportunity to ask 23 questions and get them resolved in a suitable 24 time period between the planning meetings and the 25 Commission. 8 1 Those are my remarks. I think we 2 can talk about that further. There is also time 3 for public comment. We really want to hear from 4 the public. And anyone here from the public who 5 has questions about the process, we welcome 6 those. 7 MR. ZELLNER: Good morning, I just 8 wanted to let everybody know that we're going to 9 be finalizing a letter that we worked very hard 10 with our sister agencies on that addresses the 11 remaining centers. The letter will be available 12 in the coming days both online and we'll be 13 mailing it directly to independent parties so I 14 just want to make sure everyone knows that and 15 we're working very hard to get that done and I 16 want to thank the agencies who have worked so 17 hard to get that done, especially agriculture and 18 DEP. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. BYERS: Just one final thought, 21 we're working hard on the 2004 rules, which will 22 be discussed next on the agenda, but just in 23 terms of sort of the practicality of the process 24 that we want to use for plan endorsement going 25 forward, I would like to have discussion about 9 1 that in terms of public participation, timing, 2 you know, how we're going to approach plan 3 endorsement so that we all understand what we're 4 up for. I think we are almost going to have 5 full-time jobs in the fall when this process 6 starts to go. I also want to make sure that the 7 public understands the process and knows how to 8 get information and knows how to participate in 9 the process, so maybe at our next Plan 10 Implementation Committee we could talk more 11 generically just about how we're going to lay 12 this out and how it's going to work. 13 The next item is the 2004 rule 14 proposal. 15 Bill. 16 MR. HARRISON: Let me -- I'm going 17 to briefly go through subchapters 1 through 5, 18 those are predominantly as you saw them at the 19 end of April, and then go into greater detail in 20 subchapters 7 and 8, but interrupt me if you have 21 questions or if I became totally incoherent. 22 The definitions we are still working 23 on to make sure they match the language that was 24 -- that is used in the rule. Among those that 25 we're working on is "center" to try and come up 10 1 with something that at least doesn't confuse 2 people as to an urban center, a hamlet, that they 3 are different things and so that there is not 4 total confusion, that when someone says "center," 5 that there is a good answer without causing other 6 problems. We're trying to come up with something 7 that makes clear that there are very different 8 kinds of centers. 9 The definition of "functional state 10 agency" that you see here is highlighted, what 11 we're going to do with that is just have it cover 12 -- just simply be a definition that says it's any 13 state agency, a few more words than that, and not 14 try and enlist budget departments. 15 MS. BYERS: I was wondering what a 16 "functional state agency" was. 17 MR. FISHER: Two questions about the 18 definitions. Shall we bring them up now or do 19 you want us to hold our questions? 20 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 21 MR. FISHER: I see "applicant" is a 22 new definition. 23 At the end of the next one, 24 "center," you've eliminated the statement, 25 "Designated Centers endorsed by the State 11 1 Planning Commission are eligible for priority and 2 technical assistance." 3 Why did you take that out? 4 MR. HARRISON: Because it doesn't 5 belong in the definition is the simple answer and 6 that is a substantive provision here. There are 7 other provisions in the rules that are more 8 focused now on not endorsed plans that indicate 9 that they're eligible for benefits, but it's a 10 substantive provision that snuck into the 11 definition. 12 MR. FISHER: Okay. 13 Is that kind of the same reason why, 14 in consistency, you took out the reference to 15 regulations or is there something more to that? 16 In other words, I guess you're 17 focusing on plans rather than regulations? 18 MR. HARRISON: This is a definition 19 that we need to make match the language and what 20 it is that is being endorsed by the State 21 Planning Commission. Regulations independently 22 are not endorsed. They are part of the package 23 that are endorsed. We changed the wording very 24 late in the day Friday on what it -- what things 25 were eligible for endorsement. And the 12 1 definition here needs to be revised to match 2 that, but the core regulations -- under no 3 circumstances are regulations as such being 4 endorsed by the State Planning Commission. It 5 was a part of a package where a municipal master 6 plan or a county plan would be endorsed. 7 MR. FISHER: So it is, I guess, 8 intended to keep it most straightforward rather 9 than endorsing regulations or making it -- 10 MR. HARRISON: There are places in 11 the regulation where it says we are not endorsing 12 ordinances or regulations, you know, specific 13 ordinances or regulations and that's contrary to 14 that one. 15 MS. SAMSON: Excuse me. In the 16 definition of center, you include some defined 17 terms, urban center, regional center, town 18 center, but they're not defined, at least, in the 19 definitional Section 20 Are they defined elsewhere? 21 MR. HARRISON: They're defined in 22 the state plan. That is one of the problems we 23 are trying to work on. The state plan has some 24 very specific criteria that we don't want to put 25 in the regulations because each time we do a 13 1 report, usually there are one or two deviations 2 from the specifications for a center and we don't 3 want to be locked in to say, We're not a hamlet 4 because the population density doesn't meet the 5 specific population density, but it meets the 6 other criterias; that's a type of circumstance 7 that has come up. 8 On the other hand, we do want to, 9 you know, make clear in some fashion the 10 definition that an urban center is very different 11 from a hamlet. We're struggling with that. It's 12 the fairest way to put it at the moment. 13 MS. SAMSON: Is it possible to have 14 defined terms that aren't defined in the 15 regulations defined by the state plan or are 16 there other places where there are defined terms 17 that aren't defined here that aren't in the state 18 plan, but somewhere else? 19 I'm sorry. I'm new to this process 20 so I'm just having a hard time flipping through 21 and finding out, you know, getting guidance on 22 the definitions; or, is there some way to just 23 generally say, you know, centers range in scale 24 and sort of not define them? I mean, define them 25 functionally, for example, as opposed to 14 1 definitionally. 2 MR. HARRISON: That's where we're 3 leaning to, as indicating, you know, the scale 4 range, you know, and give you some of the words 5 from the state plan, but go from the extreme of 6 urban center to village and hamlet, which are, 7 you know, much smaller centers and use some of 8 the language from the state plan without getting 9 tied to all the specifics. 10 MR. ESKILSON: Bill, under 11 endorsements or, I'm sorry, plan endorsements, 12 I'm just wondering why you included the last line 13 that you deleted under the center. You deleted, 14 "Designated Centers endorsed by the State 15 Planning Commission are eligible for priority and 16 technical assistance." 17 For consistency's sake, should we 18 take that out, as well? 19 MR. HARRISON: It's crossed out on 20 my copy. 21 MR. ESKILSON: Great minds think 22 alike. 23 MS. LANG: Bill, on the minor map 24 amendment, are you suggesting that that be 25 removed? 15 1 MR. HARRISON: Well, as I'll explain 2 when we get to map amendments, we are greatly 3 reducing the number of opportunities that map 4 amendments can occur. The minor map amendment 5 distinction is one that predominantly is a notice 6 function. It still may make sense to have 7 different notice requirements for minor map 8 amendments than for major map amendments; but 9 other than that, we're not making the distinction 10 any more. 11 The current state planning rules are 12 very liberal in when map amendments can occur and 13 what we want to do with the map amendments is to, 14 one, for municipalities and counties indicate 15 that that occurs through the plan endorsement 16 process; and two, entities with an endorsed plan 17 are not subject to map amendments because that 18 almost defeats the purpose of plan endorsement if 19 someone can come in after they have an endorsed 20 plan and say, We think this planning area 21 boundary should be changed or the center boundary 22 should be changed, whatever the issue is. It 23 eliminates the certainty from the process that 24 we're trying to provide for entities seeking a 25 center designation, who -- you know, one of the 16 1 things that we've offered them is that they, you 2 know, have some assurance that their endorsed 3 plan will be recognized by other levels of 4 government, particularly state agencies and that 5 they don't have to until the next state plan 6 process worry about those boundaries being 7 changed by an outsider. 8 MS. LANG: The concern if 9 information is given at a future point in time 10 after plan endorsement, that there is new 11 information available, that they may need a minor 12 amendment, is there a process in place -- 13 MR. HARRISON: The municipality or 14 the county can come in and seek an amendment to 15 its endorsed plan. 16 MS. LANG: All right. 17 MR. FISHER: Do you think it's 18 appropriate, though, to continue to have that 19 statement in the endorsement definition that they 20 may involve map amendments and center 21 designations. 22 Isn't plan endorsement intended to 23 be a more comprehensive endorsement, rather than 24 incur the map amendments to the endorsement 25 process even though the rules provide for it? 17 1 MR. HARRISON: But it is the process 2 by which municipalities and counties can achieve 3 map amendments and center designations. And I 4 think without saying that you run the risk of 5 saying you're locked into the boundaries shown on 6 the state plan. And I think this is making clear 7 that the plan endorsement process is how you 8 accomplish those. 9 MS. SAMSON: I'm sorry. Let me just 10 ask this question. And I'm sorry if I missed it 11 before. 12 If there is an endorsement process 13 and there is a center that's approved as part of 14 the endorsement process or we approve, you know, 15 we get cross acceptance on particular planning 16 areas, then will the map be altered to reflect 17 those changes to the extent they're different 18 from the existing map? 19 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 20 MS. SAMSON: So it's a function; the 21 map changes the function of the endorsement 22 process. 23 MR. HARRISON: Right. 24 MS. SAMSON: It's not an independent 25 process, it reflects the endorsement process. 18 1 MR. HARRISON: Right. 2 Once the State Planning Commission 3 has endorsed a municipal or county plan, any 4 changes to the state plan policy map that are 5 included in that endorsed plan would then 6 automatically be reflected on the state plan 7 policy map. 8 MS. SAMSON: So wouldn't you really 9 be saying in the endorsement process here that 10 endorsements may -- these endorsements may result 11 in a map amendment. And separate from that, the 12 endorsement process is included to include -- 13 intended to include a new designation process, 14 center designation process? 15 I mean, they're kind of different, 16 aren't they? 17 Am I babbling? 18 MR. HARRISON: They are somewhat 19 different. 20 MR. ZELLNER: They are somewhat 21 different. 22 MS. BYERS: Couldn't we just make it 23 clearer by saying, The plan endorsement is the 24 process through which map amendments and center 25 designations occur? 19 1 And that way, it would be clear. 2 MS. SAMSON: Yes. I think that's a 3 way of saying it, yes. 4 MS. BYERS: You know, it's kind of 5 vague. 6 MR. HARRISON: Say that again. 7 MS. BYERS: Plan endorsement is the 8 process through which map amendments and center 9 designations occur. 10 Maybe we can come up with better 11 grammar than that, but... 12 MS. SAMSON: So have you come up 13 with a proposal then on how you're going to deal 14 with the defined terms in centers? 15 MR. HARRISON: No, other than a 16 general statement as of -- I mean, the approach 17 is going to be to give some sense within the 18 definition of the distinction between the range 19 that -- instead of simply saying, Centers range 20 in scale from..., we'll give from the state plan 21 examples. 22 MS. SAMSON: Refer it back to the 23 state plan so if a member of the public is 24 reading this that you know where to go to under 25 the definitions. 20 1 MS. BYERS: Any other questions? 2 MR. ESKILSON: We're just doing 3 definitions? 4 MS. BYERS: Yes. 5 MR. ESKILSON: Okay; because I've 6 got more questions, but... 7 MR. HARRISON: There are a couple of 8 other definition things that I want to point out. 9 The Petitioner -- we flip-flopped on 10 this. And I honestly don't remember where the 11 substance of the rules left off. I think I ended 12 up with or I think I am going to end up with, 13 Petitioner will also include petitioners for map 14 amendments. At one point I was using a different 15 word which when I reduced the scope of who could 16 do map amendments, it no longer became necessary 17 to use a different word so we fixed that 18 definition to reflect that it will include map 19 amendments. 20 Plan Endorsement Agreement is a term 21 that is no longer being used in the rules and 22 hence it's been deleted or will be deleted. 23 Plan Endorsement Contract is the new 24 term. There was inconsistency in the current 25 rules describing a variety of documents that were 21 1 entered into between the State Planning 2 Commission and entities seeking endorsement. The 3 -- what we're doing in the rules is there will be 4 a two-step process for plan endorsement: One, 5 the first step is initiating a petition for plan 6 endorsement; and the second step is having the 7 plan ultimately endorsed by the State Planning 8 Commission. 9 The first step initiating plan 10 endorsement process, we felt it would be best to 11 describe the agreement that would be entered into 12 between the State Planning Commission and the 13 petitioner along with the state agency, members 14 of the State Planning Commission as a contract. 15 We want to give a sense that this is 16 a binding agreement between the state agencies, 17 the State Planning Commission and the 18 municipality or county coming in to seek plan 19 endorsement with a set of obligations on both 20 sides that that will be set forth. The basic 21 provisions will be set out in the plan 22 endorsement guidelines, but it will be tailored 23 specifically to each particular circumstance as 24 to what the municipality has to do, what benefits 25 will be available to the municipality upon having 22 1 its initial petition approved by the State 2 Planning Commission so that is all set forth. 3 There may be specific milestones 4 that are set forth in the contract where if the 5 municipality -- let me just give an example that 6 when they adopt their circulation plan element, 7 they would at that point be eligible for certain 8 DOT funding. You know, it will vary from case to 9 case. We will have the general provisions, as I 10 said, laid out in the plan endorsement 11 guidelines, but each petitioner who comes in, 12 there will be a contract setting forth everyone's 13 obligations for the process and a schedule for 14 that. 15 MR. ESKILSON: I think that's a real 16 positive point. 17 MR. HARRISON: Then the other term, 18 which is not currently defined, even though it is 19 used in the rules is "Planning and Implementation 20 Agreement," that will not be much different from 21 what is currently used in the center designation 22 process; but once a plan is formally endorsed, 23 many of the things that are currently put in 24 planning and implementation agendas will be 25 things that are done before the plan is formally 23 1 endorsed. 2 There will be some items that by 3 their very nature take place over time and should 4 not delay full endorsement of the plan that will 5 be in the planning and implementation agenda that 6 will be set forth that a municipality will again 7 -- there will be obligations to do things. And 8 concurrently, there will be obligations on the 9 part of the state agencies to perform certain 10 tasks. 11 MS. SAMSON: Won't some of those 12 items be part of the contract? 13 MR. HARRISON: Yes. Most of the 14 items that you traditionally have been seeing in 15 planning implementation agendas under the center 16 designation process will occur under the contract 17 and will have to be done before the municipal or 18 county plan is endorsed by the State Planning 19 Commission. 20 There will be some items that are 21 ongoing items that -- 22 MS. SAMSON: But that still could be 23 subject to the contract. 24 MR. HARRISON: Right. 25 MR. ESKILSON: And the State 24 1 Planning Commission is signing for the state 2 agencies, correct? 3 MS. SAMSON: Right. 4 MR. ESKILSON: And under the new 5 process, the corporate designation is all... 6 MR. HARRISON: Right, yes. 7 Just one little change that was 8 actually reflected as something significant and 9 substantive in the rules, the definition of 10 "strategic revitalization plan," we missed and we 11 need to delete the word "neighborhood." We are 12 substantively changing the rules to require that 13 the smallest entity area that can be subject for 14 plan endorsement is a municipality. We are not 15 under any guise going to return it to the 16 current, whether it's center designation or 17 through the guise in the strategic revitalization 18 plans look at subparts of the municipality, but 19 it is going to be looking, at a minimum, at a 20 whole municipality. 21 As we discussed at many meetings, 22 the push is for county plans, regional plans and 23 not just one municipality coming in at a time. 24 MS. BYERS: If we do neighborhoods, 25 we're in big trouble. 25 1 MS. SAMSON: Will municipalities be 2 the smallest group that can come in? 3 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 4 Public participation is scattered in 5 various places in the rules. We're putting them 6 all in 1.6. Most were there, but there were some 7 other places where they were scattered in the 8 rules and anything that deals with public 9 participation is in 1.6. 10 Similarly, the public notice 11 requirements are all being put in 1.7. As the 12 memo indicated, we're still in the process of 13 organizing that. All the provisions where there 14 needs to be public notice are simply 15 cross-referencing this Section I believe we can 16 still do some further consolidation so it's not 17 quite as many pages as it is currently. 18 My major request of you, and if you 19 could get back to us by early next week, is if 20 you think there should be additional notice 21 requirements, additional entities that should be 22 getting noticed, whatever, let us know. 23 What is here is the current notice 24 focus requirements consolidated. If you think 25 those are not adequate, let us know. 26 1 MS. SAMSON: On the public 2 participation, 1.6(a), is that intended to be the 3 sort of affirmative obligation that there shall 4 be public participation at the negotiating 5 sessions. 6 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 7 MS. SAMSON: So we may want to make 8 this a more affirmative statement. Now, it just 9 says it includes comments, but if the affirmative 10 direction is to include public participation in 11 all the relevant meetings, then it probably 12 should be a more direct affirmative statement. 13 MS. BYERS: I would urge the members 14 of the public to take a really good hard look at 15 the public notice provisions and anything that is 16 missing, as Bill said, get back to him by next 17 week. It's really important to make sure that 18 this works smoothly for everyone. 19 MR. HARRISON: We have tried to plow 20 through subchapters 2 through 5. We've gone over 21 them with you before, but just to highlight the 22 more significant portions of those, most of the 23 changes, and I'll try and explain, are provisions 24 that we're relocating so the structure is a 25 little better so provisions relating to municipal 27 1 cross-acceptance are all together and not kind of 2 hidden as to the rules. 3 3.3 is a section we're deleting. 4 This has never happened. Deleting it does not 5 preclude it from happening. It is just 6 affirmatively going out and trying to get 7 counties to work together does not seem to be 8 something that we should be spending our time 9 doing. If the counties want to do it, the rules 10 would allow them to go out and do it. 11 Section 3.4 -- 12 MR. ESKILSON: Can we go back to the 13 section 3.2? 14 In the case where the county opts 15 out, "the State Planning Commission shall 16 designate an appropriate entity, or itself." 17 Do you have any notion of what an 18 appropriate entity might be, a list or a 19 criteria? 20 I mean, I can't imagine that's -- 21 has that happened in the past where a county has 22 opted out? 23 MR. ZELLNER: No, it hasn't; but, 24 for example, a South Jersey county may want to 25 work with DVRPC, so we'll allow the option for a 28 1 larger MPO, for example, or watershed or 2 something like that. 3 MR. ESKILSON: But in that case, the 4 county is driving that decision. This allows the 5 State Planning Commission to drive the decision. 6 MR. HARRISON: There are not a lot 7 of options. I mean, in Southwest New Jersey, the 8 DVRPC is an available option that would be there. 9 The goal is to have all the counties 10 participate and meet a stop gap. Hopefully they 11 will work with the county who should be the 12 entity, but the goal is to have all the counties 13 participate. 14 MS. BYERS: Bill, I know you're 15 trying to make this more concise and take things 16 out that aren't relevant, but since we are trying 17 to get a more regional approach, does it really 18 hurt to leave the language in here about 19 encouraging counties to work together? 20 I mean, it's not doing any harm and 21 it just reinforces what we're trying to get to, 22 which is a more regional approach. I think 23 instead of maybe saying -- maybe we should just 24 say, The Office of Smart Growth encourages, 25 rather than shall encourage, to take away any 29 1 requirement for you guys to do something. 2 MR. HARRISON: My preference rather 3 than doing it that way would be to simply say, 4 Counties are encouraged to, and just not put in 5 an affirmative obligation on us to go out and 6 say, you know, Burlington wouldn't you like to 7 work with Camden; Sussex, wouldn't you want to 8 work with Warren. 9 MS. BYERS: I don't think the Office 10 of Smart Growth should have a requirement to go 11 out and enforce it, so taking the "shall" out, 12 but just saying you're encouraging it may be very 13 good. A county may look at that and something 14 may spark in their mind about something going on 15 in an adjacent county and they may decide to do 16 something. Keep encouraging it. We have to be 17 optimistic. 18 MS. SAMSON: Well, the State 19 Planning Commission will ultimately assume, take 20 a look at its policies and objectives as part of 21 the state plan and perhaps develop the regional 22 aspect of it as a more affirmative policy. I 23 mean, the rules say you develop the policy, 24 that's really what we're taking a look at is sort 25 of a shift to more regional concerns. I don't 30 1 know that the rules need to necessarily set that 2 policy as much as we need to take a look at the 3 plan's objectives. 4 MS. BYERS: Right. There needs to 5 be a message that we have committed in all of 6 our -- 7 MS. SAMSON: I agree. 8 MS. BYERS: The rules in particular 9 is not the most appropriate place, I'll agree, 10 but as long as it is here, we might as well keep 11 reinforcing it. 12 (Tim Touhey, Public Member joined 13 the meeting.) 14 MR. HARRISON: 3.5, which shows up 15 as we're deleting it, I think we need to put a 16 little bit in. What we're proposing to do is 17 have the cross-acceptance manual contain a draft 18 work plan and work program. I think we need to 19 put language in that we affirmatively get 20 something back from the county. The reason why 21 we originally deleted that was, you know, one of 22 the goals of the State Planning Commission was to 23 eliminate steps that were taking time 24 unnecessarily and we felt that rather than each 25 county coming to us and developing their own work 31 1 program, we would streamline that by having a 2 draft work program included within the 3 cross-acceptance manual, but I think we need to 4 get that back from the county so we know that 5 they are participating in accordance with the 6 work program and there may be instances where 7 they may want to individualize that, so there 8 will be a small section of 3.5 remaining. 9 3.6, all the new language is moved 10 from subsequent sections. This is just an 11 attempt to consolidate all the provisions 12 relating to municipal participation in the 13 cross-acceptance process in one place. 14 The language that is being deleted 15 in 3.8 was moved to 3.1. We'll improve the 16 wording, but the substance of it is there. 17 We consolidated the -- in 3.9, the 18 current 1 through 4 -- 1 through 4 in (b) got put 19 in much shorter terms in 3.9(a). 3.9(c) was 20 deleted. This is another one of the unnecessary 21 provisions that were complicating and confusing 22 the process. 23 3.10, these sections appear in I 24 guess it is 3.6. 25 4.1, the old (a) was moved to 4.6(a) 32 1 because it fit in better there. The old 4.1(c) 2 was moved to 1.6 dealing with public 3 participation. 4 4.2, (b) and (c) are deleted. This 5 is something that we felt it -- that we should 6 have the maximum flexibility in who should be on 7 the negotiating committee when that is formed, 8 rather than trying to get to a specific number of 9 members. I think that is going to be something 10 that is going to vary county by county and we 11 should specify in the rules who was on that. 12 4.3 -- 13 MR. FISHER: Isn't there a danger 14 though if you don't specify at least the number 15 of people that you could end up with just one 16 person to negotiate? 17 MR. HARRISON: One if the State 18 Planning Commission is comfortable with that. I 19 mean, to do this, you know, on a hypothetical 20 basis, there may be real situations -- there may 21 be very few issues in Hudson County and to 22 require that three members of the State Planning 23 Commission go in and meet and have everyone say, 24 Gee, this is all Planning Area 1 and there are a 25 couple of environmentally sensitive areas that 33 1 everyone has known about for a long time, you 2 know, that may not be a good use of your time. 3 The 4.3(a) was moved to 3.2(a). 4 4.4(a) was moved to 3.6; again, 5 that's a municipal cross-acceptance provision 6 that popped up in an odd place. 7 4.5(a) was moved to 4.1. The former 8 4.5(b), 2 and 3 were moved to 3.6. 9 4.6(c) was incorporated into the 10 language in 4.6(a). 11 One of the things we're doing here, 12 the statute, when it was amended subsequent to 13 passage uses a variety of different words that 14 are contradictory describing what occurs from the 15 release of the preliminary plan until the 16 adoption of the final state plan. 17 What we're doing in the rules, which 18 I think is most consistent with the statute is 19 referring to the interim document that is 20 released, not as an interim final, but as a draft 21 final state plan, which I think better describes 22 what it is. It's not serving on an interim 23 basis. It is a draft of a final plan which then 24 goes out for public comment to ultimately be 25 adopted with whatever changes. So I think a 34 1 draft final state plan -- interim implies 2 something that's taking effect for a short period 3 of time and it has no legal status as otherwise 4 may appear. The existing state plan continues in 5 effect until a new state plan is adopted. 6 MR. TOUHEY: So it serves the same 7 function. 8 MR. HARRISON: Right, yes. It is 9 just a word that I think is more consistent with 10 the statute and more accurately describes it. 11 MR. TOUHEY: Knowing that you 12 challenge this freely, that the draft plan is not 13 functional? 14 MR. HARRISON: Yes, I think it's 15 clear if we're using "interim." 16 MR. TOUHEY: Okay. 17 I can see someone saying, Well, it's 18 just a draft plan, I don't want to accept it 19 and, you know, we adopt it and three years later, 20 it's a draft plan, it's not a -- lawyers could 21 have fun with that. 22 MR. HARRISON: I am more comfortable 23 with this language. 24 MR. TOUHEY: Okay. 25 MR. HARRISON: The 5.1, the change 35 1 is to more closely follow the language in the 2 statute. We deleted (b) as being unnecessary. 3 The 5.2, the statute requires six 4 public hearings on the draft final state plan. 5 The rules require a hearing in each county. I 6 think what should be done depends upon the nature 7 of the differences in the "draft" state plan with 8 the "existing" state plan, but to require in 9 every instance you hold 21 hearings, one in each 10 of the counties seems far beyond what is done in 11 any other context in the state to get public 12 input. And I'm not trying to be discouraging. 13 If you in a given instance want to hold 21 14 hearings, that's fine, but even then it still may 15 make sense to consolidate some and have multiple 16 hearings in areas where there are disputes. 17 MS. SAMSON: I have to go back to 18 comment for a minute. Just explain to me, as we 19 go through this cross-acceptance process and the 20 State Planning Commission approves particular 21 plan endorsements, when is that effective? 22 MR. HARRISON: Two separate things, 23 and I've been having the same problem, but let me 24 try and do this: The state plan, that process is 25 a preliminary state plan is released, the State 36 1 Planning Commission conducts cross acceptance 2 with preferably counties. At the conclusion of 3 that process, the State Planning Commission 4 releases a "draft" state plan, it goes through a 5 public hearing process and then a new state plan 6 is adopted. 7 Plan endorsement is tied to the new 8 state plan, so, you know, you would be endorsing 9 as being consistent with the state plan that is 10 in effect at the time of the endorsement. 11 What we're doing and I'll get to 12 later in the rules is then tying that plan 13 endorsement to a fixed period which for 14 municipalities will be tied to the municipal land 15 use law, required reexamination report so they're 16 on the same path time period for doing the 17 required municipal land use law changes as they 18 are for plan endorsements, so the two match. And 19 to get our legislative package all through, that 20 ties things together even more nicely that there 21 will be state plan on a -- I mean, if everything 22 occurs together, we'll be on the same cycle with 23 the state plan, the municipal reexamination 24 report and, in turn, plan endorsement, so 25 everything will be going together. 37 1 MR. FISHER: But say someone gets 2 endorsed next year, next summer and we're going 3 through cross acceptance at this time, they're 4 being endorsed based on the March 2001 state 5 plan, a year later we re-adopt a new plan, 6 they're still endorsed based on that March 2001 7 plan, correct? 8 MR. HARRISON: Right. 9 MR. FISHER: And that consistency or 10 that endorsement remains in effect for six years, 11 right? 12 MR. HARRISON: By the rules. 13 MR. FISHER: I don't think there is 14 anything we can do about that, unless we're going 15 to force them to change upon re-adoption of the 16 new version of the state plan or give ourselves 17 the ability to reexamine the petitions. 18 MS. SAMSON: And in the 19 redevelopment -- by the redevelopment of the new 20 state plan, you're taking into account the 21 endorsements that have occurred prior -- 22 MR. FISHER: You should be. 23 MS. SAMSON: Yes, you should be. 24 So by the time you get to the 25 issuance of this preliminary plan, you will have 38 1 a document that is dynamic and has changed with 2 the times of the endorsement of the public 3 process. 4 MR. HARRISON: I'll go through this 5 in greater detail when we get to the plan 6 endorsement. 7 MR. FISHER: Right. 8 MR. HARRISON: But the endorsement 9 should -- you can do whatever you want with the 10 rules, it's not that you can't do anything. If 11 you want to say the endorsement turns into a 12 pumpkin at the point a new state plan is adopted, 13 you can do that in the rules. It is your rules 14 that sets forth how long the endorsement is for. 15 I am in agreement that the endorsement should be 16 for a fixed term and not governed by what 17 happens. One of the -- 18 MR. TOUHEY: I guess, in theory, let 19 me stop you in thought, in theory, the plan 20 endorsement as it comes to the Committee is going 21 to be designed hopefully with county input and 22 municipal input so before we are at cross 23 acceptance we're adopting a plan endorsement 24 strategy. Things can change, but I guess, in 25 theory, the kind of rhythm you're talking about 39 1 would work. I guess my concern and I guess it's 2 more of a legal concern is we're a bump in the 3 road and all of this can get challenged and upset 4 the apple cart based on language that we're 5 adopting, I mean, interim, draft, plan 6 endorsement. If you're comfortable with that 7 legally, I'm okay with it. 8 MR. HARRISON: I am. I think the 9 one thing that I think the State Planning 10 Commission needs to be careful about is plan 11 endorsement to the immediate future. There are 12 some areas that I suspect, and we'll get the 13 input from the state agencies at the end of the 14 summer, will indicate that there are significant 15 changes that should occur to the state plan 16 policy. And you don't want to go off and in a 17 couple of months before you're adopting a new 18 state plan that are reflecting those changes 19 endorse a plan that is consistent with the 20 current state plan, but is wildly different and I 21 think that's what we're addressing. We're going 22 to be working with everyone. We're going to know 23 what is out there and where there are those 24 differences, start addressing them. 25 MR. ESKILSON: I think that a key 40 1 point is the map, a critical piece is the map 2 because it is actually part of the plan. And the 3 endorsed plan, whether it is municipal or county 4 actually demands a piece of the state plan so now 5 you've got that in place and the state plan 6 sunsets and what happens to the map. 7 I'm a little concerned about what 8 you just said, Bill, because we have got a bunch 9 of towns that we're about to say, Come on in for 10 expedited plan endorsement which may include map 11 changes and we move that through and then low and 12 behold the state agencies come forward with a 13 different map and we're amending the map again 14 and where does that leave us. 15 MR. TOUHEY: Or I would define it as 16 not a different map, but data and information 17 that could impact our map. 18 MS. BYERS: It could change the map. 19 MR. HARRISON: That is information 20 that we should have in hand long before someone 21 is going to have a completed endorsement. And 22 that's where I'm saying the State Planning 23 Commission is going to have to look at those. 24 Whichever way you look at it, it makes little 25 sense to endorse a plan one day and then adopt a 41 1 state plan the next day that's very different. 2 MS. SAMSON: And I think to some 3 extent because I think we're on the same page on 4 this, I mean we've got a whole subset or universe 5 of municipalities that we're shifting into a 6 different process because we have different 7 changing needs. I mean, we're looking at 8 regional impacts and we have great concerns. 9 I think we've got to find a way when 10 we shift these people to reassure them that this 11 is not a process that is going to sunset. I 12 mean, it has to have some legs and some lasting 13 effect and how we deal with that in terms of 14 changing the rules or creating a special 15 transition subset or something because, I mean, I 16 think it's important to address -- we've said 17 we're going to address the regional issues for 18 those folks that we didn't feel comfortable 19 addressing in isolation right now and I think we 20 have an obligation to do that meaningfully. 21 MR. HARRISON: Right. And the 22 rules -- I'll forget going to these other 23 sections, if I skip to that -- I mean, do give a 24 fixed period of time for the endorsed plan to be 25 valid. We're trying to -- we can discuss the 42 1 period of time, but we're trying to provide a 2 reasonable period of protection and at the same 3 time not lock someone into a former state plan, 4 whether we're talking about what is happening 5 today or in the future to a -- an endorsed plan 6 that is different from what the state plan is for 7 many, many years after that state plan is 8 adopted. 9 MR. ESKILSON: I think that's 10 tricky, but I think the maps are even trickier to 11 be honest. We still have the ability for a third 12 party to come in to petition to amend the map, 13 correct? 14 MR. HARRISON: Once there is an 15 endorsed plan, we're ending that ability for the 16 third party to come in. 17 MR. TOUHEY: Okay. 18 Once the endorsed plan is adopted by 19 the Commission? 20 MR. HARRISON: Otherwise you are 21 defeating the whole purpose of encouraging towns 22 to come in. 23 MS. SAMSON: Maybe, and this will go 24 to -- I'm sure you're going to get there in just 25 a minute, but tell me how, for example, if we 43 1 have, you know, a subset of towns and they come 2 in, in the fall and we move them to a plan and 3 they want to be designated as centers and they're 4 designated as centers as part of the plan 5 endorsement process, right? 6 MR. HARRISON: That's correct. 7 MS. SAMSON: And maybe I need to 8 understand how that works specifically. Even if 9 later the purposes and objectives of the map or 10 the plan change in the new state plan and I think 11 we're closer to doing that, the center 12 designations wouldn't be changed, would they? 13 MR. ESKILSON: They shouldn't. 14 MS. SAMSON: They shouldn't, right. 15 I mean, because there would be some things that 16 would be undertaken by municipalities in reliance 17 upon. You're not taking away the center 18 designation. 19 MS. BYERS: There is a sunset on the 20 center designations, as well. 21 MS. SAMSON: Oh, there is? 22 In terms of being able to receive -- 23 MS. BYERS: In terms of the 24 designation itself, we can put a sunset on the 25 center designations. It doesn't go on forever. 44 1 They have to come back in for an update. 2 MR. HARRISON: Starting with January 3 2002, all centers were given a sunset. It varied 4 depending upon whether they were improved prior 5 to January 2002. 6 MR. ESKILSON: We also introduced a 7 new legal instrument. The whole notion of 8 contract, that really probably exists outside the 9 state plan. If there is a contract, that says, 10 If this happens, these other things happen and 11 then that exists regardless of the state plan. 12 There are a couple of ways to lock it down. 13 MR. ZELLNER: There are two issue: 14 One, because of the cycle, we are 15 always going to have some areas going through the 16 process while we're going through a new mapping 17 process and a plan process; but, two, it's also 18 that we're going to have to keep our eyes on the 19 ground. We're expecting these data layers by the 20 end of the summer or by early September so that 21 we can begin to actually look out there and as we 22 are endorsing these plans, and I think you hit 23 it, Joanna, we're going to be looking at the 24 centers, the growth areas and presumably those 25 areas are going to match -- we're going to 45 1 continue that through because we don't want to 2 start growth in an area and then change our mind 3 halfway through so we're going to have to be able 4 to walk and look at this data and be able to 5 synthesize it while we're moving forwards with 6 the new plan. 7 Inevitably, this is always going to 8 happen because we will have a few folks coming 9 through the process while we're beginning a new 10 process; that is just the nature of timing. 11 MS. SAMSON: Can you describe, I 12 think it might be helpful anyway since we're 13 starting to shift into this new process, exactly 14 how a municipality would come into center 15 designation as part of the plan endorsement 16 process? 17 I mean, who do they go to, how does 18 it come to us? 19 I mean, you know, conceptually, what 20 are we talking about because that helps me, at 21 least, understand the rules. 22 MR. ZELLNER: Good question. 23 MR. HARRISON: The current process 24 focuses only on the center. There is some 25 consideration as to what happens in the environs 46 1 surrounding the center, but the focus is on the 2 center and what the boundaries of that center 3 should be. 4 The point of shifting, and this 5 happened several years ago in the State Planning 6 Commission rules to plan endorsement is so the 7 focus is on the entire municipality and ideally 8 on a group of municipalities or an entire county 9 so you can see the center in context and in terms 10 of what other decisions may be made. And, you 11 know, there may be instances where it may make 12 sense, in fact, you know, through plan 13 endorsement to say, Gee, this center really needs 14 to be larger because there is so much 15 environmentally sensitive land or so much 16 agriculturally important land to be protected 17 that we need to do things TDR, mandatory off-site 18 clustering of a variety of provisions, that you 19 need a larger center in order to accommodate the 20 development and better protect the agricultural 21 land or the environmentally sensitive land. And 22 you need a context to do that. It's part of plan 23 endorsement that there would also be, in addition 24 to defining the center boundaries, any 25 adjustments to the planning area boundaries to 47 1 the municipality, but it turns from a focus on a 2 portion of a town to looking at the entire 3 municipality and, as I said, ideally a group of 4 municipalities or an entire county. 5 MS. SAMSON: And procedurally, 6 describe for me procedurally how it's different; 7 where do you send the applications? 8 MR. HARRISON: I am going to go back 9 and instantly finish subchapter 5. 10 MS. SAMSON: I am setting you up for 11 subchapter 8 actually is what I was doing. 12 MR. HARRISON: And go through 7 and 13 8 and do that. 14 Subchapter 5 -- 15 MR. TOUHEY: Let me just say this. 16 These are great questions. I 17 remember a year ago when I sat here, I mean, I 18 thought a bond deal was complicated. This gets, 19 you know, this reading is enough to put you out, 20 so... 21 MR. ESKILSON: The thing about Bill 22 is he takes this subject matter which is so dry 23 and makes it exciting. 24 MS. SAMSON: He does. 25 MR. TOUHEY: Right, and it's going 48 1 to be important for us as a commission who speaks 2 to the public at large. 3 MS. SAMSON: Obviously, some of this 4 is because I am new to the process; but, also, it 5 seems to me the process is new and changing, as 6 well. 7 MR. TOUHEY: Absolutely and I think 8 it has been very appropriate. 9 MS. SAMSON: Thank you. 10 MR. HARRISON: We're moving from 11 5.2(b) and (c) and (d) to the notice sections. 12 Subchapters 6, Letters of 13 Clarification we are deleting, which has been 14 discussed at several meetings. 15 And now we move to subchapter 7. 16 There was a mistake because I got 17 confused in writing. The last sentence in 18 7.1(a), it should be referring to planning and 19 implementation agreements, not plan endorsement 20 contracts. 21 We are deleting what are listed as 22 the six objectives that the state plan outlines 23 because we can't find them in the state plan, as 24 such. 25 MS. SAMSON: Ultimately, we'll get 49 1 there for the policies on, correct? 2 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 3 MS. SAMSON: This may not be the 4 right place for it. 5 MR. HARRISON: Well, this is -- yes. 6 These are -- the state plan has policies, 7 strategies and goals, it doesn't have objectives. 8 These are different things from what are in the 9 state plan. It is an interesting little section, 10 which I have had someone explain to me how it 11 came to be, but Vanessa and I have both looked at 12 the state plan. 13 MS. BYERS: It's a dynamic plan. 14 MR. HARRISON: We tried reading 15 every fifth word and still couldn't come up 16 with... 17 MS. SAMSON: When you say at the end 18 of 7.1 that that should be plan implementation, 19 why wouldn't it be the contract now? 20 MR. HARRISON: The contract -- and 21 we may need to put that in. What we are 22 referring to is what happens after the plan is 23 endorsed, which is the Planning Implementation 24 Agreement. The contract occurs at the initial 25 step of plan endorsement. We're not making that 50 1 contract go away, it is just the reference here 2 as the sentence is written should be to the 3 Planning Implementation Agreement. 4 7.2, you start getting into 5 provisions that were discussed. We are changing 6 slightly the plans that are eligible for 7 endorsement. We're making it clear in (b)1 that 8 it's not just a master plan, but there are other 9 things, the land use ordinance, capital 10 improvement programs. There are a variety of 11 things that will be included in the package that 12 will be endorsed. 13 We're making the changes. I 14 indicated before that the other types of plan 15 endorsement, municipal strategic revitalization 16 plan or urban complex strategic revitalization 17 plans and regional strategic plans all have to 18 involve at least an entire municipality. 19 The current rules had a provision 20 saying that state agency functional plans could 21 be endorsed, but then reserved that section of 22 the rules, Do not set forth a procedure. I don't 23 know the point of state agencies coming here and 24 in the same sense having their functional plans 25 endorsed. I think by going through the plan 51 1 endorsement contracts, you're actually 2 accomplishing a better result than having Green 3 Acres come in and say, Here is our plan for land 4 acquisition. I think that's something that 5 should be specific to counties and municipalities 6 coming in for endorsement. 7 MS. SAMSON: As opposed to 8 independently outside of counties. 9 MR. HARRISON: Right. 10 MR. TOUHEY: My only concern about 11 this, this is theoretically, you get all the 12 state agency data, you adopt a master plan or a 13 county plan or a revitalization plan and say from 14 DEP we get environmentally sensitive information 15 and we're not -- it's never been incorporated in 16 any of the plans and there is no budget because 17 this can't happen, it still makes them eligible 18 because they have the plan. 19 MS. BYERS: They wouldn't get it 20 endorsed by the Commission to begin with because 21 DEP has a strong voice. 22 MS. SAMSON: Or it would be endorsed 23 with caveats or done in ways to reflect -- 24 MR. TOUHEY: Let's use Sussex 25 County. John, you guys all did a county plan. 52 1 MR. ESKILSON: Yes. 2 MR. TOUHEY: And you got at some 3 point some information, but not all related to 4 all state agencies in relation to your county 5 plan? 6 MR. ESKILSON: No, we're not that 7 far. 8 MR. TOUHEY: That's my concern to 9 others that are out there doing priority regional 10 planning and others to manage information that 11 changes. They still -- I guess to your point, 12 they wouldn't get plan endorsement because of 13 that information. 14 MS. SAMSON: But when they're 15 developing the county plans or the regional plans 16 or whatever they're doing, I mean, one of the 17 things that we're going to be guiding them on is 18 when you're doing this plan you need to take a 19 look at whether they're threatening endangered 20 species or critical waters areas or those kind 21 of -- I mean it's part of your planning, the 22 local planning process anyway, right? 23 MR. ESKILSON: Agreed. We're now 24 going to do that more and more up front. 25 MS. SAMSON: That's right. 53 1 MR. ESKILSON: And that should be 2 reflected in the contract. And you know my 3 feelings, I think we should be very specific 4 about the provisions in that contract and we 5 should see things like if we have an endorsed 6 plan that includes a COAH certified inclusion 7 area that DEP agrees not to subsidize the 8 acquisition of that site with public funds 9 whether it's through non-profit or direct 10 acquisition or purchase vehicle, that that can't 11 happen anymore. 12 MR. HARRISON: Or on the flip-side, 13 that if a site isn't being designated -- you 14 know, if DEP has already identified a site as an 15 acquisition interest, it shouldn't be designated 16 as a COAH site. 17 MR. ESKILSON: That's right. 18 MS. SAMSON: That should be part of 19 the process. 20 MR. FISHER: Bill, when you said 21 master plans and plan implementation mechanisms, 22 is that where you referred -- you're returning to 23 ordinances, as well? 24 MR. HARRISON: Right, yes. 25 MR. FISHER: Can we put in 54 1 ordinances? 2 MR. HARRISON: The tricky part -- 3 I'm not adverse to that. I mean, the rules have 4 always said and I think they are appropriate, 5 that you are not -- that the State Planning 6 Commission isn't certifying a specific ordinance 7 in the same way the Pinelands Commission does. I 8 mean, you're looking at a whole package of things 9 and saying, As a whole, are these consistent with 10 the state plan; if it's not, Gee, this is a 11 wonderful clustering ordinance. 12 We've had a lot of discussions about 13 how to phrase this. And in one draft, I had 14 ordinances in. 15 MR. FISHER: And? 16 MR. HARRISON: I don't know, someone 17 other than me had a problem with it. 18 MR. FISHER: I was just thinking in 19 terms of clarity. 20 MR. ESKILSON: I agree. I think 21 zoning ordinances and waste water plans certainly 22 are an important component of that. 23 MR. TOUHEY: It is what it is. I 24 mean, it's an ordinance. 25 MR. FISHER: Yeah, it doesn't 55 1 exclusively have to be an ordinance, there may be 2 other mechanisms. Maybe you can put it in a 3 parenthetical. I don't know. 4 MS. SAMSON: Could it be a master 5 plan and supporting ordinances or policies of the 6 town or something like that? 7 I mean, is that what you're talking 8 about? 9 MR. HARRISON: We will give 10 examples. 11 MS. BYERS: We can't just ignore 12 ordinances. 13 MR. HARRISON: I'm in agreement. 14 MR. ESKILSON: We can't ignore 15 approved wastewater management plans, as well. I 16 think they ought to be included; that's an 17 implementing mechanism that's crucial. 18 MS. BYERS: Implementing mechanism 19 is a good term, maybe it just needs a couple of 20 examples. 21 MR. ZELLNER: We're going to give a 22 couple of examples so we can walk them through 23 and say, Here is what we're talking about. 24 MR. HARRISON: Somewhat on the same 25 point, the plan endorsement guidelines, which the 56 1 State Planning Commission will issue will give a 2 fuller listing of what needs to accompany a plan 3 endorsement petition. You know, again, it is 4 that it will be a guideline. This will be 5 something that varies from municipality to 6 municipality as to precisely what needs to be 7 submitted. 8 I'm going to do this not going 9 through the rules specifically, I'm going to 10 describe the process for you and then you can ask 11 me specifics, if you want. 12 MR. ESKILSON: Before you start 13 that, 7.2, priority consideration to petitions 14 for endorsement involving county plans, etc. 15 MR. TOUHEY: Where is that? 16 MR. ESKILSON: It's page 54, right 17 at the top, 7.2(e). 18 I am just looking for a little more 19 detail as to what we mean by priority 20 considerations, that means a lot of things to a 21 lot of people. 22 MR. HARRISON: Okay. 23 Let me interpret -- 24 MR. ESKILSON: How we can document 25 to formulate compliance with the county plan and 57 1 the county is on board with that, it should be a 2 joint application or some sort of expedited 3 petition with time lines and... 4 MR. HARRISON: Let me give my 5 cop-out answer and then say we'll write better 6 words. 7 The cop-out answer is that language 8 is language that is in the rules. 9 Let me do what I am envisioning and 10 let's see if everyone is in agreement with that 11 and then we'll write where it's better reflected. 12 I mean, the major message of this section is we 13 want to deal with regional plans, not just 14 individual municipalities. And then what we're 15 trying to do with the language is to say, If a 16 municipality comes in with a county, it doesn't 17 get shoved to the back of the line, it joins the 18 front of the line with the county. And even 19 where -- I was in Hunterdon last Friday and the 20 issue came up. And I think even a municipality 21 that follows slightly behind the county should 22 still end up getting priority. What they think 23 is going to occur, that they will get their 24 municipalities halfway there through the county 25 plan, halfway is my number, but -- 58 1 MS. SAMSON: Right. 2 MR. HARRISON: And then the 3 municipalities are going to come in at varying 4 paces to finish up individual things for those 5 municipalities. And they shouldn't be at that 6 point shunted to the back of the line. They 7 should say, Okay, here are the three municipal 8 specific pieces that you need, they should be in 9 the front of the line. 10 MR. TOUHEY: Without defining the 11 words and working on a concept, maybe we almost 12 need to lay it out like that, Priority A, B, C 13 and D. If you're reading it, it gives a sense 14 like in the box, 4(a), and in the box -- it's on 15 a county plan and everybody is on board. 16 MR. ESKILSON: We ought to provide 17 for the possibility that a municipality might be 18 a party to a contract between the State Planning 19 Commission and the county on the endorsed plan 20 and sign on to specific milestones; and therefore 21 endorsements conveyed upon them as signatory to 22 the county contract. 23 MR. HARRISON: That, in my view, is 24 the preferred way to take coming together. I 25 mean, as I said, the issue came up in Hunterdon 59 1 and I was aware that it was going to be an issue 2 that they don't want to drag the municipalities 3 along. They think they'll come along, but 4 they're just not going to be finishing when the 5 county is going to be finishing. And the county 6 doesn't want to be held up waiting for straggler 7 municipalities, which is understandable. 8 Let me describe the overall plan 9 endorsement process without going section by 10 Section We are -- the current regulations 11 require that there be a pre-petition conference 12 with the Office of Smart Growth. We are making 13 that optional, that experience requiring 14 pre-application meetings. Sometimes that ends up 15 being counter-productive. 16 If the county or municipality wants 17 to have a pre-petition conference, there is a 18 requirement that they submit their existing 19 planning documents to the Office of Smart Growth 20 30 days in advance so that we will have an 21 opportunity to review them and will have a 22 meaningful meeting and be able to say, This is a 23 problem, this needs to be adjusted, this looks 24 really good and give them guidance as to how to 25 go. 60 1 We have divided the plan endorsement 2 process into two steps. 3 One is initiating the petition for 4 plan endorsement with a very important caveat 5 that I'll say in a second. Basically, that is 6 accomplished by the municipality submitting 7 existing master plan land use ordinances, capital 8 improvement program. 9 The two items where they may need to 10 do some work are natural resource inquiry and 11 infrastructure inquiry; but we think in order to 12 know where things are we need that basic 13 information. 14 The caveat is that the language used 15 is that they can get initial plan endorsement if 16 they are substantially consistent with the state 17 plan. If the current municipal master plan land 18 use ordinance's zoning has in Planning Area 5 19 that the entire area is designated for shopping 20 malls, industrial complexes, residential applied 21 to the acre, something is clearly wrong and we 22 shouldn't be saying, Fine, go ahead. There are 23 clearly cross purposes in the state plan. 24 MR. ESKILSON: Maybe. It could be 25 in a center that has infrastructure, a good 61 1 wastewater plan and it makes perfect sense. 2 MR. HARRISON: Sorry. 3 If it's a center, yes, that's fine, 4 but if it's outside of a center in the middle of 5 nowhere and they just decide.... 6 If they are substantially 7 consistent, they would get -- you determine to 8 have initiated their petition for plan 9 endorsement, they would then be eligible for 10 certain benefits which the agencies will have 11 spelled out, a plan endorsement contract will be 12 entered into, which will set forth, as I said, 13 before, the obligations of the petitioner and the 14 state agencies. 15 And, you know, as John said, you 16 know, if this is a county petitioning and there 17 are participating municipalities, you would have 18 to go through the county's municipal obligations, 19 you would include a schedule so you could keep 20 track of things as to what is going on. I would 21 not view the schedule as binding in the sense of, 22 Oh, you're supposed to adopt such and such an 23 ordinance by June 30th, it's July 1st, too bad; 24 but on the other hand, it is something that, you 25 know, we can make sure that things are proceeding 62 1 on the basis of the time schedule. 2 At the point of plan endorsement, 3 they -- you know, at that point, the master plan 4 and ordinances, etc., would have to be determined 5 to be consistent with the state plan and would 6 receive endorsement by the Commission. 7 There would still be a Planning and 8 Implementation Agreement that would outline any 9 remaining obligations. As I said before, most 10 things would be addressed through the plan 11 endorsement contract. Just to do some simple 12 examples, there may be some infrastructure 13 projects that were always envisioned to take 14 place years in the future that there would be 15 obligations that would be both municipal and 16 state agency obligations in terms of funding for 17 those projects, not requiring that every sewer 18 line be in place and, you know, that things would 19 be phased and that that would be reflected in the 20 Planning and Implementation Agreement. 21 Then you're endorsed and it's good 22 for awhile. Let me go through this very slowly. 23 Page 65. 24 MS. SAMSON: Which section are we? 25 MR. TOUHEY: 7.12, page 65, Period 63 1 of Endorsement. 2 MR. HARRISON: We're trying to 3 address all conceivable situations. 4 (a) is dealing with what I will call 5 the basic in the future situation. An endorsed 6 plan will be good until the next required 7 reexamination of municipal master plan as 8 required by the municipal land use law, that is 9 this six-year time period. 10 And for -- and I don't like the 11 words, I've written, but I wanted to give you 12 something for thought and we'll work on it, And 13 also will remain valid while a petition for 14 reendorsement, amended endorsement, whatever it 15 is that follows up that reexamination report is 16 pending with the State Planning Commission, so 17 you don't go through two-year reexamination 18 report. Say it changes, no changes, whatever, 19 there is going to be a period of time before the 20 State Planning Commission endorses an amended 21 plan or reendorses the same plan. You should 22 continue to be good and, you know, I'm trying to 23 deal with, you can't sit there for three years 24 before you come in and still continue the period 25 of protection. 64 1 MR. ESKILSON: It seems to me there 2 is a way around it and I think the reexamination 3 statute says, no less than six years, but you may 4 do it sooner than six years, I think, so we can 5 encourage a municipality to do that, to do the 6 exam report at the same time, get the bang for 7 the buck with your planner, come in, do your 8 reexam and then you're good for... 9 We should encourage that. 10 MR. HARRISON: Absolutely, and 11 that's the expectation. 12 MR. ESKILSON: Right. 13 MR. HARRISON: And I'm still trying 14 to make sure that even a town that does 15 everything at the beginning of the fifth year, 16 they start the reexamination and they're done by 17 the sixth year, it's still going to take awhile 18 to both do what they need to do locally, if there 19 are changes, if they say, Gee, we ought to change 20 the zoning in this area or whatever. For that to 21 occur, it's going to take awhile to go through 22 this process. And I don't want someone to be 23 able to say, Gee, your six years are up and you 24 haven't been re-endorsed by the State Planning 25 Commission, you're no longer endorsed and 65 1 whatever evil falls to an unendorsed town 2 happens. 3 So that will be the basic situation, 4 you know, our proposed amendments to the 5 municipal land use law, that would extend that to 6 a ten-year period, but, you know, it would be 7 tied into that and ideally, the reexamination 8 process will be incorporated -- you know, tied to 9 the plan endorsement process and all of that will 10 happen together. This is building on an existing 11 obligation, not imposing a new obligation on 12 municipalities and at the same time period 13 everything should fit together. 14 County and regional plans, we're -- 15 let me do what the current regulations do. 16 The current regulations are for ten 17 years or until the readoption of the state 18 development and redevelopment plan. 19 Now, the state plan is on a 20 three-year cycle and we're hoping to get 21 legislation to fix that; but pending that, we are 22 providing in this that it would be for at least 23 three years after the next state plan is to be 24 adopted, so we're giving three years more than 25 currently is provided to come in for a new plan 66 1 endorsement and that seems to be a reasonable 2 compromise. 3 Again, we're hoping that the state 4 plan would get out of a three-year cycle so that 5 the ten years will be a more real date, but I'm a 6 little uncomfortable giving a county or a region 7 that was endorsed one year before a state plan is 8 adopted a ten-year period when there could be 9 under the current cycle two or three state plans 10 adopted before they have to come in again. It 11 seems a little excessive grandfathering. 12 MR. ESKILSON: Explain to me a 13 circumstance under which the ten years would be 14 real. 15 MR. FISHER: If the commission takes 16 seven years to readopt the last plan. 17 MS. BYERS: We did the last time. 18 MR. HARRISON: I mean, there are -- 19 MR. TOUHEY: Got it. 20 MR. ESKILSON: Yes, I got it. 21 MR. HARRISON: John, to do this, 22 you're actually not going to be all that far away 23 from ten years. The last state plan was adopted 24 in March of 2001. The new one will be adopted, 25 if all goes well, May 2005. We're getting three 67 1 years after that, so we're getting seven years 2 and, you know, I think a four year -- and as I 3 said, we are hoping that they will amend the 4 statute so we have more than three years between 5 state plan cycles. 6 I mean, the current provision does 7 create a potential problem. 8 MS. SAMSON: Is that because under 9 the current rules they're only good for ten years 10 until the next state plan is done so technically 11 it would be every three years. 12 MR. HARRISON: Right, it would be 13 probably somewhat more than that, but you never 14 even get close to ten years. 15 MR. FISHER: Do you need the word 16 "first"; wouldn't it be better to say "the next" 17 or "the readopted"? 18 MR. HARRISON: B is then dealing 19 with some past actions, the past and immediate 20 future actions. Strategic plans are endorsed for 21 ten years -- that were approved prior to January 22 7th, 2002 are good for ten years from January 23 7th, 2002, which I think is basically restating 24 what the rule says. 25 MR. TOUHEY: So everything prior to 68 1 January 7th that was approved as a core or 2 designated center has ten years from January 7th? 3 MR. HARRISON: No. 4 MS. SAMSON: Six years from January 5 7th. 6 MR. HARRISON: Designated centers 7 for a period of six years. 8 MS. SAMSON: 2008. 9 MR. TOUHEY: Hold on. 10 MR. FISHER: It probably should be 11 worded, Shall remain endorsed, because they're 12 already endorsed now. 13 MS. SAMSON: Shall remain endorsed 14 for ten years from January 7th, 2002; is that.... 15 MR. FISHER: Right. 16 MS. BYERS: Can I just stop for a 17 moment just to acknowledge we're 45 minutes 18 behind our schedule and we do have two towns who 19 are here waiting for us to hear their petitions. 20 What do you think about either 21 finishing up right away on the plan endorsement 22 rules or moving on to the next agenda item so we 23 don't have people sitting here? 24 MS. SAMSON: What is the process for 25 adopting these rules; I mean, what is the next 69 1 thing that happens? 2 MR. HARRISON: The goal is to have 3 the State Planning Commission propose them as a 4 rule proposal at the January 16th meeting. The 5 timing -- 6 MS. SAMSON: January 16th or July 7 16th? 8 MR. HARRISON: July 16th. 9 We're trying to have them adopted in 10 January so that they will be in effect when we 11 start the cross-acceptance process in March is 12 how the timing works out, but there would be a 13 rule proposal with a 60-day public comment 14 period. 15 MS. SAMSON: If we approve the rules 16 on the 29th -- 17 MR. ZELLNER: We're aiming for the 18 16th. 19 MS. SAMSON: Well, when he makes 20 changes based on what we've seen, how will we... 21 MR. FISHER: See it. 22 MS. SAMSON: Yes, see it. 23 MR. HARRISON: We're asking, aside 24 from the comments we have today, for anyone to 25 get us comments by next Wednesday. We will get 70 1 them out to everyone on July 10th, both members 2 of the State Planning Commission and the public 3 for any further input. 4 MR. ZELLNER: And then it goes 5 through the public approval process, as well. 6 MS. SAMSON: So we need to do it by 7 the 16th, as opposed to the 29th because we're 8 backing into a -- getting into the register and 9 everything like that? 10 MR. ZELLNER: Uh-huh. 11 MR. FISHER: Then we still need to 12 see, you said, if we have to rework the public 13 notice section a little? 14 MR. HARRISON: Substantively; other 15 than if you have comments on additional, it's not 16 going to be any different, I mean, just more 17 organized and read coherently. 18 MS. SAMSON: Can we get clean copies 19 from you without the brackets and the add-ons so 20 that we could read it and refer back to the 21 changes? 22 Is that something we could get from 23 you? 24 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 25 MR. TOUHEY: Basically, if you could 71 1 e-mail all of us the adopted changes that we 2 talked about today on a clean sheet referring 3 back to the original rules and any other changes 4 or public comments you get prior to the 16th. We 5 would need that probably a week from now. 6 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: You had said 7 we'd get that on the 10th? 8 MR. HARRISON: Right. 9 MR. TOUHEY: Well, I think what all 10 the commission members are asking for, prior to 11 putting it on any website, is to respond to any 12 of the changes that we talked about here today, 13 any future public comment changes or something 14 you get prior to the 16th and any changes we may 15 have as members back to you, e-mail, so we can 16 see a clean copy of all those changes referred to 17 the rules so that we can respond to it on the 18 16th. 19 After the 16th, I assume then you 20 would put it on the web, correct? 21 MR. ZELLNER: Right. 22 MS. BYERS: I'm just trying to think 23 of a way that members of the public can see what 24 is going to be voted on in advance of the 16th. 25 MR. TOUHEY: Don't we have public 72 1 comment after the adoption of 60 days? 2 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. 3 MR. TOUHEY: So it's not like we're 4 not giving it to the public. 5 MS. BYERS: But the members of the 6 public should see what is going to be discussed 7 and voted on, on the 16th. 8 MR. FISHER: If it's not difficult, 9 could you send out both versions, the changed 10 version and the clean version? 11 MR. HARRISON: Yes, but the timing 12 may be different. 13 MR. FISHER: I would vote for going 14 to the petitions and coming back to this if we 15 have the time. 16 MS. BYERS: Vote for going to the 17 petitions? 18 MR. FISHER: And coming back to this 19 in we have time. 20 MS. BYERS: Oh, okay. 21 MR. HARRISON: I can do it in five 22 minutes, but I suspect there will be questions. 23 MS. SAMSON: I promise I will hold 24 mine. 25 MR. TOUHEY: Let's go to the towns. 73 1 MS. BYERS: So we have Seaside 2 Heights as the first township petition and 3 Seaside Heights was supposed to be on at 10:00. 4 It's now 10 of 11:00, so I will do everything we 5 can to expedite this and ensure a full 6 discussion, so let's move this along. 7 MR. DONALD: Good morning, my name 8 is Joe Donald with the Office of Smart Growth and 9 this morning we're going to take a look at the 10 petition for a regional center with the Borough 11 of Seaside Heights. Joining us this morning, we 12 have the borough administrator, John Camera and 13 two of the municipal planners, Chas Holloway and 14 Jeff Jenota. In the mayor's absence this 15 morning, we have Councilwoman Joyce Camera. 16 The primary issues that we recognize 17 in this particular petition was what we felt was 18 an insufficiency of data to actually support the 19 regional center application. 20 In fact, we had recommended 21 downgrading the application to a town center. 22 Additionally, we also identified the need to 23 modify the center boundaries somewhat. There was 24 also an issue relative to COAH and the lack of 25 certification and also the master plan, which was 74 1 deficient and out of date. 2 Pieter Waldenmaier, who was going to 3 join us this morning isn't able to make it and 4 Jeff Jenota is going to give us a few comments 5 relative to the regional aspects of this 6 particular application. 7 MR. HOLLOWAY: Chas Holloway. 8 I found out that Pieter couldn't 9 make it. He had a conflict. He called us last 10 night. 11 This is just one of the pictures I 12 believe that Joe has in his presentation. I'll 13 place it over here. It is really just talking 14 about Ocean County in general as a growing 15 community, a community that's connected to the 16 tri-state region and it's centrally located 17 between Philadelphia and New York. 18 We have convenient regional 19 transportation routes in access. We have the 20 Garden State Parkway, Route 35, Route 37. You 21 can see part of it on the aerial view. We 22 believe Ocean County is a regional recreational 23 draw for the beachfront areas and the special 24 activities. And, also, the county's most 25 intensive land use is in the barrier island 75 1 Section That's really what I want to talk about 2 in terms of the county and its regional impact. 3 Later on, we'll have the business administrator, 4 John Camera talk about the actual center 5 designation and what transpired within the 6 Borough itself. 7 MR. DONALD: We are having a slight 8 technical problem here in terms of the computer 9 trying to read the maps that have been embedded 10 in this particular document so hopefully by the 11 time we get part way through the presentation, 12 we'll be able to resolve that. 13 Actually, if I can refer you to the 14 presentation board that was just put up by Chas, 15 Seaside Heights is currently a prime destination 16 point for tourists. It's an amusement center. 17 It's a key entry port to what is a barrier island 18 that leads to Long Beach Island and other resort 19 areas along the barrier island. 20 In terms of population, it's 21 currently approximately 3200 residents in town, 22 but the population does swell in the summer 23 months to around 25,000 to 40,000. We're unable 24 to quantify exactly what that number is. We took 25 a look at beach badges. We took a look at 76 1 occupancy rates in some of the local bars and 2 we're able to determine that throughout the 3 balance of a given year there may be in excess of 4 2 million visitors to Seaside Heights. 5 It's currently a PA5. It's a 6 barrier island. It's within the CAFRA zone. The 7 primary highway corridors that link Seaside 8 Heights, State Route 37, which runs in an 9 east/west direction and State Route 35, both of 10 which intersect at Seaside Heights, in fact, 37 11 actually terminates at Seaside Heights. 12 The town is approximately 96 percent 13 built out. Any growth potential in the town 14 really resides in its potential for redevelopment 15 activity. As we'll discuss slightly later on, 16 there are some opportunities for redevelopment 17 within the town. 18 The population numbers over the next 19 20 years really indicate certain modest growth 20 relative to the growth that we anticipate at the 21 county level. In fact, we are really looking at 22 population increases of under 100 new residents, 23 which represents a 2.5 percent increase, so in 24 terms of jobs we're really looking at a flat 25 level of increase, so for a regional center it 77 1 really does not comport with what we would expect 2 for regional growth, if you will, hence the 3 downgrading to a town center. 4 There are numerous opportunities to 5 actually assemble various lots. And what has 6 happened on numerous occasions through the Board 7 of Adjustment variances that have been issued for 8 assemblages of 20 by 100 foot lots or 20 by 50 9 foot lots to create larger parcels where there 10 are more triplexes and quads going in. 11 When you look at the number of units 12 over the next 20 years compared to the existing 13 number of units, you will see a significant 14 increase. And some of the increase is included 15 in the fact that you are going from single units 16 to triplexes and quads in certain areas and the 17 borough is very interested, also, in promoting 18 the construction of additional motel spaces. And 19 as I understand it, there are numerous 20 applications currently in for additional motel 21 opportunities and, also, condominiums. 22 In the north end of town is 23 currently an application for 25 units, a 25-unit 24 condominium. And there is also several 25 applications from other developers who also have 78 1 interest in developing condominiums. 2 MR. TOUHEY: I'm sorry. Just out of 3 curiosity, on a condominium, what is the market 4 trying to drive there? 5 I mean, the sale price. 6 MR. HOLLOWAY: The condominiums 7 right now, 300,000 to 700,000 was the number the 8 developer was talking about when he was in front 9 of the board. 10 MS. SAMSON: But even with the 11 increase in units, you're seeing a flat growth? 12 The population growth is like 78? 13 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, there were a 14 couple of different numbers that were being 15 presented with the redevelopment areas that we 16 have in the borough and also with some of the 17 developers that are coming in and saying, I want 18 to take this down and build something bigger, 19 maybe consolidate some of the lots, plus we also 20 have anticipated growth of full-time residents as 21 they convert their summer bungalows to a place 22 where they now move in, if they retire or 23 something to that effect, so we do expect some 24 growth in that respect. 25 MR. DONALD: Particularly in the 79 1 southeast quadrant of the township or the 2 borough, if you will, there is a four-block 3 redevelopment area. 4 MR. HOLLOWAY: That's the other 5 board we had. I don't know if -- this was one of 6 the documents we had when we were here several 7 years ago when we had permission to create a 8 redevelopment agency. And this is the four-block 9 area. It's in the very southeastern portion of 10 the borough. And that's currently a very active 11 agency and that's the meeting this afternoon that 12 we have. 13 MR. DONALD: Essentially what is 14 represented there are various houses, commercial 15 uses, some under-utilized lots, vacant spaces. 16 What the borough is seeking to do is actually to 17 consolidate those lots into more uniform site 18 uses that would maximize the opportunities that 19 exist there. 20 MR. FISHER: Primarily residential? 21 MR. DONALD: It's a mix. It's a 22 mixed bag. 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: It's hard to see on 24 this particular -- it has the zoning on here. 25 We're talking low-density residential in this 80 1 area; but in the main corridors, we have retail 2 business. 3 So, for example, 100 feet back from 4 the central boulevard, we have retail business 5 and then we have low-density residential and then 6 we have the resort recreational and the boardwalk 7 along the ocean so it's a combination of 8 low-density residential, residential, a different 9 density requirement, redevelopment area so we 10 have a little bit of everything, including the 11 resort part of the borough. 12 MR. TOUHEY: How many new 13 residential units do you think you will be able 14 to build? 15 MR. HOLLOWAY: Residential units? 16 MR. TOUHEY: Yes, or sale units. 17 MS. CAMERA: In the redevelopment 18 area? 19 MR. TOUHEY: Yes. 20 MS. CAMERA: Actually, that's going 21 to have its primary focus on recreational. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: In the redevelopment 23 area, the intent there is to not have residential 24 any longer. It will be hotels, anything 25 transient, parking garages to support the 81 1 beachfront and the beach. 2 MS. CAMERA: Public facilities. 3 MR. HOLLOWAY: If you haven't been 4 out there recently, there are many restaurants 5 that have recently gone in and improvements along 6 the boulevard are quite breathtaking. 7 MR. DONALD: If you look at the 8 municipality as a whole about 54 percent of the 9 land use represents residential, the balance is 10 other land uses, commercial land use. It is 11 somewhat of a heterogenous mix of uses, mixed 12 uses. I would suggest that the trend over time 13 has been towards the balance of mixed uses. 14 Beach access and bayfront access exists on each 15 block. 16 I think that the borough in and of 17 itself really comes alive really May through 18 October. One of the issues that was quite 19 evident was the transitional nature of the 20 resident base, especially in the school district 21 where as of -- in one particular example, there 22 were 270 children enrolled in the school 23 district. By May, that number was down to 210. 24 And that actually reflected the transient nature 25 of some of the families; so, essentially, as far 82 1 as housing goes, you have somewhat of a sort of 2 dual marketplace where you have winter rentals 3 and the summer rentals, which obviously bring a 4 lot more value to the owner and so they tend to 5 empty out around May and then fill up again in 6 October. 7 MR. HOLLOWAY: We did have an 8 architect come in and provide us with area ideas 9 about not only within the redevelopment zone, but 10 also different areas of the borough. I believe 11 it was part of the presentation that Joe had that 12 talked about and showed how we can further expand 13 the New Orleans theme that we have along the 14 boulevard and how we can promote interest from 15 industrial clients to help advertise and to 16 maintain tourist attractions within the borough. 17 MR. DONALD: I think it may be fair 18 to say that to some extent Seaside Heights may be 19 attempting to reidentify itself, if you will. 20 Over time, it has actually attracted more 21 family-type visitors, if you will. Most of the 22 homes that were sold have actually gone to owner 23 occupiers, as opposed to seasonal units so the 24 community in and of itself, you know, is 25 stabilizing somewhat. 83 1 I just wanted to point out, also, as 2 it relates to the environs, the barrier island 3 itself historically over time has developed in 4 much the same way as Seaside Heights has 5 developed, the only difference being while the 6 concentration of amusements and promotional uses 7 exists there within Seaside, which you'll find to 8 the north, which is the Ortley Beach section of 9 Dover Township, and also to the south, which is 10 Seaside Park Borough, they're primarily 11 residential uses and the focus is not as 12 concentrated on amusements and promotional 13 aspects as you see in Seaside Heights. 14 Again, it's all municipal water and 15 sewer. We had some concerns relative to access 16 to Seaside Heights. While you have the two 17 primary highways that bring you in, it's more of 18 an auto-dependent situation where there is 19 somewhat limited bus service to the island and no 20 rail service. 21 Again, they do not have a certified 22 housing element and fair share plan. There was a 23 mention in the report about Seaside being a court 24 town. That was a mistake. There was some 25 litigation some years back. And in that 84 1 litigation, there was reference made to 2 affordable housing; that matter was resolved. 3 Seaside is not a court town and I believe they 4 have a 10-unit obligation with COAH. 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: We have an obligation 6 for any new building. I believe ten is the 7 rehabilitation requirement; but you're correct, 8 several years ago, there was litigation regarding 9 our code enforcement that was ironed out. It had 10 nothing to do with the actual obligations. 11 MR. TOUHEY: So the new 12 certification is ten units of rehab? 13 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes. 14 MR. TOUHEY: You can do that. 15 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes. We were talking 16 about regional contribution agreements and things 17 previously, so... 18 MR. TOUHEY: Have you gotten RCA or 19 are you selling? 20 MR. HOLLOWAY: No, it was discussed, 21 but we never actually signed off on one. 22 MR. TOUHEY: I'm sorry. 23 Are you looking to get RCA or are 24 you looking to sell 50 percent of your fair 25 share? 85 1 MS. CAMERA: No, to receive, to get, 2 but that's not been implemented. 3 MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. 4 MR. FISHER: But your COAH plan -- 5 so the statement on the first page is not 6 correct? 7 MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct, 8 that's not correct. We're not a -- we have never 9 been -- 10 MR. DONALD: Well, they haven't 11 petitioned for certification with COAH; and, 12 secondarily, they're not a court town or COAH 13 town. 14 MR. TOUHEY: So part of the order of 15 business would be to petition COAH for the ten 16 units and look for a regional contribution 17 agreement on the ten units in the municipality. 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: Let me introduce John 19 Camera, the administrator. 20 MR. TOUHEY: Sure. 21 MR. HOLLOWAY: John and I have 22 discussed a few of these items. We went through 23 Joe's report. We think there are a few items in 24 there that we had submitted to him, such as the 25 COAH obligations that we talked about. 86 1 As far as a town center, we 2 certainly are here now to finalize that or to 3 discuss that. John and I talked with Joe about 4 why we would still make a request to be 5 considered for a regional center, so to kind of 6 shorten everything here, if we can go right into 7 why we think we should be considered for a 8 regional center. 9 Based on the list and the talk about 10 the area, certainly we can't do anything about 11 the .61 acres for the entire municipality. When 12 it comes to the population and employment, I 13 think those were the other two main standouts for 14 not being outright within the criteria. John can 15 talk about how we think the summer population for 16 employment and just tourist attraction would 17 hopefully persuade you to consider us to be 18 eligible within that regional concept. 19 So let me introduce John. 20 MR. CAMERA: Thank you. 21 MR. TOUHEY: Before you get to the 22 regional concept, let's stick with COAH just for 23 one second. 24 Are you going to petition COAH on 25 the ten units; is that what you're looking to do? 87 1 MR. CAMERA: If that's what we need 2 to do. I quite honestly wasn't aware of where we 3 were short. We knew we had the ten rehabs. 4 MR. TOUHEY: Just to put it in 5 perspective, you're talking about 80 percent of 6 the area meeting income. I mean, you're talking 7 about potentially the market that you have there 8 already in your town so it's not really a hard 9 push. 10 MR. CAMERA: Right. 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: We agree with that. 12 MR. FISHER: The ten units of rehab 13 is established by way of court action or -- 14 MS. CAMERA: No, that was just our 15 obligation. 16 MR. HOLLOWAY: Again, the Court 17 action was just an anomaly. It was just 18 something a hotel had a disagreement with the 19 code enforcement of the borough. 20 MR. TOUHEY: That's fine, as long as 21 you're going to do that; that's fine. 22 MR. CAMERA: Thank you. 23 And like Chas said, we really want 24 to ask for your consideration still. We 25 appreciate all the work Joe and the other staff 88 1 has done, but we really feel that the regional 2 center designation is appropriate for Seaside and 3 is necessary for Seaside. 4 The primary reason we want it is 5 because of the impervious lot coverage. We hope 6 that we can get redevelopers to come in and do 7 some work in Seaside. We're 96 percent built out 8 already. It is what it is, but even though we're 9 that covered in the areas that can be built, as 10 everybody knows, whether you're familiar or from 11 the map, we have a lot of oceanfront and bayfront 12 and just recently purchased a 7-acre tract with 13 Green Acres Fund; that, of course, always will 14 stay pervious and not built on and open for 15 recreation purposes. 16 We know that we don't fit certain 17 criteria. As Chas said, the acreage one, just 18 like when you were going over your rules, I think 19 the intention was not to make it so strict that 20 if a town doesn't fit just one small aspect, 21 that's where you were trying to put in the 22 definition so that it wouldn't make it so that 23 they could not have a particular designation. 24 In regards to the other two that we 25 don't meet, the population and the employment, I 89 1 respectfully disagree and feel that we have a lot 2 of room for potential growth, not only in our 3 population on a seasonal basis, but also in our 4 employment. Our employment numbers are large 5 now, seasonally, albeit. And we feel that if we 6 become even more viable as a resort recreation 7 destination, that those numbers have the 8 potential for growth, too. And certainly our 9 numbers, as they exist now, looked at seasonally, 10 do meet the criteria for a regional center. It 11 works out far short of what we needed in our 12 year round. 13 The other point I wanted to make and 14 I think I'm accurate, I don't know all the right 15 terminology, but I think the original draft of 16 the state plan actually mentioned Wildwood, 17 Atlantic City and Seaside Heights as areas that 18 should be considered as regional centers. 19 We get visitors from Pennsylvania, 20 New York, all over the State of New Jersey. 21 We're certainly not what one would think of as 22 just a town center that might attract people just 23 from our neighboring residential community. 24 MR. TOUHEY: Is that your main 25 concern, though? 90 1 Is that your deep concern that 2 you're afraid if you are called a town center 3 that you won't get regional play from economic 4 development? 5 MR. CAMERA: We won't get as much 6 play from people looking to develop there and we 7 also have a concern for the impervious lot 8 coverage that is there. 9 MR. TOUHEY: You have 20 some units 10 that are in consideration now in a pretty good, 11 strong market, so you've talked about your condo 12 development, you've talked about your 13 redevelopment zone as it relates to mixed use 14 around commercial and retail. I mean, you're 15 doing all the right things. I'm not -- I guess 16 I'm not really hearing why it needs to be a 17 regional center. 18 MR. FISHER: I think it's more 19 impervious coverage. 20 MR. CAMERA: That is correct. That 21 is the primary one. 22 We feel, also -- thank you for 23 saying that. For the past few years, we've been 24 trying to do all the right things, the 25 redevelopment agency application that we put in, 91 1 working with developers and planners. We feel 2 this is one more step and that when they come to 3 look to do a redevelopment, especially in a town 4 with such small lots, that the lot coverage could 5 hurt us. 6 MR. FISHER: What is it, 90 vs. 80? 7 MR. CAMERA: I thought it was 80 vs. 8 70, but... 9 MR. PURDIE: You understand though 10 that since your town is fully developed that any 11 site that is subject to CAFRA permits would get 12 to rebuild on the same impervious coverage. In 13 other words, if it was 100 percent coverage and 14 you went in to rebuild the site, you would get 15 100 percent. 16 MR. HOLLOWAY: And we have a lot of 17 sand lots and things that are very pervious now; 18 so it's not as though, let's say, it's built out 19 with three buildings and the rest of it is a sand 20 parking lot, for them to come in and tear that 21 down and put something else in, they may be 22 affected by that. 23 MR. FISHER: It would really impact 24 your redevelopment area. 25 MR. TOUHEY: Excuse me. I am sorry. 92 1 I didn't hear you. 2 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we've had a 3 couple of developers show interest within the 4 redevelopment area and it was that condominium 5 that we had mentioned earlier. It has been -- it 6 was in front of the planning board, but they were 7 asking for even more units then. I think it was 8 27. 9 MR. CAMERA: 27 is what was allowed. 10 They were originally asking for up to 60 and then 11 modified it back to 40 and were not approved at 12 40. 13 MR. HOLLOWAY: So we definitely have 14 some interest shown by different developers in 15 front of the planning board in different stages 16 right now. 17 MR. CAMERA: There is nothing now 18 that we could say we have one hanging, waiting on 19 that, no. It is our view that this would be 20 another positive for us in attracting interest. 21 MR. TOUHEY: I really think it's 22 more of a regional play from an economic 23 development perspective. I don't know if you 24 have to be afraid of that is what I'm saying. 25 MR. CAMERA: And we think both are 93 1 important; but we, also, if you don't mind, since 2 it's so informal, like the same thing when we 3 went for our redevelopment agency and we felt 4 that was something that would really help Seaside 5 and help us stay viable, the Local Finance Board 6 then when we met felt that redevelopment agencies 7 were typically something reserved for larger 8 towns, that a little town like Seaside wouldn't 9 typically do it, but they gave it to us with 10 essentially the feeling that if it can help, 11 great and what is the downside. And that's what 12 I would say from your side, too. I mean, if 13 there is something that we can address. I don't 14 really see the downside of recognizing Seaside 15 Heights as a regional center, either. I would 16 hope for that reason you would give it some 17 consideration. 18 MR. FISHER: Just getting back to 19 the impervious coverage, in terms of 20 redevelopment, it's not an issue is what I'm 21 hearing. 22 MR. CAMERA: Not an issue the way I 23 heard it. If, say, somebody has one lot that was 24 90 percent built out, that whatever our 25 designation, they would be able to still build 90 94 1 percent. 2 MR. FISHER: It's on the vacant 3 lots? 4 MR. CAMERA: Right, and the way the 5 redevelopment seems to work is when you get good 6 interest is that often they'll want to combine 7 lots, so if you had one or two lots in an area 8 that were 90 percent built out and they were able 9 to pick up a space next to it that used to be 10 just a surface-level parking lot, let's say, and 11 then once it's all combined, though, then they're 12 going to lose the ability to build on all that 13 square footage if now that's just one new 14 project, correct? 15 MR. PURDIE: Right. 16 MR. CAMERA: So that, I think, would 17 hurt if we didn't have the impervious coverage. 18 MR. PURDIE: I don't think we, the 19 department has a particular issue with whether 20 they develop a new site at 80 percent or 70 21 percent. They're still subject to very strict 22 environmental regulations. They have to account 23 for the storm water. It's not our issue what we 24 decide to call it. 25 MS. BYERS: I think it's important 95 1 to consider that it is a Planning Area 5 and that 2 back in the last rewrite of the state plan, a new 3 designation was adopted to acknowledge that there 4 are built-out areas on the barrier beaches, but 5 they are still environmentally sensitive. 6 I'm in favor of the staff 7 recommendation. In recognition of that, the 8 state plan is doing all it can to acknowledge 9 there is erosion on the barrier beaches, but I 10 don't think we should just say, Okay, build out 11 100 percent because it's already there. I think 12 we continually need to acknowledge that these are 13 environmentally sensitive areas and do our best 14 to protect them what little bit is left. 15 MR. CAMERA: Sure, and we appreciate 16 that, too; that's why we, in fact, just went 17 forward with the purchase of what was a wide open 18 tract that had been available to have 19 condominiums built on it on the northern-most 20 part of our town. When it was for sale privately 21 by a private owner, there was a private interest. 22 The Borough moved forward to purchase it with 23 Green Acre Funds, not only to protect that tract, 24 but because the Borough had never before used 25 Green Acres Funds. Now, all of our beaches would 96 1 have been protected anyway, but all of our 2 recreational areas, of course, are on the 3 recreational list that it has to stay protected, 4 so we have that same concern. 5 MR. TOUHEY: I'm sorry. 6 Just for clarification, in the areas 7 that are undeveloped or vacant lands or your 8 redevelopment area, you have had interest from 9 private developers under your current zoning -- 10 correct? 11 MR. CAMERA: Yes. 12 MR. TOUHEY: -- to build out 13 feasible projects? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, in the 15 redevelopment area, the current zoning really 16 doesn't apply. 17 MR. TOUHEY: Okay. 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: So that's why it is 19 different. 20 MR. TOUHEY: That's what I am trying 21 to understand. In one sense, you talk about 22 there is a redevelopment area and interest. And 23 we've gotten into discussion of what the buildout 24 may look like from your planner and what could 25 fit on the site and what makes sense. By policy 97 1 definition, it really is a town center. I'm 2 trying to understand why you're wanting to move 3 to a regional center. 4 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, based on a 5 recent -- we have a business improvement district 6 in the municipality, also. So over the last five 7 or six years, the Borough has been growing in 8 leaps and bounds as far as the business 9 improvement district, redevelopment agency. At 10 the same time, we're promoting the regional 11 center application. A recent survey conducted 12 through the bid shows that 30 percent -- 37 13 percent of the tourists are from out of state, 19 14 percent from the Philadelphia area and 10 percent 15 from the New York area so we have a good presence 16 within the state itself, but also just being 17 connected to the tri-state region and to -- 18 MR. TOUHEY: Well, a town center 19 doesn't prevent you from being an economic 20 regional entity. People go to town centers all 21 the time. They use it as either tourism or a 22 place to go and relax and do things. I'm really 23 trying to understand why you want it to be a 24 regional center. Help me understand why you want 25 to be a regional center. 98 1 MR. CAMERA: We want as much as 2 you're willing to give us. We feel that we're a 3 viable resort recreation destination area. 4 MR. TOUHEY: A town center doesn't 5 prohibit that. 6 MR. CAMERA: Correct, we know that. 7 We feel a regional center both through the 8 recognition -- I don't know if it will affect 9 down the road with regard to grant funding or 10 anything else. And as we've said, for the 11 impervious coverage, that extra 10 percent, we, 12 to put it as plainly as possible, want the best 13 that we can get to keep our town viable because 14 the point I really want to stress is that we've 15 all seen -- I've been involved in Seaside Heights 16 for a long time. 17 Just like Joe talked about the way 18 the neighboring towns have developed, you have 19 Ortley to the north, Seaside Park to the south, 20 obviously, they're heavy residential communities, 21 but the reason they remain very viable as 22 residential communities has to do with Seaside 23 Heights being in the middle. Seaside Heights is 24 a tougher community to manage because we have 25 this huge mix of recreation, heavy-duty 99 1 businesses and residential. 2 If Seaside Heights doesn't remain 3 viable, that doesn't only hurt Seaside Heights, 4 that hurts certainly those neighboring 5 communities immediately and the whole town and 6 the whole state as, you know, we bring in a lot 7 of revenues, sales tax and a lot of other things. 8 As simple as I can put it, we want 9 to continue to keep making strides to do the best 10 we can to be viable because we all have seen 11 other towns in the state that used to be 12 resort/recreational destinations that have gone 13 bad and we don't want to -- 14 MR. TOUHEY: How does the town 15 center concept prevent that from happening? 16 MR. CAMERA: It doesn't prevent it. 17 I don't want to be argumentative. I'm really 18 just saying we believe that a regional center 19 would be even better for us; that's all. I don't 20 want to come in and say, Oh, no, town center is a 21 bad thing. I don't think that at all. 22 MR. ESKILSON: I think what you're 23 saying is that extra 10 percent impervious 24 coverage gives you more flexibility in your 25 redevelopment efforts and that's what you're 100 1 looking for? 2 MR. CAMERA: Sure. 3 MR. ESKILSON: And you don't have 4 any specific plans, but that extra 10 percent can 5 help you towards your redevelopment? 6 MS. CAMERA: Correct. 7 MR. CAMERA: Correct. 8 MR. FISHER: Just in terms of what 9 we've seen here, knowing Seaside because I lived 10 in Ocean County for many years, I can understand 11 where the population increases during the summer 12 would certainly probably exceed the regional 13 requirements; so other than the size of the town, 14 being too small for a regional center, in and of 15 itself, I think we've approved other center 16 designations with other variables, if not more 17 than this; so from that standpoint, I don't 18 really have an objection. 19 I can understand where Seaside 20 serves some regional needs certainly as a 21 recreational destination. It certainly serves a 22 population far beyond the local area so I think a 23 little leeway... 24 MR. TOUHEY: I live in the Sea 25 Bright area and I know that whole area, we can 101 1 all describe it as regional, I mean, without even 2 calling it regional in the summer months. 3 MR. FISHER: Yeah. 4 MR. TOUHEY: I'm just a little 5 concerned because of the precedent we could set 6 that relates to PA5. 7 MS. BYERS: It's an incremental 8 incentive to give to growth is what we're talking 9 about. It may be small, but, you know, if you 10 look at the coastline in a regional context, 11 where do we, as the state body, see growth go, 12 should we be further encouraging our barrier 13 beaches or on the major inland. And in that 14 context, I fall on the side again supporting the 15 staff recommendation of the concept and really 16 maybe even having DEP reconsider some of their 17 impervious coverage policies on their beaches, 18 but I know that's beyond this discussion. 19 MR. FISHER: I don't think the 20 difference is really going to result in much 21 anyway as far as growth goes because they're not 22 forecasting much growth. 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: And that goes all to 24 the discussion about the environmental concerns 25 within the development within the Borough. We're 102 1 so built out now that -- and like John said, with 2 the Green Acres funding, we're always looking for 3 any improvements for park and recreational just 4 for the residents of the Borough. I really would 5 be hard pressed to think that it would be nothing 6 more than an improvement still or possible 7 improvement versus any harm that could be done to 8 the environment because it's so builtout right 9 now. 10 MR. TOUHEY: I think Seaside Heights 11 is tremendous, don't take my question as 12 confrontational. I'm trying to understand more 13 where you're going with it because if we 14 determine that we're going to go regional, I want 15 to really understand why you need that. 16 From my perspective, hearing you, 17 again, I think you're going to get where you need 18 to be as a town center and hearing what you're 19 saying, where you want to go and where you're 20 taking Seaside Heights, so I don't -- I mean, I 21 kind of support staff on this, as well. 22 MR. CAMERA: And if that's what we 23 get, that's the way we'll keep working. We just 24 feel that it would be even easier to get where 25 we're trying to go, but we appreciate wherever we 103 1 end up. 2 MR. TOUHEY: You guys have done 3 tremendous work. You've had to deal historically 4 with institutional housing, with tenants, with 5 SROs. We know the story with Seaside Heights and 6 what you're trying to do there. When you tell me 7 you think you can build 27 units that you can 8 market for 600,000 or 700,000, I bet at your next 9 planning board meeting you'll say, Please call it 10 a town center and not a regional because we're 11 sick of the traffic coming in. I think long term 12 a town center might help you with respect to 13 where you're trying to go. 14 MS. SAMSON: In the way you've 15 designated the center boundaries, what was your 16 thinking about including the beach areas within 17 the boundaries, shouldn't they be along the -- 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: That was in the 19 report and that was going to be adjusted. 20 MS. SAMSON: It was just a function 21 of the map. 22 MR. CAMERA: Originally, it was just 23 a function of the boundaries of the municipality. 24 MR. DONALD: One of the 25 recommendations was to pull their boundary back 104 1 to the existing CAFRA boundary. 2 MR. PURDIE: There is no CAFRA 3 boundary. There are no boundaries on the barrier 4 islands. They are verbal only, verbal 5 descriptions so we will be creating one and 6 that's what we would like to do. 7 MR. DONALD: What we were led to 8 understand is that it would be preferable to 9 bring it back to actually follow the land-ward 10 side of the boardwalk. 11 MS. SAMSON: And that's okay because 12 you aren't looking to do anything there anyway. 13 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes. 14 MR. ESKILSON: The impervious 15 coverage standard is lot to lot? 16 MR. PURDIE: Yes. 17 MR. HOLLOWAY: From the get go, it 18 just seemed that the Borough -- 19 MR. ESKILSON: To allow you more 20 flexibility, but still protect the standard of 21 planning a PA5, it seems that something like that 22 would make sense, but I think that's an area 23 more -- 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: Just looking at the 25 overall summary of town center, regional center, 105 1 we talked about the acreage, that that was 2 something that could not be talked about; but it 3 was just being so close to the employment and 4 population and then just knowing that we so 5 exceeded that by thousands when it came to the 6 summer employment and thinking that the 7 regional -- 8 MR. TOUHEY: From June to September, 9 we'll call you a regional center; from October to 10 May, we'll go back to a town center. 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: Hey, now, we're 12 talking. 13 MR. CAMERA: It will be tough doing 14 all our building during those three months. 15 MS. BYERS: Are there any other 16 issues you wanted to present to the Commission? 17 MR. DONALD: Well, as the town 18 continues to redefine itself, one of the concerns 19 that we had was to ensure that the master plan 20 was updated. 21 And again, in the interest of time, 22 I've included numerous areas that we feel that 23 the town could actually take a look at to 24 strengthen their master planning. They're taking 25 a look at redevelopment options that exist; 106 1 instead of overworking the board of adjustment, 2 perhaps, you know, try to, you know, refine 3 things so that the planning board actually is 4 more of a functional body; and lastly, which has 5 already been mentioned is petitioning COAH for 6 the ten years. 7 And lastly, just an apology for the 8 technical difficulties. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. HOLLOWAY: We're just glad to 11 have the opportunity to be here today. 12 MS. BYERS: Do members of the 13 Committee have any more questions? 14 MR. PURDIE: Yes. 15 Michele, we just had a couple of 16 issues as far as ongoing items in the planning 17 and implementation agenda and one was storm water 18 concerns. You're going to have to deal with the 19 storm water regulations. 20 MR. HOLLOWAY: Like everybody else. 21 MR. PURDIE: I think it starts this 22 month, July or August that you have to apply. If 23 you could just put it on there as a two-year work 24 item that you have to do. Public access up and 25 down the coast is a concern of the department. 107 1 You're going to do some significant work in the 2 redevelopment area. If maybe we could work, you 3 know, hook you up with our Coastal Bureau. I 4 know you have really good public access in 5 Seaside Heights anyway; but, you know, as I said, 6 up and down the coast is a concern, maybe we 7 could have a regular -- touching base with the 8 Coastal Bureau and make sure your plans... 9 MR. HOLLOWAY: Oh, sure; that's one 10 thing definitely about Seaside. Public access is 11 terrific. 12 MR. PURDIE: The final one is a 13 beach maintenance plan. The Department has a 14 regulation, you might even have it, if you do, 15 let me know, to maintain the beaches to ensure 16 that you don't flatten dunes, destroy any habitat 17 left. There is a requirement that each coastal 18 town have a beach and dune maintenance plan. If 19 you can put that down, too, as something to work 20 towards, we'll write it up and show it to you. 21 MS. BYERS: Would those be additions 22 to the planning implementation -- 23 MR. PURDIE: Yes. 24 MR. TOUHEY: Are you guys okay with 25 that? 108 1 MR. CAMERA: Sure. 2 MS. BYERS: Any comments from 3 members of the public on this petition? 4 MR. DILLINGHAM: Good morning, my 5 name is Tim Dillingham. I'm with the American 6 Littoral Society. We're a coastal conservation 7 organization based out of Sandy Hook. 8 Generally, we don't have an issue 9 with the proposal so much. A couple of comments, 10 though, I think I raised these when the 11 Commission or the Committee was looking at 12 Brigantine, also. They are sort of comments in 13 general for barrier island development about the 14 policies that are in the state plan and making 15 sure that these are noted. 16 One is I think it's dangerous to 17 talk about the barriers as builtout. The 18 discussion clearly recognizes that this is not 19 the final landscape that is going to be in these 20 towns. They're changing. They're redeveloping, 21 for the most part, for the better. 22 I think Michele's comments about 23 being concerned about the intensification of the 24 use and by extension, storm damage hazards, 25 mitigation vulnerability I think it is something 109 1 that the Commission needs to pay attention to. 2 Generally, I wanted to pick up on 3 Mr. Purdie's comments about public access; and 4 that is, when you look at the redevelopment 5 projects, in particular, Long Branch and Monmouth 6 Beach and other places where it is going on, 7 we're seeing fairly intensive very private types 8 of development going on, residential primarily. 9 When I read through the document, I 10 wanted to acknowledge, I think the town sounds 11 like they are trying to keep that flavor of the 12 shore being available to people who are not 13 necessarily just residents and not just high-end 14 residents, which is where a lot of the problems 15 in Long Branch are going. 16 Fundamentally, the problem comes 17 down to the displacement of daily parking in many 18 ways, on-street parking, parking that is 19 available to people who are not necessarily motel 20 guests or summer rentals, but people who come in 21 for the day. Particularly with the state and the 22 federal government making such a large investment 23 in the reestablishment of the beaches, it is a 24 regional resource. 25 I think that the planning agenda 110 1 would benefit from very explicit direction to 2 look at that consideration; which is, how is 3 access being provided to the beaches and to the 4 back bays for the daily users in a very 5 unrestricted manner, particularly complimenting 6 the fact that the street parking is unrestricted; 7 that's also a nice thing, not necessarily common 8 throughout the shore. 9 The second thing is indeed about the 10 storm water. The town sits very close to some of 11 the best natural areas along the coast, natural 12 wildlife refuges. 13 Storm water in the past has been 14 piped straight into the bay in a lot of places. 15 I don't know particularly about Seaside, but I 16 think again more attention to opportunities to 17 remediate and restore and renovate those storm 18 water discharges into the base as a mechanism of 19 improving water quality and protecting our 20 natural resources should probably be a more 21 explicit part of the plan. 22 And then the last comment I would 23 make is there is a note in there about decreasing 24 vulnerability of flooding on the bay side by 25 putting locally dredged materials back on the 111 1 beaches. You know, clearly that's going to be 2 subject to the regulation by the DEP and by the 3 Corp. of Engineers in many instances, but I think 4 in the sense that this is an expression of the 5 State Planning Commission encouraging the town to 6 do it, I think you should be cautious. I think 7 Stone Harbor is an example of -- many of the 8 sediments, particularly in the back bay have 9 contamination in them. It should be dealt with 10 very cautiously in putting them directly on the 11 beaches and particularly in close proximity to 12 wildlife areas is maybe not the best idea. 13 MR. TOUHEY: Tim, just to respond in 14 support of what you just said, to bring some 15 rationale to it, as it relates to Long Branch, in 16 a sense, you had an urban community where beaches 17 were not being utilized. And the strategy was to 18 create a mixed-income community and I agree with 19 you, it's obviously going to go high end, but I 20 would think in our strategy around urban 21 development and Long Branch happens to be urban 22 development in ocean front and we're looking at 23 Asbury Park, that these communities are going to 24 need mixed income to survive long term. 25 MR. DILLINGHAM: Right, and we're 112 1 fully supportive of that. I don't think that's 2 the issue. The caution comes when people say, 3 Let's just put it in as anything we can get at 4 times. And, you know, I would argue that all 5 around the country public access has been 6 demonstrated to be a value to these communities, 7 particularly the economic aspects of them. 8 MR. TOUHEY: Sure. 9 MR. DILLINGHAM: Conversely, 10 everyday we wrestle with pieces of the shoreline 11 that people are trying to privatize. There are 12 big arguments about towns, even though they are 13 receiving millions of dollars of public money, 14 not wanting to upgrade, in particular, the 15 support facilities, which is just as important as 16 the actual physical access to the coastline. So 17 I put it out there as an issue and I agree with 18 you that there is a balance in revitalizing these 19 communities, which I think is absolutely 20 wonderful and supportable. 21 MR. TOUHEY: Okay. Thanks. 22 MR. FISHER: It's disjointed, but in 23 most areas where towns are focussed on 24 redevelopment like Long Branch, they provided for 25 areas along the beach, the first couple hundred 113 1 feet are pretty much reserved for recreational 2 and public use, knowing the Beachfront North 3 Project, that's like a 3-acre city park that is 4 going to be built there right alongside the beach 5 and there is no housing or any commercial uses 6 within that Section There is great 7 opportunities for access there. 8 It's the older areas that have 9 already been developed where you get to the 10 conversion of uses adjacent to the shoreline that 11 I think become some of the problem, but I think 12 what they're doing here with this redevelopment 13 plan, promoting recreational and, you know, 14 resort-oriented uses, as opposed to traditional 15 housing, as much as I would like to see housing 16 in areas, I think that matches what they're 17 trying to accomplish in Seaside. 18 MR. CAMERA: We also recognize our 19 -- we sustain a large part of our operating 20 budget off of our beach/parking revenue. We have 21 no intention of cutting down any beach access or 22 parking. We're going to a meeting this afternoon 23 with somebody who wants to put up a parking 24 facility, maybe even with a couple of levels so 25 we recognize that and we want to remain a resort 114 1 destination. We're not trying to change over 2 into a residential community, certainly not 3 privatizing the beaches. 4 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 5 Any other public comment? 6 Okay. 7 So consensus of the Committee, then, 8 am I correct in saying we will recommend town 9 consideration for the July 16th meeting? 10 MR. TOUHEY: Yes. 11 MS. BYERS: In terms of getting this 12 all on the web in advance of the meeting, can we 13 set a date by which -- I mean, I would like a 14 general policy for all the commission meetings so 15 center petitioners, rule petitions, etc., can get 16 out to the public in advance in whatever is a 17 reasonable time that the staff can get it out. I 18 think last time we talked about a week in 19 advance. 20 MR. ZELLNER: We'll do the same 21 thing. It will be up the Wednesday before, which 22 I believe is the 9th. 23 MR. CAMERA: Can we just say then, 24 Thank you, we appreciate all the work from the 25 staff, all the input here and we look forward to 115 1 the 16th; that's great. 2 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 3 Moving on to Fairfield Township, 4 this is the proposed expansion of the Bridgeton 5 Regional Center. And I am looking to see who is 6 here from Bridgeton. 7 MR. DONALD: We have the business 8 administrator, Sharon McCullough is here and 9 Craig Thomas, the mayor and Dick Carter, the 10 municipal engineer. 11 MR. TOUHEY: Come on up, guys. 12 MR. DONALD: We're going to try to 13 walk this through with both Powerpoint and we 14 also have diskettes with some maps that for 15 whatever reason are not coming up. We're going 16 to try to work through this as painlessly as 17 possible. 18 Just to give you a little bit of 19 background, this is an expansion of an existing 20 regional center. Back in 2001, the City of 21 Bridgeton came forward and made a petition to us 22 and essentially at that time we did grant them a 23 regional center so as it stands the entire 24 municipal boundary of the City of Bridgeton is 25 currently a regional center under the state plan 116 1 policy map. 2 Prior to that application being made 3 to us, there were three other municipalities that 4 were essentially working together, there was the 5 Township of Hopewell, the Township of Fairfield 6 and also the Township of Upper Deerfield. And 7 those three collectively with Bridgeton were to 8 form what is or what was supposed to be a 9 regional center. 10 Due to certain issues of distress 11 that existed at that time in Bridgeton and also 12 because they were a little bit further ahead with 13 some of their planning than the other three 14 municipalities, they came forward and this body 15 did agree to look at their petition separate and 16 distinct from the other three. 17 Contextually, also, those four 18 municipalities coming to this body also were 19 separate and distinct from a strategic planning 20 process that is currently underway in Cumberland 21 County, the culmination of that process being 22 that the county, along with the 14 municipalities 23 that are currently participant members of the 24 strategic planning process would come forth for 25 plan endorsement, so there was some agreements 117 1 that were made at the outset that we would 2 actually take a look at Bridgeton separately and 3 the other three municipalities at such time as 4 they were ready to come forward. 5 In this particular instance, 6 Fairfield at this time is ready to come forward. 7 The other two, Hopewell and Upper Deerfield are 8 not. 9 MS. SAMSON: Was Fairfield supposed 10 to come forward as part of the county endorsement 11 process? 12 MR. DONALD: Fairfield is working 13 along with the county, as is Bridgeton. 14 MS. SAMSON: Okay. 15 (Donna Pearson, Public Member joined 16 the Committee Meeting.) 17 MR. DONALD: The initial impetus is 18 that Fairfield along with the other three 19 municipalities that I had mentioned were to come 20 in at an earlier stage in the process; but due to 21 inadequacy, if you will, in terms of the 22 particular planning arrangements that existed 23 locally, they weren't ready back in 2001 to 24 actually come in. They are currently. 25 In reviewing the application, as 118 1 it's presented, Fairfield has proposed two 2 appendages, if you will, to the existing center. 3 One of the appendages represent what is termed as 4 Gouldtown; the other, which is to the south of 5 the existing regional center, which we hope to be 6 able to show you shortly is called Fairton. 7 Fairton is currently part of -- or part of 8 Fairton is currently covered by a coastal center. 9 Gouldtown is not. Gouldtown is outside of that 10 particular CAFRA boundary. However, there were 11 numerous issues that were presented to us by DEP 12 as it relates to environmental concerns that 13 exist. 14 While we support the extension or 15 the expansion, if you will, of Bridgeton Regional 16 Center, the initial boundaries that were 17 presented by the town are not acceptable in as 18 much that they have not essentially recognized 19 some of the environmental constraints that exist. 20 MR. TOUHEY: I just want to 21 recognize Donna Pearson is here, as well, from 22 the Commission and a county commissioner, as 23 well. 24 MS. PEARSON: I didn't want to 25 interrupt the flow. 119 1 MR. DONALD: So essentially the 2 initial boundaries that were submitted to us as 3 part of the petition did not recognize the extent 4 of some of the environmental concerns that 5 existed. DEP, in turn, had made very strong 6 recommendations relative to cutting back on the 7 boundaries that were submitted. The town, in 8 turn, has submitted new boundaries to us in 9 Fairton, but has essentially asked to have the 10 Gouldtown boundary in its entirety also given 11 consideration. 12 So the initial concerns going in 13 relative to the application are firstly 14 resolution of which boundaries are most 15 appropriate to be considered for this particular 16 application. 17 Secondarily, there is a COAH issue. 18 The town in and of itself has not petitioned to 19 COAH for certification. 20 And there is a third issue, which 21 was not presented within the report, but has 22 materialized over the last couple of days and 23 that is the appropriate use of CESs within either 24 the Gouldtown or Fairton area. 25 That being said, the town in and of 120 1 itself represents about 40 square miles. Both 2 Gouldtown and Fairton represent what are the 3 existing development patterns within the town. 4 And it's my belief that the town sought to create 5 boundaries that recognize essentially where 90 6 percent of the existing growth within the town 7 currently exists. 8 The preponderance of the township 9 lands to the -- what is the west of Fairton is 10 actually flood plain and wetland and there are 11 some wildlife refuges in that area, too. 12 Surrounding both Fairton and 13 Gouldtown is significant areas of agricultural 14 land. 15 In putting together their 2002 16 Master Plan Reexamination Report, that was 17 actually driven by the need to define, if you 18 will, the existing areas of development and then 19 buffer those existing areas of development with 20 essentially agricultural land. 21 Within the boundaries that were 22 initially sent to us, most of the development 23 patterns tend to follow existing highway 24 corridors, county roads. 25 There are what would be considered 121 1 significant infill opportunities where there is 2 quite at bit of vacant land that exists within 3 the confines of those boundaries. And in terms 4 of what the absorption, if you will, would be 5 over the next 20 years to build out those vacant 6 areas of land, at this point, I am unable to 7 present hard numbers to you. I believe it would 8 be more incumbent upon the town at that point to 9 represent those numbers or projections as they 10 see fit. 11 The new boundaries as represented by 12 DEP have actually cut back the Gouldtown Center 13 boundary to cover the primarily PA1, metropolitan 14 planning area delineations within the Gouldtown 15 boundary. Gouldtown being primarily the PA1 and 16 PA2. 17 In Fairton, there is a mix of rural 18 planning areas, environmental planning areas and 19 some PA4B, as we call it, which is a mix of the 20 rural and the environmental; that being 21 significant. 22 However, the bigger concern is in 23 Fairton where the Cohansey River actually does 24 connect with numerous wetland systems that 25 bisects that particular area of the town. And 122 1 there are also wildlife refuges, habitats and 2 other environmental features that actually follow 3 those particular water courses through Fairton. 4 At this point in time, I would 5 suggest that any consideration of appropriate 6 boundaries should recognize two key areas: One, 7 the extent of vacant lands that exists within the 8 confines of those boundaries; and secondarily, 9 the extent of the environmental attributes, if 10 you will, that exist within the confines of those 11 boundaries. 12 I believe that is really the entry 13 point, if you will, for our discussion today 14 because until and unless we have some sense or 15 understanding of what the boundaries are, it 16 becomes very difficult to move forward with on 17 appropriate presentation. 18 The first slide that we would like 19 to show is, I believe, the regional context. 20 We've got Bob Brewer from the Cumberland County 21 Planning Department with us and also 22 Tony Stanzione, who is the Executive Director of 23 the Cumberland Development Corporation. 24 I believe Tony has some comments 25 that he would like to share at the end; but in 123 1 the meantime, perhaps, Bob, if you would like to 2 come forward and share with us or give us a sense 3 of the regional context in which Fairfield 4 currently exists and some of the history relative 5 to this particular application. 6 MR. BREWER: First of all, I want to 7 clear up, there is a misconception about the 8 driving agency behind this. It's actually the 9 Cumberland Development Corporation, which Tony is 10 the executive director of. Cumberland County 11 through the Planning Department is just another 12 player along with the townships and the City of 13 Bridgeton. 14 From a regional perspective, this is 15 a natural extension. If you consider Bridgeton 16 as the hub, this fills in the southeast quadrant, 17 if you will, quite nicely. 18 In fact, back in the mid '90s, this 19 area for Gouldtown and for Fairton was designated 20 as a future sewer service area by the Cumberland 21 County Utilities Authority. 22 The state planning map that you see 23 up in the corner also shows this as the -- what 24 we think the appropriate planning area is with 25 centers to accommodate the growth. When you look 124 1 at how the infrastructure has run out of 2 Bridgeton, it's only natural, I think, that 3 rather than separate them as distinct centers 4 that they are just extensions of the existing 5 Bridgeton Center. 6 I won't go into any other detail, 7 I'll let the others here take care of that, but 8 it does make sense as an extension of the 9 Bridgeton Center from a regional perspective. 10 MR. DONALD: And just suffice it to 11 say that we have had applications previously from 12 one or two other towns within the county. In 13 fact, we've just designated Cedarville in 14 Lawrence Township as a village center. 15 As you can see from the map that we 16 have here, if you follow the railroad 17 right-of-way, you can actually see numerous 18 centers that are either proposed or currently 19 designated that actually follow that right-of-way 20 through the county. The yellow line, as you see 21 it, represents the extent of the CAFRA boundary. 22 Both of the areas, Gouldtown and 23 Fairton, as represented by the town, are 24 approximately 3 square miles in area. Fairton 25 being slightly smaller than Gouldtown. And, 125 1 again, just to give you a little bit of history, 2 there was a revision in the Fairfield boundary 3 over a pre-existing boundary, which was really at 4 that time just a village. And it was identified 5 on the state plan policy map as a proposed 6 village. 7 After some consideration at the 8 local level, the town determined that the 9 liability of Fairton really existed in its 10 expansion and also being part of what is now the 11 proposed expanded regional center. 12 So they have some concerns relative 13 to the economic viability, if you will, of 14 Fairton separate and distinct from its regional 15 connection to Bridgeton. 16 The other consideration that the 17 town has is that they're already seeing what is 18 termed as low-intensity sprawl with 19 suburbanization actually coming out of Bridgeton 20 where many of the county roads are starting to 21 see a lot more development activity as a sort of 22 outcrop, if you will, outflow from -- residential 23 outflow from Bridgeton itself. 24 Regionally, they envision the jobs 25 actually existing within Bridgeton itself and 126 1 then the surrounding municipalities as being 2 perhaps, if you will, more bedroom communities 3 supporting the core itself, which is the City of 4 Bridgeton. 5 Both the city and the surrounding 6 towns at this point in time feel that their best 7 opportunity for growth and viability is the 8 center's designation process. While they do 9 respect the ongoing strategic planning process 10 that is underway, they feel that it would give 11 them more opportunity for them to come in at this 12 point in time, as opposed to a year, year and a 13 half, two years from now when the county is 14 actually ready to come forth with the plan 15 endorsement. 16 I'd like to actually show you the 17 boundaries that were -- okay. All right. This 18 isn't the one, but okay, you can hold it there. 19 Okay. This boundary is the latest revision, if 20 you will, from the town of Fairfield. This is 21 in -- 22 MS. SAMSON: What is the boundary? 23 MR. DONALD: The boundary is this 24 checkered line, if you will. 25 MR. FISHER: And that's smaller than 127 1 what their original boundary was? 2 MR. DONALD: Their original boundary 3 extended out and picked up this area down here; 4 in fact, this triangular piece was also included. 5 Essentially, what they've done is sort of cut off 6 this swath through here which actually followed 7 the CAFRA boundary line. 8 Also, to the south here, this area 9 is primarily agricultural land. And as part of 10 the planning, what the town sought to do was 11 actually change the zoning designation from 12 agricultural to R-2, which actually is a 1.5 acre 13 zoning in consideration of potential growth that 14 would occur over the next 20 years. 15 One of the things that they've seen 16 occurring, which they're quite troubled about is 17 some of the larger farm owners have been 18 subdividing off large tracts to sons, daughters, 19 other family members, if you will, creating, you 20 know, further low-intensity sprawl throughout the 21 area, so one of the mechanisms that is currently 22 being given consideration is transferability, if 23 you will, encouraging transferability into the 24 center with that area down in the south offering 25 opportunity for larger subdividable lots, if you 128 1 will. 2 In a more centralized area, excuse 3 me, through here, there is R-3 zoning with some 4 undersized lots, which are 30,000 square feet. 5 And the town sees this as an opportunity for 6 redevelopment potential. It really doesn't 7 represent the future of the town. 8 The majority in land area through 9 -- well, not through here, but basically through 10 here and surrounding this R-3 area is R-1 and 11 R-2, which is predominantly 1 acre, 1.5 acre 12 lots. 13 Again, there is no public water and 14 sewer. There is a sewer service area that does 15 cover approximately 50 percent of that area. 16 The DEP recommendation is that we 17 don't actually connect to the Bridgeton Regional 18 Center, as it currently exists. And in the 19 interest of time, we do have that particular 20 slide and if you need to see it, we can actually 21 forage through and find it, but it would actually 22 cut the center down to this particular area 23 through here. This would remain pretty much 24 intact over here just over the pond; is that a 25 clear representation? So it wouldn't pick up 129 1 much of the existing vacant land that exists to 2 the north, while, again, recognizing that there 3 are wildlife refuges through here and various 4 wetlands that course through here and also 5 numerous habitats, which, again, as part of the 6 CES consideration would have to be recognized as 7 to where they are, what their extent is and then 8 what the extent of that CES coverage would be. 9 MR. ESKILSON: I'm missing 10 something. It sounds like, from what you 11 described, we're gerrymandering around 12 environmental constraints which I thought we were 13 trying to get away from using the CES overlays. 14 Are you talking about some 15 combination of those? 16 MR. DONALD: At this point in time, 17 as part of a compromise, if you will, while 18 recognizing a need to be a part of the Bridgeton 19 Regional Center, the town is prepared to 20 recognize where environmental constraints exist 21 within that Fairton section and then cover those 22 environmental areas with CES. 23 MR. ESKILSON: Okay. 24 The centers will not be contiguous, 25 but they will be part of the same center. 130 1 MR. FISHER: No, the town's proposal 2 is still to be contiguous. 3 MR. ESKILSON: Right. 4 MR. DONALD: Here is the amended 5 version that was offered by DEP, which would 6 disconnect the body from the existing regional 7 center. 8 MR. ESKILSON: As long as we're 9 consistent in applying that, I don't have a real 10 issue with that. If we're going to have 11 disconnected regional sectors and create islands, 12 sobeit. It sounds like gerrymandering again. 13 MS. BYERS: I think the real 14 question is whether or not it makes sense to have 15 those areas of additional growth be appendages 16 and expansions of an existing center or whether 17 they are in their own right separate proposed 18 villages or hamlets or town centers, what have 19 you. I mean, there is nothing wrong with having 20 a regional center and having satellite centers 21 around it. They don't all have to be connected, 22 so the question is what is more appropriate and 23 does it make sense. 24 MR. ESKILSON: It seems to me the 25 Commission put in the provision that it was 131 1 appropriate that these areas be connected with 2 Bridgeton and it was simply a matter of a couple 3 towns were not ready with their submissions. And 4 now we're kind of going back and covering that 5 ground again. But it seems to me we had a map, 6 you know, that was a good map, but we were short 7 of information to support that map. Now, I think 8 what I'm hearing is we have information to 9 support it. And I'm not sure why we're covering 10 all this ground again. 11 MS. SAMSON: Let me just jump in. I 12 think there are a number of important issues, not 13 only in the sense of the importance of the town 14 to get this done and to move it along, but also 15 some fairly critical environmental issues. 16 What we did is we essentially 17 clipped the boundaries to reflect the existing 18 sewer service areas. There are enormous vacant 19 lands and preserved farmlands and critical 20 habitat and wildlife management areas surrounding 21 that. 22 What we don't have from the town at 23 this point and what we sort of anticipated we 24 would do is sort of give them the designations 25 that we're comfortable doing right now and work 132 1 with them in the immediate future to some 2 resolution and fill in some of the information 3 about the other areas we don't have. 4 For example, we don't have a sense 5 of what the town's -- we don't have and they may 6 be there, we just don't have them in the 7 submission or anything we've requested, we don't 8 have a sense of division for infrastructure, a 9 division for managing wildlife, a division for 10 setting aside, you know, protecting the resources 11 and the water resources. We don't have 20-year 12 population growth figures that map the 13 boundaries. 14 I mean, there are a lot of things -- 15 in putting together an area that has this much 16 biodiversity and complexity, there was a lot of 17 information that we felt we needed to have to 18 approve the center as proposed that we just 19 didn't have and couldn't accommodate in this time 20 period, so our thinking was instead of pushing 21 the entire center, that the entire center go into 22 the plan endorsement process, that the entire 23 petition go into the plan endorsement process, 24 that we would find this area that we were 25 comfortable doing and then agree to work 133 1 immediately in the future with Fairfield to fill 2 in the blanks and to understand how they're going 3 to manage some of these critical environmental 4 areas. 5 MR. TOUHEY: So there is a 6 possibility based on further information review? 7 MS. SAMSON: We're not shutting the 8 door. We don't mean to imply -- and I think one 9 of the misconceptions that we're always having is 10 that we're sort of always promoting a no-growth 11 policy, but I think what we're saying is we need 12 to understand -- especially in these critical 13 areas. I mean, a huge piece of this is the state 14 wildlife management area. Now, why that would 15 have to be included in the boundary, I'm not 16 certain, but there is a lot we don't understand 17 and we would like to understand it to help them 18 to manage the growth in a way that balances, you 19 know, the environmental issues and their need to 20 grow and their desire to grow in an appropriate 21 way. 22 MR. TOUHEY: When it is laid out, I 23 agree wholeheartedly. I think if we take action 24 based on information we don't have, then we are 25 back trying to fix it or redo it, which creates 134 1 more conflict or confusion. 2 Is Fairfield comfortable with this 3 kind of expansion with waiting on plan 4 endorsement as a way of building the regional 5 center? 6 MS. SAMSON: For the additional 7 pieces. 8 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Do you want me to 9 go into mine to try to explain stuff? 10 MR. TOUHEY: We're here, the sales 11 pitch is over, we're ready to hear. 12 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Okay. 13 MR. TOUHEY: Let me put it in this 14 context for you. 15 As a town, I would assume -- or as a 16 region, I would assume you would want to have as 17 much pure information and predictability from DEP 18 going forward than a shot in the dark, I would 19 assume. 20 MR. CARTER: Yes, we don't feel we 21 have a shot in the dark, but we'll explain that. 22 MR. ESKILSON: It sounds to me like 23 we're also leading into a big map discussion 24 here. I don't see how we can avoid that. A lot 25 of us have very real concerns about the criteria. 135 1 MR. TOUHEY: John makes up a good 2 point. What I heard was -- and believe me, you 3 know me and the big map, is that what DEP is 4 saying, if you could keep it simplistic, more 5 time to review the information as it relates to 6 what we're looking at; is that fair? 7 MS. SAMSON: I think that's fair. 8 MR. PURDIE: And, Mr. Chairman, let 9 me say, also, that we are, as we all should be 10 doing here, our issues aren't just environmental, 11 we're looking at regional planning issues here. 12 MR. TOUHEY: Okay. 13 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Thank you very 14 much. 15 What I would like to do is just give 16 you the little presentation that we have 17 developed in supplement to Joe's presentation. 18 It may not address your particular questions just 19 yet. We're hoping to give you some background 20 and then we'll be more than happy to address 21 every question you may have concerning this. 22 To start off, there are some 23 economic statistics on the first page for you. 24 And these are very important because what we look 25 at is that this center's designation is basically 136 1 going to be a tool for revitalization of 2 Fairfield Township and of Cumberland County. 3 Cumberland County itself is the poorest county in 4 the State of New Jersey. All of the development 5 has gone to the north and is slowly making its 6 way south; but by this time, now everyone is 7 concerned about preservation, and we will have no 8 development if we're the last county and have to 9 be preserved. We need to be able to have areas 10 that we can place development, yet still balance 11 that with our conservation. 12 There are some very specific 13 economic statistics there, which will point out 14 how poverty stricken this area is. One of the 15 items that is not on here, but I would like to 16 address briefly is the COAH obligation. 17 We had -- two years ago, we had 18 spent significant funding with an outside 19 professional to put together a COAH plan. We got 20 to the point where it was unofficially submitted 21 to COAH. The plan included an overlay. COAH 22 then decided that they were no longer willing to 23 discuss overlays and wanted specific areas, that 24 bumped it back because the Township, again, due 25 to the economic statistics of the town, already 137 1 felt that we were low and moderate income and had 2 a problem with adding additional. 3 MR. TOUHEY: I would assume that -- 4 I agree with that. 5 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Yes. 6 Unfortunately, COAH doesn't agree with that. 7 We are in the process now -- 8 MR. TOUHEY: I'm not with COAH, but 9 go ahead. 10 MS. MC CULLOUGH: We are in the 11 process now, we have come up with a new plan of 12 attack where we have an area of the Township 13 where we are looking at redevelopment, of taking 14 existing structures -- 15 MR. TOUHEY: Actually, I would be 16 very aggressive in trying to get regional 17 contribution agreements in bringing money to your 18 town to address some of your housing needs. 19 MS. MC CULLOUGH: That may be an 20 issue due to the fact that Bridgeton in their 21 center petition has indicated that's where 22 they're looking, not to be in conflict as we 23 merge. 24 MR. TOUHEY: You're not in conflict. 25 You should be working with COAH staff. 138 1 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Yes, and that's 2 one thing we are dealing with. We do plan to 3 have the revisions to that initial report done 4 within the next year and into the COAH staff for 5 approval. 6 We are basically looking at the 7 Center's designation as a way to improve the 8 economics of Fairfield Township. Governor 9 McGreevey has made a commitment to rein in sprawl 10 and to provide the tools for municipalities to 11 participate in smart growth. This process was 12 started with the original center's designation 13 and more dramatically through the new 14 cross-acceptance and plan endorsement procedure. 15 Compliance with the state master 16 plan is essential in order for a municipality to 17 best take advantage of the various tools offered 18 by the state. These tools are some of the 19 incentives for new homeowners, for new 20 businesses, for various grant programs, etc. 21 It is through the use of these tools 22 that the Township intends to improve and promote 23 those areas within the center's boundaries. As 24 these areas are improved, so will the quality of 25 life be improved for the residents. 139 1 Additionally, improvements to the 2 infrastructure in these areas with the help of 3 grant programs will help attract businesses. The 4 addition of commercial ratables will not only 5 provide much needed jobs, but will also help 6 offset the tax burden which is now primarily 7 forced upon the residential ratables. 8 One of those infrastructure 9 improvements we are dealing with and one of the 10 reasons why we are requesting to be brought 11 forward at this point in time and not wait for 12 plan endorsement is that we have a sewer project 13 that is going through New Jersey Environmental 14 Infrastructure Trust. It is on the table. We 15 have delayed it one year because basically they 16 indicated that the center designation was 17 something that we were going to need to continue 18 to move forward. 19 MR. TOUHEY: I want to stop you on 20 that point. You got what was offered as it 21 relates to this cutout, whatever the slide was, 22 but would it help you in your application? 23 MR. THOMAS: No, it would not. It's 24 not included. The DEP suggested cutbacks would 25 not be included in our sewer areas. 140 1 MR. TOUHEY: Would it compromise the 2 application? 3 MS. MC CULLOUGH: For the Gouldtown 4 Section 5 MS. SAMSON: I am not exactly 6 certain what the EIT problems are, but that is 7 something that subsequent to this meeting I am 8 happy to take a look at with you to understand. 9 MR. TOUHEY: Thank you. 10 MS. MC CULLOUGH: That's one of the 11 reasons that we jumped ahead of the regional plan 12 and came back to the table and moved forward with 13 this process. 14 A tremendous amount of time and 15 effort was put into these lines that have been 16 originally submitted to the area based on the 17 planning board's need to preserve the farmlands. 18 This task was accomplished in two ways by the 19 planning board, they've rezoned the agricultural 20 land in such a way that all single-family homes 21 must have street frontage now; whereas, 22 previously we were having the problems with the 23 farmers subdividing sections, handing it off to 24 kin or friends and we were having sporadic homes 25 pop up all through the agriculture. 141 1 The other area that we addressed was 2 creating a large enough area within our centers 3 so that subdivisions of agricultural lands could 4 be denied based upon the availability of 5 developable lands in the centers. We do not want 6 people developing in the agricultural lands. We 7 want to be able to preserve that as best we can. 8 The only way we can deny that is by having 9 someplace else for them to build, which is why we 10 had put such a large amount of open space which 11 has not been developed yet within our center. 12 MR. TOUHEY: Has that been adopted 13 in both the county plan and a local zoning 14 ordinance; yes or no? 15 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Yes. 16 MR. CARTER: Yes; that was part of 17 the reexamination report that we spent the last 18 eight years at the planning board level trying to 19 push together. It really was all the policy that 20 came out particularly with trying to work towards 21 this end and that's what slowed us up because we 22 wanted to wait -- as you said, the big map, we 23 went through CAFRA center designation through the 24 county, cross acceptance, so we tried to keep 25 marrying our plan to what we thought was going to 142 1 be today. 2 MR. TOUHEY: So the county plan and 3 the local municipal plan takes into consideration 4 in the designated center your frontage design and 5 preservation of the agriculture as a way of an 6 economic engine to the farmers? 7 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Yes. 8 MR. BREWER: I am not sure what 9 county plan you are referring to there. We have 10 a very active farmland preservation program and 11 it's all -- for Fairfield Township, it's all 12 south of Fairton. You can just get a glimpse of 13 the large contiguous acreage, the farmland 14 acreage in the lower-lefthand corner so that's 15 below the Village of Fairfield. 16 MR. TOUHEY: Let me ask you a 17 question. 18 Is the County adopting or doing a 19 regional plan that takes into consideration this 20 regional center and its needs? 21 MR. BREWER: This is part of the 22 Cumberland Development Corporation. My comments 23 earlier, it's not the county plan, it's the 24 Cumberland -- 25 MR. TOUHEY: No, I understand that. 143 1 I got that. The executive director is right next 2 to you. 3 Is the county considering a county 4 plan that takes into consideration what the 5 executive director is trying to do? 6 MR. BREWER: Yes, we're 7 participating. 8 MS. BYERS: Just as a follow-up 9 question, one of the comments I heard was that 10 one of the problems you're having is with growth 11 happening outside of the current Bridgeton 12 Regional Center. Now, that's a dynamic that's 13 happening not just in Bridgeton Regional Center 14 but all over New Jersey. It's pretty difficult 15 to say we're going to concentrate growth in a 16 regional center, but then, you know, what 17 mechanisms are there outside the center to 18 prevent continuing sprawl around the center. 19 My question is: If you are already 20 experiencing that problem and then you 21 additionally provide for farmland around there to 22 be developed, again, increasing the size of the 23 developed area where its growth is concentrated, 24 what mechanisms do you have in place in the 25 surrounding agricultural lands to prevent the 144 1 continuing sprawl outside the regional center? 2 MR. THOMAS: I think that goes 3 directly to our master plan where we're trying to 4 attempt to get an area where we can push 5 development and growth to and try to protect our 6 farmland areas; that's one of the reasons our 7 master plan is designed that way, so we can 8 actually tell a developer or a home builder, and 9 that's also why we asked for road frontage in 10 order to be able to build and why we have 5 acres 11 that you must build on for an agricultural area, 12 so that those are things we have in place looking 13 to protect the agricultural areas. 14 MS. BYERS: The mechanisms you have 15 in place now are the 5-acre zoning and the 16 requirement that you build on road frontage? 17 MR. CARTER: What you have to 18 understand is the zoning we had to work with 19 before in the residential zoning, which was R-1, 20 -2 and -3: R-1 was one acre, very limited in 21 existing zoning, extremely limited; R-2, which 22 was 20,000 square foot lots, not on sewer, just 23 on septic; and 6500 square foot lots in the R-3. 24 It was absolutely absurd. So what we spent is a 25 lot of time to balance that by saying, We really 145 1 don't want any more 6500 square foot lots. 2 That's really downtown Fairfield. We don't want 3 to encourage that kind of development until sewer 4 is ever going to be placed there and we don't see 5 that in our foreseeable future at this moment, 6 but we wanted to connect up with the Bridgeton 7 Regional Center to have the corridor that comes 8 down the Bridgeton/Fairton Pike, which is already 9 developed commercially to have that connection 10 with it. It is part of the 208 plan to be 11 connected. It actually drags out of Bridgeton, 12 so that's what we tried to follow planning wise. 13 What we really have to go back to, 14 and I am sorry to pull away from Ms. McCullough's 15 presentation, is what the existing zoning we had, 16 which was not going to get us where we wanted, it 17 was going to basically be a continuation of 18 problems, where we were beginning to have small 19 lots and failing septic systems. And we couldn't 20 infill those. We could only infill them with 21 small lots. And we didn't want them anymore. So 22 we had to look around those areas that were 23 already separated or developed and do that 24 without trying to go into the agricultural zone. 25 Of the 24 building permits I think 146 1 we've had in the last year or two, almost all of 2 them were in the agricultural zone; that's a 3 problem. 4 What we wanted to do is this: We 5 wanted to basically help the farmers when they 6 came to sell their development rights through the 7 county by giving them some balance, but 8 discourage them from lopping off 5-acre parcels. 9 And how we did that was by taking 2.5 acre 10 parcels that fronted on existing municipal, 11 county or state roadways and said, You can have 12 that because most of the farming along the road 13 isn't that active anyway, so if you take that 2.5 14 acres, instead of 5 acres that they were lopping 15 off, so we were losing, you know, 2.5 acres at a 16 pop of actual farmland that got taken out when 17 they went to a single-family house in compliance 18 with the ordinance. We wanted to downsize that 19 knowing that there is going to be continuation of 20 that infill strip in agricultural, but limit the 21 amount of land that was taken out of agricultural 22 use, so that's why we went to 2.5 acres only if 23 you fronted the road. 24 If you went off the road, if you 25 wanted to start to develop subdivisions in 147 1 agricultural lands, which we don't encourage, you 2 would have to go to 5 acres, but that's 3 absolutely absurd because building infrastructure 4 for 5-acre lots is just going to kill any 5 developer so we kind of balanced that; that's why 6 we did that. 7 Remember we're talking about two 8 different things, the sewer is going into the 9 Gouldtown Section The Fairton Center 10 designation is being requested to marry the 11 Bridgeton with an eventual 208 and to marry up 12 into the existing developing commercial area that 13 strips all the way down from Bridgeton. 14 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Unfortunately, 15 when we review the comments to us, it does seem 16 that we were significantly red. There was very 17 little portion on the map that was green. To us, 18 being told to accept something now, knowing that 19 the State of New Jersey as a whole -- 20 MR. TOUHEY: I'm going to stop you 21 there. You just heard Joanna tell you that 22 they're looking at that area. They still need 23 more information. No one here is saying that 24 that is what is going on at this point. 25 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Our concern is the 148 1 time process for that. 2 MR. TOUHEY: I understand. 3 MS. MC CULLOUGH: And that's where 4 we have an issue with it. We see that as, in 5 essence, saying, Yeah, come back later for 6 expansion; what happens if later is never there. 7 We're stuck with areas that have 8 potentially no growth ability. If we go with 9 DEP, those areas are 95 percent built up. We 10 don't want to be left with that, that does not 11 give us the ability to turn around to developers 12 and say, Come back, you know, come back when we 13 have permission to develop someplace else. If we 14 can't provide them with areas to develop -- 15 MR. TOUHEY: Let me ask you a 16 question then. 17 What is a reasonable time to have 18 this review? 19 MS. MC CULLOUGH: Our problem is 20 right now we're limited. If we plan to get under 21 the center's designation, we're limited to this 22 month. 23 MR. TOUHEY: But if you move to plan 24 endorsement, you're talking about -- you're 25 already talking to the county. I'm just trying 149 1 to get an understanding here. You're talking to 2 the county. You have a regional center 3 designated. You're looking to expand and connect 4 it. And I'm not arguing this, I think it makes 5 sense. But I'm hearing DEP tell us they need to 6 do a little more work to determine how we connect 7 those pieces; so, I mean, I don't -- you know, I 8 don't want to get into a little checker game. If 9 we put a time limit on it, if we say we get into 10 plan endorsement, you're on top of the list and 11 here we are. 12 MS. SAMSON: Our recommendation, 13 recognizing how sensitive this is and the amount 14 of work, you know, we hear your arguments, is 15 that we not approve the boundaries as designated, 16 that are coterminous with the sewer system area 17 and defer the decision on the balance of it and 18 put them No. 1 on the designation list so that 19 they come up right away and that we would have 20 you come in, in September or right away and start 21 filling in the gaps. 22 MR. TOUHEY: I will go one step 23 further. What you laid out to me makes 24 tremendous sense. I will lay that out there, so 25 it's not like what you are saying to me is wrong; 150 1 but again, there is still information and gaps 2 missing. 3 MR. CARTER: If I could define that, 4 I think the major difference that we have within 5 what we'll call it the core center of Fairton for 6 the moment that deals with environmental is 7 merely the line. And I'll go back to Seaside 8 Heights, where someone questioned the map and 9 said, Gee, you included the beach, and it was 10 just like, No, we were just going to our 11 corporate boundaries. 12 We have no intention to encourage 13 development in environmental areas. We have no 14 problem taking out the Ducks Pond corridor, which 15 is in the middle of that center designation or 16 taking and following the shoreline of the 17 Cohansey Creek or Cohansey River, which basically 18 is following CAFRA's boundaries. 19 And when Mr. Donald had said, Yeah, 20 we went in this little bay and came back out 21 again, all we did is shoot across it; that's the 22 only problem we have. Where there is absolutely 23 no environmental issue either through CAFRA, map 24 wetlands or anything else is the connection of 25 the corridor with Bridgeton and that's where 151 1 we're coming in. We're saying to you, We 2 recognize the environmental concerns, which is, 3 Okay, we just can't shoot across here, we'll 4 follow this line up the Cohansey River and take 5 that out, that's easy for us and we can map that 6 in a minute; that's very simple. 7 What we're saying is we can't stop 8 here, which is what CAFRA is saying. This is 9 your developed area. We need to bring that 10 corridor up to Bridgeton. None of this is 11 environmental. We'll follow the shoreline. This 12 is a golf course, which we don't even mind taking 13 back out of the center designation to assure that 14 that developer never puts housing in there. 15 MR. TOUHEY: What could be the 16 potential environmental issues? 17 MR. CARTER: But there is no 18 environmental -- there's none. 19 MR. PURDIE: No, you can't say it's 20 not environmental. There is significant wildlife 21 habitat there, federally protected species. It's 22 all forested. These are extensive coastal 23 bluffs. You can see the river bend there. It's 24 very unique in the coastal ecosystem. There is a 25 bald eagle habitat just to the east of the 152 1 railroad. You can see those dark forested areas 2 are habitat areas. 3 MR. CARTER: But that's under the 4 landscape plan. I mean, those haven't been -- 5 MS. PEARSON: Touched in years. 6 MR. CARTER: Thank you. 7 MR. PURDIE: But you're including 8 them in the center with no plans and no clear 9 plan of what you're going to do with them; that's 10 our issue. 11 MS. SAMSON: That's really our 12 issue, is that they are included within the 13 boundaries and we don't have an articulated plan 14 on how you're going to address those issues. 15 MR. PURDIE: Let me say that we 16 countered your boundaries based on almost no 17 information and that points up to this, Why are 18 we doing this with no information. We did it 19 based on looking at aerial photographs in a very 20 limited knowledge. We're willing to talk about 21 this, but we have almost nothing to base this on, 22 only that we didn't like what we saw, so we have 23 an extreme lack of information. 24 MR. BREWER: We are in a very 25 difficult situation here. We're dealing with a 153 1 community with 12 percent unemployment and we're 2 being asked to do wildlife management plans when 3 40 percent of the county is preserved. I just 4 can't take that back to my constituency and make 5 that case. 6 MR. PURDIE: You're asking for a 7 designation from us when what you really need is 8 a comprehensive package of state assistance, 9 economic development, transportation, everything. 10 You're not going to get it just with the center 11 designation. 12 MS. PEARSON: Excuse me and please 13 forgive me for this, but I've listened to this 14 now for the past 20 minutes and it's really hard. 15 When we discussed this over the 16 phone a week ago, it was an okay thing, 17 everything was clear and understood. Now, I'm in 18 here and I'm hearing all these regulations and 19 stipulations that are being placed in relation to 20 this plan. 21 As Bob began to say, this is a very 22 unique area. There is wildlife management. 23 There are issues that are being addressed. This 24 is an economically depressed area. It's all 25 contiguous. You can't look at it in individual 154 1 sections, you have to look at the whole picture. 2 My concern is that it might be a 3 different kind of idea here, but you've got to 4 look at this almost with new eyes and fresh eyes 5 and understand what they're trying to do, what 6 they're trying to do in that particular county. 7 There is an explanation for everything that you 8 pointed out. 9 My concern here is: One, I'm very 10 concerned that I'm in here hearing all these 11 issues right now when we had talked about this 12 plan a week or two ago and it was okay, there 13 weren't these concerns; and secondly, I'm very 14 hopeful that we will be able to present and help 15 folks understand exactly what is trying to be 16 accomplished there. It is a big picture issue. 17 Look at the county. Nobody looks at that county 18 as one individual Section It's all relative 19 there. 20 MR. TOUHEY: Donna, I appreciate 21 your comments and concerns and let me just try to 22 say, again, I've heard Joanna say that they need 23 a little bit more time to look at information. I 24 don't hear them saying yet, they don't want to do 25 this, but I hear the county saying there is a 155 1 time concern. And that, I'm trying to appreciate 2 and I'm getting a commitment from DEP here that 3 they would make it a priority, a quick priority 4 No. 1 as a way of moving this forward. 5 Let me just say this, if we do a 6 piecemeal placement and then we come back 60 or 7 90 days from now and we're -- you know, we find 8 out there is all these issues or there is no 9 issues, I'm not sure what is served today. 10 MR. THOMAS: What it -- 11 MR. TOUHEY: I'm being honest. 12 MR. THOMAS: The part that I don't 13 understand is, you know, Mr. Purdie is saying 14 that there are certain environmental concerns, 15 eagles and things like that, but if right now 16 today the people that own those lands come in and 17 decide to build a development, there is nothing 18 that would stop them, which is why we're asking 19 for this process to be approved. There is 20 nothing that would stop them from developing that 21 and removing everything if any eagles are there. 22 I've been there all my life. Most of the eagles 23 are along the Cohansey down toward the bay, 24 they're not inside the inland -- upland structure 25 of the municipality. And basically all we're 156 1 asking for is a corridor from South Bridgeton 2 down through Main Street, Fairton and then one 3 out of East Bridgeton down Route 49; that is 4 simply all we're asking for. We know what growth 5 will be in our municipality. We know where it 6 needs to go. 7 We are trying to conform to the 8 state's request and control sprawl so we know 9 what areas that we'd like to have the population 10 increased in, but it seems that all we're getting 11 is that, well, you have to take all these other 12 things into consideration. And I'm told that if 13 you have questions, we have the answers for you 14 today. 15 MR. FISHER: Can I just ask a 16 question of staff, too? 17 The memo that says there was a 18 recommendation that the request be approved based 19 on the attached maps, which map; the compromised 20 map? 21 MR. DONALD: Okay. 22 Over the course of one week, the 23 last week, there was a lot of backwards and 24 forwards dialogue, if you will, so our approved 25 -- our recommendation is to approve an expansion 157 1 of the Bridgeton Regional Center subject to some 2 review and confirmation as to appropriate 3 boundaries. 4 MS. BYERS: Which still from what I 5 can see has not yet been finalized and thus the 6 confusion today. It is clear DEP needs 7 information. 8 MR. PURDIE: I think everybody here 9 needs more information. 10 MR. ESKILSON: What more 11 information? 12 What specifically are we looking for 13 and how long will it take to gather that and does 14 that bump into the time line here? 15 I think just to ask for more and 16 more time particularly in the truncated time line 17 we're talking about, and I said it at the last 18 meeting, it's not enough anymore. 19 What specifically do we need to look 20 at; what are we so concerned about; how 21 specifically do we get that information in a very 22 short period of time, analyze it and get it back 23 in here and get it done; that's what we need to 24 know, not just we need more time to look at more 25 stuff. 158 1 MS. BYERS: My response to that, 2 John, is what we would need to look at for 3 Fairton and Gouldtown, as well, is the whole data 4 sets that we apply for everyone. 5 MR. ESKILSON: So we have an 6 incomplete application. 7 MS. BYERS: Right. 8 MR. ESKILSON: But staff didn't say 9 that in the report. They didn't say the 10 application is incomplete and therefore we 11 shouldn't move it; that's a different 12 recommendation and I didn't read that anywhere. 13 MR. CARTER: If I could interject, 14 please and I understand and respect -- first of 15 all, I've been practicing for 30 years. And I've 16 had a lot of rural communities, as well as 17 municipal -- you know, I've been an Atlantic City 18 engineer. I've learned that the turtles in 19 Atlantic City are not the same turtles 2 miles up 20 or down the island because you can build casinos 21 and you can have a whole different development 22 there. 23 One of the things I've learned in 24 practicing in New Jersey, and forgive me for 25 saying this, but it's kind of like you're damned 159 1 if you do and you're damned if you don't. If 2 it's open on the aerial, it's farmland. If it's 3 forested, it's habitat. There is no winning 4 battle here. I've never found from an aerial a 5 good piece of ground that wasn't environmentally 6 sensitive or farmland. 7 And with all due respect, I 8 understand and give great credence to DEP for 9 what they've done in certain things. As a kid, I 10 fished the back bays of Ludlom Island (ph.) and 11 watched on the 4th of July when the treatment 12 plants had to flush over because they couldn't 13 handle it and now I can see to the bottom of the 14 bay. There is no doubt about it that there has 15 been betterments, but I agree with the gentleman 16 who just said we're not going to do a habitat 17 study of every forested land in Fairfield 18 Township. 19 When we started the re-examination 20 plan, there was 77 percent zoned agricultural 21 land. When we were done with the center's 22 designation, there was 75. And it was only 23 because the agricultural lands that were wooded 24 were never being used. They were never ever 25 going to be used, but they weren't 160 1 environmentally sensitive. 2 We have a very good, as has been 3 pointed out in your staff report, environmental 4 resource map. It's been done and supported by 5 ANJEC. We recognize that in the reexamination 6 report. We're not dummies. We knew that we were 7 never going to ask you for lands that were 8 environmentally sensitive. We prepared maps, and 9 with all due deference when someone says, We had 10 no information, apparently Mr. Donald had enough 11 because, one, he came down and spent an entire 12 day with us and we drove him through the entire 13 limits. We prepared four exhibits with 14 photographs and maps that show right behind you 15 where there is already building permits issued 16 right there on the maps. To say that that 17 doesn't exist, when you can take a corridor of 18 commercial development and all of this in here 19 and a municipal complex that is an active, clear, 20 open area, a recreation and municipal building 21 and say, That's out; that's what we did here. 22 We spent eight years coming to this 23 meeting. Whether it was announced back then or 24 not, we spent eight years to get here. We didn't 25 make these decisions based on aerials. And we're 161 1 asking you to not make that decision based on an 2 aerial. You have a very qualified staff report 3 from a licensed professional. You have 4 documentation that supports that. 5 We don't disagree with the 6 environmental concerns of the DEP, but we're 7 saying right now for what the outbound of that 8 is, there is going to be enough environmental 9 controls within that, that is going to limit any 10 development. And if they want us to put a 11 habitat requirement for a house, for a 12 single-family development, we'll do that, but the 13 landscape plan is not the answer to imply -- this 14 was a recommended publication and it was never 15 intended to be an authoritative document. It was 16 merely a recommendation that says, Where these 17 habitats may exist, you should consider to go in 18 there and do studies to make sure that they're 19 not present. 20 MR. TOUHEY: I have to leave. 21 MR. CARTER: I'm sorry. 22 MR. TOUHEY: What I want to lay out 23 here is this, and the Board can move in any 24 direction it wants to move. Personally, what I 25 hear, and I'm not questioning, Joe, there is 162 1 still information from what I'm hearing from DEP 2 that we need to review. And I'm not hearing from 3 DEP this, and maybe John is correct, it is an 4 incomplete application and we shouldn't be 5 reviewing it at this point, but what I am hearing 6 from DEP and I want to say this again, I support 7 what you're doing here, but I also am respecting 8 that someone who sits on this Commission is 9 telling me they need a little bit more time to 10 review that information. We're not taking a full 11 Commission vote here. This is the Planning 12 Implementation Committee. 13 If it's a timing issue, we should 14 put a deadline on it. It should be 60 or 90 days 15 that we would move it into the process. But if 16 we are asking DEP to move quick on it and we are 17 getting that commitment, I think that's a pretty 18 good compromise. 19 I would hate to come back again and 20 do it piecemeal, piecemeal, piecemeal until you 21 get to the end of the road here. And I -- again, 22 I will say it one more time, I support what 23 you're doing here, but we need to go through 24 another process. 25 (Mr. Touhey, Public Member excused 163 1 himself from the meeting.) 2 MR. THOMAS: What about the Gouldtown 3 section designation? 4 MS. BYERS: I think that would be 5 included in the regional discussion that needs to 6 be expanded on. 7 MR. FISHER: Are there separate 8 concerns with DEP? 9 MR. PURDIE: Let me just say this, 10 what this Committee is being asked to do in one 11 session is to more than double the size of the 12 Bridgeton Regional Center, okay, in the midst of 13 a Regional County Strategic Plan that's supposed 14 to provide us with information. 15 Now, what happens when Upper 16 Deerfield comes in and goes, We need 5 or 6 17 square miles, too; Hopewell comes in and says, 18 Well, we have to go all the way up to Shiloh. 19 Bridgeton is going to look like a wagon wheel and 20 I think what we are doing is selling ourselves 21 short here. 22 I agree with the Township. They 23 need significant help. I don't see right now 24 what a center designation is going to do to do 25 that. I think it needs a whole package that the 164 1 rest of our planning board could get. 2 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Purdie, I have to 3 disagree with you. I mean, it's not our fault 4 that Bridgeton is only 7 square miles large. You 5 have to understand that we're a township that 6 needs to be able to build a plan in the future. 7 MR. PURDIE: Mayor, you have very 8 modest road projected and you have 6 square miles 9 of land. 10 MR. THOMAS: That's what we're 11 asking for. 12 MR. PURDIE: Let me say that we 13 couldn't -- 14 MR. THOMAS: It's not like we're 15 going to have a large plant come in and -- we're 16 not going to get a large amount of infrastructure 17 in there. We're having difficulty now just 18 trying to get a school built. 19 MR. PURDIE: I understand that. 20 MR. CARTER: All we're asking for is 21 the opportunity to designate these areas to be 22 able to in the next 10, 20, 30 years have a place 23 for our municipality to grow. Bridgeton is only 24 so big. It's not going to get bigger. 25 Eventually, if Bridgeton does turn around, 165 1 something is going to need to happen where the 2 outlying communities are going to be able to 3 accommodate certain businesses. If somebody in 4 our area gets a headache, they have to leave town 5 to go get an aspirin. This is the kind of 6 growth. I'm thinking about what our community 7 needs, not just what the Bridgeton Regional 8 Center needs. 9 The original map actually came to my 10 borders and stopped. They didn't even include 11 any part of Fairfield Township. And now we're 12 still here and those things came out five or six 13 years ago, but yet Bridgeton came to my border, 14 the Bridgeton Regional Center came to Fairfield, 15 but stopped at my border. It doesn't make sense. 16 MS. BYERS: What I hear today is 17 we're at a crisis, if you will, in Bridgeton in 18 terms of future growth and the kind of aid that 19 this region is going to need if it's going to be 20 able to survive and become viable, but that kind 21 of aid can't come from the state if there isn't a 22 comprehensive plan. And I really think that this 23 cries out for an expedited plan endorsement 24 process and we're not really going to do service 25 to the community by putting two small center 166 1 boundaries or extending those center boundaries 2 from Bridgeton at the moment right now. And I 3 think that you really do need to sit down 4 together, DEP and the community and DCA and come 5 up with a more complete, more comprehensive plan 6 than what we've got in front of us today. 7 MR. CARTER: And I agree with that 8 to a certain extent, but all I ask you to do here 9 today is please don't hurt the outlying 10 communities. The outlying communities are poor. 11 They don't get state aid. Grants could dry up 12 tomorrow. We can't depend on grants. We're 13 going to have to start to plan our own future, 14 plan our own development, at least something that 15 can take the pressure off the small tax base that 16 we have. 17 MS. BYERS: Right. 18 MR. CARTER: If not, we're not going 19 to be able to do anything or go anywhere. 20 MS. MC CULLOUGH: You've indicated 21 that we should wait for plan endorsement, yet 22 you've stated and you argued over rules this 23 morning and you've just admitted that plan 24 endorsement isn't ready yet. We're now being 25 forced to wait for whatever time period until you 167 1 finally get that process ready. It pushes us 2 back to an unknown time. 3 MS. BYERS: I think there are a 4 couple of things going on and, Bill, you can 5 correct me if I'm wrong, but as we moved forward 6 with the rule adoption on plan endorsement and 7 get the state map boundaries corrected, we are 8 and have made commitments to some other 9 communities in the state to do expedited plan 10 endorsement in the fall. 11 MS. SAMSON: In the fall, right. 12 MS. BYERS: Yes. 13 MS. SAMSON: So we wouldn't be 14 saying, You guys have to wait, we'll talk to you 15 next year. 16 MS. BYERS: We know you can't wait. 17 MR. CARTER: With all due respect, 18 we have a worse problem. We are trying to build 19 a school, and please don't take this the wrong 20 way, but even the CAFRA boundary in the Gouldtown 21 section takes our school out of our center, which 22 doesn't make any sense. We need to get sewer to 23 the school and in the process closing up those 24 6500 square foot lots that have septic systems on 25 them. We are not going to be able to go to the 168 1 Environmental Trust and get funding waiting until 2 the fall. We have a November deadline for 3 submission. 4 MS. SAMSON: November deadline for 5 submission of what? 6 I'm sorry. 7 MR. CARTER: To go into the next 8 cycle for funding. 9 What I am saying to you and what is 10 a fact, if you go back into the records, at the 11 time of the CAFRA Center's designation, when we 12 were going through cross acceptance, CAFRA, DEP 13 agreed with where the boundaries were in the 14 Gouldtown section almost line for line. And now 15 we're coming back and I understand DEP didn't get 16 a lot of time, but they looked at it six years 17 ago and said it was okay. There is a letter in 18 our file that said, It's fine. Now, they're 19 coming back and saying, Oh, no, we want another 20 shot at this. 21 If I could ask the Committee's 22 indulgence, approve -- recommend approval for the 23 Gouldtown section so we can move forward to get 24 our sewer project done and we can get in line for 25 what we have to do. There are no environmental 169 1 concerns up there, other than the wet -- other 2 than the wooded areas where there might be 3 habitat. We're not going to disturb that. If 4 you want to talk about Fairton, that's another 5 issue, but we're not going to go anywhere and 6 probably that's going to stop us dead in the 7 water. 8 If we can't get something through in 9 the next recommendation for the Gouldtown 10 section, if you want to study the Fairton 11 section, that's great, study it to death, you're 12 still going to come out where we just came out 13 because we looked at it for eight years, so you 14 can look at it for eight weeks, but you're going 15 to get where we already did, unless you have some 16 other intent in mind. 17 MR. THOMAS: That would be a fair 18 compromise for me if we could work on the Fairton 19 section and get the Gouldtown section today. We 20 are on a time line. 21 MS. LANG: May I throw out a 22 proposal here? 23 Why don't we take a look at the 24 boundaries that DEP has designated up here, 25 approve them as the centers with the full 170 1 understanding that this will become a high 2 priority, the highest priority to go and resolve 3 these issues through plan endorsement, that these 4 lines will probably change in the near future 5 through plan endorsement; but, at least, give 6 them the center designation for what we have now. 7 MR. ESKILSON: We have 30 days left. 8 I'm not sure why we have to resign ourselves to 9 move outside this process. We still have two 10 commission meetings left. We still have the 11 ability to reconvene this group. 12 Why not look at these issues in the 13 next two weeks and come back because it seems to 14 me the important issue, the critical issue here 15 is timing. I understand your concern about going 16 into an untested process because that's what plan 17 endorsement is at the municipal level, completely 18 untested. 19 To say we're going to expedite it, 20 that's great, but we really haven't heard what 21 that means yet. And I'm concerned, we have five 22 petitions backed up in Sussex County who may 23 think they need to be top on the list, as well, 24 and now we're saying, Well, you're first. We're 25 going to hear a different story in a couple weeks 171 1 from that group who want to be at the top of the 2 list, as well. 3 I'm not sure why we're not using the 4 remaining 30 days to deal with it in the current 5 process. I think that's what we ought to do. 6 MR. FISHER: Maybe the worst case, 7 we get Gouldtown done and Fairton gets held off. 8 MS. LANG: Can we propose that we 9 approve the centers as they are now with DEP with 10 the understanding that DEP will work with the 11 Township? 12 MR. CARTER: You're missing one 13 issue here, if I may interject. Mr. Purdie just 14 said it. Gouldtown isn't even in the CAFRA zone. 15 Are you willing to withdraw that 16 designation line or are you still wanting to stay 17 with it? 18 MR. PURDIE: We stand by the 19 original suggestions we made. Based on limited 20 information -- now, wait a minute, wait a minute. 21 MR. CARTER: You don't understand. 22 It's eight years of frustration to get to this 23 point so it's not against you. 24 MR. PURDIE: You never had a CAFRA 25 designation in Gouldtown because it's not in the 172 1 coastal zone, so I don't know who could have 2 signed on that. 3 MS. BYERS: Let me just interrupt 4 everybody right now. 5 I don't think, at least, me, myself 6 as Chair of the Planning Implementation 7 Committee, that I would support moving on either 8 of these centers today. 9 What I am hearing is there is a lot 10 of information that still needs to be discussed. 11 I don't see any reason why -- and tell me if I'm 12 wrong, Bill and Joanna -- we couldn't spend the 13 next couple of weeks reviewing this with the 14 community and have another meeting of the Plan 15 Implementation Committee in advance of the July 16 meeting. We're trying to turn ourselves into a 17 knot already for other communities in Cape May 18 so, you know, why not do the same. I think we're 19 going to do that and have a special meeting on 20 July 29th anyway; is that possible? 21 MS. SAMSON: One of the things I 22 think we can do -- and we've heard today a number 23 of things, we just haven't seen the zoning 24 ordinances that protect the farmlands. We have 25 not seen the wildlife management protection. We 173 1 just haven't seen them. And we need to see the 2 letters, you know, that we have here. And I also 3 would not want to do anything that would 4 jeopardize their funding for the sewer area, so 5 we can take a look at that. 6 There are a number of things that we 7 will agree and commit to look at and we may come 8 back to you and say to you and say, as a group, 9 we still didn't get enough to give them 10 everything they want, but we may be able to do 11 something else. 12 MR. ESKILSON: Can we agree to do it 13 inside this process and not wait for endorsement? 14 MS. SAMSON: We can agree to try. 15 It depends on what the outcome of it is. 16 MR. ESKILSON: I'm not looking for 17 you to explain the outcome. 18 MS. PEARSON: I have a question. 19 MR. CARTER: We agree to do it 20 within 30 days. Just so you understand, we'll 21 put the efforts, the mayor and the administrator 22 can speak for themselves, but I just told them, 23 we're willing to commit 30 days, whatever it 24 takes us to get us where we need to be. It's a 25 big state. You've got a lot of people working 174 1 for you. We don't have that many, but if we're 2 willing to commit our resources to get this done, 3 we're hoping that you can do it, too. 4 MS. SAMSON: I appreciate that. And 5 we'll commit the resources to work with you. 6 The only thing, I don't know because 7 I haven't seen the information, is once the 8 information all comes in together and we have a 9 chance to analyze it, you know, hopefully it will 10 be consistent with everything you've said and 11 consistent with our regional planning objectives, 12 but I just don't know that until we see all of 13 the information, so I'm happy to work with the 14 community within this time period and we'll 15 commit the time to do that. 16 And I think, by the way, the reason 17 this came up quickly and we responded as quickly 18 as we could is because I think the original idea 19 was there were going to be a whole group of these 20 last applicants that we wouldn't move on at all 21 and this was sort of a late submission and we 22 really scrambled to try to find some accomodation 23 of their needs on this particular center. 24 MR. CARTER: What is it exactly that 25 we need to supply in the next two weeks? 175 1 MS. SAMSON: We will call you and 2 give you a specific list and we will call you and 3 try to -- 4 MS. PEARSON: I have one question. 5 This will not be outside of our 6 meeting here? 7 I think the main concern that people 8 may have is that the rules, they change in the 9 middle of the game kind of thing. And there is a 10 great deal, and don't get me wrong, this is not a 11 personal issue here, but it is just what I've 12 been hearing throughout the Southern New Jersey 13 area that there are different kinds of rules, 14 quote, unquote. And my concern is that there 15 will be consistency. I think that, you know, the 16 southern counties, all of them, will do 17 everything that they can to meet you and I am 18 just hopeful that it will be looked at 19 objectively and expeditiously. 20 MS. SAMSON: The balancing act we 21 have in the southern counties is on the one hand 22 you have all this beautiful land and on the other 23 hand you have economic needs. And I know they 24 need to be balanced, but from the DEP's 25 perspective, we also want to be careful that we 176 1 don't forego the environmental considerations for 2 economic reasons because then we're subject to 3 the same concerns, environmental justice 4 concerns, you know, where you guys just allow us 5 to do all this nasty stuff here and I'm not 6 saying that, so I understand that this is a 7 really tricky balance. 8 MR. CARTER: There is nobody more 9 environmentally sensitive than members of 10 Fairfield Township. 11 MS. BYERS: So we're going to have 12 another Plan Implementation Committee meeting and 13 Marge and Adam will call everyone and we'll 14 figure out how that meeting is going to happen 15 between now and July 29th. 16 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: Here is what I 17 actually heard. 18 What I heard is that the town and 19 DEP will talk, will meet, potentially, as well, 20 and will share the information. 21 MS. BYERS: And DCA should be 22 involved in that, as well. 23 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: DCA will be 24 involved in that. And they will share the 25 information necessary with the goal to finding a 177 1 compromise that is going to work for everybody. 2 And then, as necessary, based on what we find, we 3 certainly still have a month left to go in this 4 process and, as needed, we may need another Plan 5 Implementation Committee meeting or we may be 6 able to -- 7 MS. SAMSON: Poll everybody and get 8 a sense. 9 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: Yes. 10 MS. SAMSON: We'll give you a 11 review. 12 MR. CARTER: I just have one 13 question on that; and that is, if the DEP and I 14 and the DCA get together -- that's the 15 municipality when I say I -- and something 16 happens where we can't come to a mutual 17 compromise, will it be this board that will sit 18 down with us and make some type of decision as to 19 who gets what and what goes where? 20 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: I would say yes 21 and I really don't see that we couldn't all work 22 harder to get to some compromise. And I have to 23 tell you, this was not for lack of respect on 24 anybody's part, but rather to move this center 25 forward with -- in any way that we possibly could 178 1 so that we can answer your needs, which have been 2 very clearly stated, and answer to the value of 3 the environmental concerns that surround the 4 area, with no disrespect to the Bridgeton Center 5 that originally came, but, in fact, since 1998 6 when it first showed up and then in 2000 when it 7 was given incentive, things have certainly 8 changed somewhat for everybody involved, so it 9 isn't inappropriate to look at the center as its 10 own designation, which is, you know, what we 11 tried to get at here today. 12 Quite frankly, I think the 13 environmental folks have done a great job to try 14 to balance all of the needs. And they're hard. 15 I refer to the deputy commissioner and what she 16 said that they are hard balances to reach, but 17 we'll certainly be at that meeting. I heard DEP 18 say they will be at this meeting. We all 19 understand the issues more further today and that 20 will be convened, you know, immediately. We'll 21 ask you for the information. I'm sure you have 22 it already. It should take no time to get it all 23 together and we'll get back together. 24 MS. SAMSON: We'll try and develop a 25 list and get it to you before the holiday so you 179 1 know what it is that we're trying to pull 2 together and then we'll move quickly. 3 MS. BYERS: Thank you all. Thank you 4 for your patience. 5 MS. BYERS: Any comments from the 6 members of the public? 7 I know we have rules, but we also 8 have public comment after the Fairfield report, 9 so yes, please go ahead. 10 MR. DILLINGHAM: Tim Dillingham, 11 with the American Littoral Society. 12 I want to speak a little bit, 13 Michele, to the comments you made earlier about 14 the Middle Township proposal. I want to say that 15 we would support your recommendation not to move 16 forward on that proposal. I mean, if there is a 17 poster child for development that's outstripped 18 the capacity of the environment to support it, 19 that's Cape May County. 20 Right now, the state and the federal 21 government are working on a water supply 22 ecological constraint study that was generated as 23 a result of legislation. The legislation 24 recognizes the severity of the issues down there, 25 both the water supply and the impact of 180 1 development on the ecology of the bay shore and 2 the ponds or the coastal ponds so much so that 3 they prohibited DEP from granting new water 4 allocations unless it was an affirmative 5 demonstration that there was no ecological 6 impact; so for the State Planning Commission to 7 move forward on a center petition that would 8 ostensibly influence CAFRA regulations and 9 impervious coverage and the amount of development 10 that had happened there, I think is 11 inappropriate. I would ask you not to move 12 forward on that and hold that. 13 It's sort of a crossover issue to 14 your discussion with Fairton, but I just want to 15 reiterate from our perspective that in this 16 balancing issue that you've spent a lot of time 17 talking about, there are clear statutory goals 18 and requirements to protect the coastal 19 environment, so as the county and the town try to 20 figure out a way to promote economic development, 21 the fundamental constraint that they have to work 22 within is the protection of these coastal 23 resources that are in this area. 24 I heard a lot of different things so 25 it's not clear to me from reading the reports and 181 1 listening to the discussion whether or not we're 2 talking about a narrow corridor, which runs down 3 to the existing coastal center or 4,000 acres 4 that are designated as the center, which is what 5 is described in the proposals that were given out 6 at the beginning of the meeting. 7 I mean, it's not just a -- this is a 8 wish list of an area that wants to do economic 9 development. When you designate it as a regional 10 center, particularly under CAFRA, the 90 percent 11 impervious coverage or the 80 percent impervious 12 coverage that you talked about in Seaside Heights 13 come along with that. There are certain 14 regulatory decisions, certain waiving of 15 protection of environmental resources. 16 And then just in terms of the issue 17 about how long this has gone on, I actually agree 18 and I guess I am sympathetic to the frustration. 19 The environmental community has for years 20 complained about lack of progress in implementing 21 some of these and giving the municipalities and 22 counties the tools they need to bring their plans 23 and their efforts into consistency with it; but 24 from a legal perspective, this is going to have 25 to be run through a legal, regulatory evaluation 182 1 of its consistency with CAFRA. If you structure 2 a compromise which sacrifices environmental 3 resources, we're going to challenge that and 4 we're going to challenge that continuously in 5 Middle and in this case, as we have in other 6 cases. 7 So I think that's just an urging to 8 do it right, to get the information out there, to 9 use the landscape project which does have 10 regulatory effect. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 13 Anyone else from the public? 14 Yes, sir. 15 MR. STANZIONE: My name is Tony 16 Stanzione from Cumberland Development 17 Corporation. I just want to add to the record 18 that the board of directors of that corporation, 19 which is the 11 mayors of the 12 towns that are 20 involved in the Western Southern Cumberland 21 Region Strategic Plan fully support Fairfield's 22 efforts to get its center -- expansion to the 23 Bridgeton Regional Center done as closely to the 24 way that they wish to have it done. 25 We'll be taking their plan into 183 1 consideration, obviously, with the regional plan, 2 but they are, again, in advance of the regional 3 plan. I think what they propose to represent is 4 less than 7 percent of the total land area of the 5 Township and that's what the towns that I work 6 with, for the most part, are dealing with, trying 7 to conserve large, large areas, but are asking 8 for reasonable size areas so that they can 9 develop over the next 20 years. 10 The environmental constraints are 11 very important. One of the concerns of all the 12 towns I work with is getting issues that arise at 13 the table versus discussion that needs to take 14 place beforehand. 15 One separate issue, and that relates 16 to the rules you were talking about, we are well 17 along on a process and may be six to seven months 18 we hope from the end of that process, but we 19 really don't know yet how we're going to get the 20 -- you were talking about how the individual 21 towns within this regional plan that do not yet 22 have designated centers are going to get that 23 through this process. 24 I'm just concerned that we may 25 expend our resources, expend our money, expend 184 1 our consultant's time and then realize we're not 2 done. It's real important to me that those 3 conversations and those rules get set so that we 4 can move forward; but again, we look at the 5 towns -- when a town is trying its best to 6 reserve 94 percent or 93 percent of its area for 7 farming and really very little development, I 8 think that has to be taken into consideration, as 9 well. 10 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 11 MR. CARTER: Thanks for your time. 12 MS. BYERS: Thank you all very much. 13 We appreciate your coming here. 14 MS. BYERS: How much more time do we 15 have? 16 I know everyone here expected to be 17 here until 12:30. 18 Ten or fifteen minutes and then 19 we'll be done. 20 MR. HARRISON: Picking up from 21 Period of Endorsement, the current regulations 22 have this interesting provision that is 23 simplified for municipal designation centers, 24 they expire after six years; counties, regional 25 expire after ten years; both of which are limited 185 1 by or until the next adoption of the state plan, 2 whichever is first. So under our current 3 schedule, all these should go away in May of 4 2005. 5 What I am proposing here is to give 6 the center designations three years after the 7 adoption of that, which for most of them we're 8 talking about a five-year period for ones that 9 are designated now; ones that were designated a 10 year ago would get six years. 11 Is everybody clear on the 12 designations; how long they would be good for? 13 The three-year period is what we're 14 putting in the legislative package, as well as 15 how long we're anticipating the plan endorsement 16 will take. And we're anticipating that many of 17 these communities will come in with an endorsed 18 plan which would supplant this simple center 19 designation because it would deal with the entire 20 community. 21 The monitoring is not significantly 22 changed from the current rule. We are adding in 23 some specific additional things that would have 24 to be submitted if they are significantly 25 changed, including reexamination reports, capital 186 1 improvement programs and anything that was 2 submitted as part of the plan endorsement 3 package. 4 If the municipality makes 5 substantial changes to that, they would have to 6 submit it so that there would be an opportunity 7 by the State Planning Commission to make sure if 8 the town had agreed to do something and then 9 proceeds to undo it a year or two years later, 10 you know. 11 Again, the Revocation of Plan 12 Endorsement is basically the same provision as 13 currently exists. 14 Petitions to Amend Endorsed Plan to 15 Center Designations. We're basically -- the only 16 thing we're doing is to have the process be 17 identical to the plan endorsement process that 18 we're putting earlier on in the rules. 19 Substantively, we're not making any changes. It 20 just seemed that the processes should be parallel 21 for amending a petition endorsement. 22 We are leaving open the ability -- 23 this is something I thought about, but the 24 ability to amend a center designation even though 25 everything else would have to be plan 187 1 endorsement. I just think there may be instances 2 out there where particularly in some of the 3 previously designated centers someone might want 4 to do an amendment. 5 MS. BYERS: Like Bridgeton. 6 MR. HARRISON: That's a good one to 7 raise. 8 We're putting in 7.16 provisions 9 requiring that each state agency member of the 10 State Planning Commission and any other agency 11 requested by the State Planning Commission 12 that -- A, requires that they identify procedural 13 and substantive regulatory provisions that would 14 be modified in areas that have initiated the plan 15 endorsement process. And for those that would be 16 different from communities that have completed 17 the plan endorsement process, in B, we are 18 requiring that they identify funding programs, 19 either that there would be additional priority 20 given to, or that only communities with endorsed 21 plans would be eligible for. 22 So that would all be out there up 23 front so that communities would be aware of what 24 is available to them, what the benefits of plan 25 endorsement will be. 188 1 There is a bunch of stuff on page 73 2 that is gibberish that I wrote. You should 3 ignore virtually everything after the first full 4 sentence on that. It was earlier attempts to 5 make it clear. 6 The state plan policy map 7 Amendments, first, in 8.1, we are slightly 8 changing, clarifying what is shown on the state 9 plan policy map. We're lumping designated 10 centers, cores and nodes altogether. We will put 11 in boundaries as to what should be shown. 12 Already on there is that endorsed plans should be 13 shown; which is, when a plan is endorsed, if it's 14 changing a boundary, that will be reflected on a 15 state plan policy map whether it's a center 16 designation or a shift of a boundary between a 17 Planning Area 2 and a Planning Area No. 4, for 18 example. 19 The 8.2(b) is simply moved. And I 20 forgot to where it was moved to. Oh, this is a 21 general provision, we've reworded this, but we've 22 -- we've put it in subchapter 1 because it 23 appeared in several different subchapters. 24 8.2(c) has just simply been deleted 25 since we are deleting the letter of clarification 189 1 subchapter. 2 Map Amendments are being 3 significantly limited. Map amendments for 4 municipalities and counties only can occur 5 through the plan endorsement process; so, again, 6 we are looking at entire communities or regions. 7 For areas that are not subject to an endorsed 8 plan, the State Planning Commission can propose 9 amendments to the plan and none of that is taking 10 away the State Planning Commission's ability to 11 propose a new state plan. Obviously, that would 12 involve amendments to the state planning map; but 13 apart from that, it's limited to areas that are 14 not the subject of an endorsed plan. 15 Interest groups, the builder, 16 environmental groups, others, they also can only 17 petition for an amendment to the state plan 18 policy map if it is not covered by an endorsed 19 plan. Again, we're trying to provide some 20 certainty to communities that go through the plan 21 endorsement process. 22 The Notice Provisions are being put 23 in section 1.7, are being moved from here. 24 The basic process for what goes into 25 a petition for a map amendment is remaining 190 1 unchanged; that's what will be 8.4. 2 The process once a petition is 3 received is being changed to again mimic the 4 procedure for a plan endorsement, so a process of 5 going to the Executive Director of the Office of 6 Smart Growth, writing report, presenting it to 7 the State Planning Commission will be the same 8 for whether it's a map endorsement or a claim 9 endorsement. 10 MS. SAMSON: My blood sugar is 11 dropping. I'm going to eat my jacket in a minute 12 so I hate to ask this question, but I thought 13 that the map amendment was a function of the plan 14 endorsement process. 15 MR. HARRISON: And the intent of 16 these rules is to make it so virtually all map 17 amendments occur that way. What -- 18 MS. SAMSON: Does this subset cover 19 ones that aren't covered in the endorsement 20 process? 21 MR. HARRISON: This is dealing with 22 if a community for whatever reason is not going 23 through the endorsement process and there is 24 someone out there who thinks that a planning area 25 designation should be changed, whether it is a 191 1 developer who is saying -- 2 MS. SAMSON: It's kind of like an 3 independent challenge to the planning -- 4 MR. HARRISON: Challenge wouldn't be 5 right, but it is saying, Here is some additional 6 information and the boundary line from Planning 7 Area 1 through Planning Area 4 should be shifted 8 in this area because of x, y and z. We're not 9 changing the policies in the state plan, but -- 10 MS. SAMSON: Who can petition for 11 that? 12 I mean, if you have got a county 13 plan that designated the boundaries and then you 14 have -- 15 MR. HARRISON: If the county or the 16 municipality has gone through plan endorsement, 17 then no one can do that. If they have failed to 18 do that and someone feels that the designation is 19 inappropriate, then they can do it. And again, 20 that serves as an incentive for counties and 21 municipalities to come in for endorsement because 22 then they're free of outsiders saying -- 23 MR. FISHER: Protection in a sense. 24 Does that include former and 25 existing center designations that are still 192 1 valid? 2 MR. HARRISON: Yes. I mean, I am 3 reading that -- I will double check that -- as 4 saying that their period of validity protects 5 them from being changed. That's what I read it 6 to mean, a period of validity means. 7 MR. FISHER: Yeah, but it is just in 8 here you just talk about an endorsed plan and not 9 a designated center. You may want to say, Any 10 designated center or endorsed plan that remains 11 valid. 12 MS. BYERS: What else have you got 13 there? 14 MR. HARRISON: That was it. 15 8.8 at the end should really be 16 deleted because it's picked up in 8.6. 17 MS. SAMSON: Can you just explain 18 one more thing for me; are the criteria for 19 approving -- going forward, is there a difference 20 between the criteria for approving a designated 21 center and the criteria for approving an 22 endorsement to the plan? 23 I mean, do you know -- 24 MR. HARRISON: There will no longer 25 be a separate process for designated centers so 193 1 everything will have to be through plan 2 endorsement and the criteria is consistent with 3 the state plan. The centers will be designated, 4 but only as part of a petition for plan 5 endorsement. 6 MS. SAMSON: Where is the criteria 7 for what constitutes a designated center? 8 MS. BYERS: Those were all the 9 things that we have in terms of density, 10 jobs-to-housing ratio, size, all those criteria. 11 MS. SAMSON: Okay. All right. Got 12 it. 13 MS. BYERS: Anything else for the 14 agenda today? 15 Any other comments, questions on the 16 rules from the Committee? 17 Members of the public who have 18 managed to hang in with us so far today? 19 MS. MC INTOSH: I wanted to comment 20 on subchapter 6, the letters for clarification 21 that's being deleted in its entirety and that 22 wasn't discussed today. 23 I just wanted to kind of ask the 24 reason for it being deleted, other than 25 shortening the regulations by two pages, because 194 1 though it hasn't been used, it can serve a useful 2 purpose in that it provides a process for someone 3 to ask for a clarification and requires staff to 4 do an interpretation that is then subject to 5 commission review. Deleting that section kind of 6 gets rid of that process and that oversight by 7 the Commission. 8 And secondly, I also wanted to 9 state, you talked earlier about allowing for 10 public input before the proposal goes out and I 11 would just like to request -- I know in the 12 e-mail I received the other day, the public can 13 still comment before the proposal will go out, 14 but I just want to make sure that people are 15 informed so that we can comment before that 16 happens because once it goes out, if there are 17 substantive changes, then you would have to -- 18 you know, it revises your time line if you have 19 to redo it again so that it's much more effective 20 to be able to comment now and it's much more 21 likely to have those comments listened to now 22 rather than later. 23 MR. HARRISON: Yeah, let me just go 24 through. 25 There are many opportunities to 195 1 comment. Any comments that we get by next 2 Wednesday, we will look at and those will be 3 shown to the State Planning Commission, we will 4 make any appropriate changes, get that 5 distributed by next Thursday, the 10th. You'll 6 get another free shot at the State Planning 7 Commission meeting to say, This is the stupidest 8 thing you've ever read. And then the rules will 9 be proposed as rules and there will be a comment. 10 I am not as -- there is not as big 11 an issue with these rules as you would have with 12 a lot of substantive rules, you know, like DEP 13 would normally address, where making substantive 14 changes would require a reproposal of the rule. 15 I mean, there are things that could exist, but 16 these are, you know, these are setting forth 17 processes by which cross acceptance is going to 18 occur, plan endorsement, map amendments. And 19 yes, if suddenly we changed the time period from 20 90 days to 5 years, that's a big deal difference; 21 but, you know, I don't envision we're doing those 22 kinds of changes. 23 The other thing on the letters of 24 clarification, it was something that really has 25 not been used. You know, when something is not 196 1 used for ten years, you do question it. And I 2 think it is a very different situation with these 3 where you're not dealing with a regulatory 4 document in the state plan in the same way DEP 5 rules. It's something that cannot be applied in 6 a uniform fashion to every community. It is, you 7 know, intended to be a flexible document. 8 The benefit of doing letters of 9 clarification are to say, If situation x arises, 10 how will a rule be applied in a general sense. 11 If the answer is going to vary based on the 12 particular circumstances of each municipality, 13 there isn't really a logic of having a formal 14 process that sets forth saying, This is what the 15 state plan means in this situation. I mean, 16 that's an answer that a community or an interest 17 group should be able to get, but you don't need 18 to go through a formal process with notice and 19 everything because it's not affecting other 20 communities, other situations so the answer may 21 differ. We're not, you know, going to apply the 22 state plan in the exact same way. It's not a 23 regulation saying, Here is how you do buffers to 24 wetlands, you know, it's a different situation 25 where you would expect greater uniformity. I 197 1 think the advantage of the state plan is that it 2 does provide flexibility to address different 3 circumstances in different parts of the state. 4 MS. MC INTOSH: Thank you. 5 Can I just follow up? 6 I just still have a question, 7 though. 8 If you delete that, does that then 9 negate the -- when the interpretation is made 10 then, is it just done by staff and not reviewed 11 then by the Commission? 12 MR. HARRISON: I think what was said 13 was that if there are significant issues that 14 come up. I mean, routinely the Office of Smart 15 Growth gets inquiries from both municipalities 16 and interest groups and routinely we send answers 17 out. 18 If something is raising, you know, a 19 fundamental issue, that is certainly something 20 that we would bring to the attention of the State 21 Planning Commission. 22 I mean, John left, but when DEP had 23 it's big mapping in Sussex County, they said they 24 wanted to do something in their petition for 25 reendorsement dealing with lake communities in 198 1 Sussex County. That is something that is not 2 unique to Sussex, how it is addressed may vary 3 greatly, but that is something that our response, 4 if they wrote an inquiry on that, our response 5 might be something we would bring to the State 6 Planning Commission because there are a number of 7 places in the state where there are lake 8 communities. It is not something that is 9 specifically addressed in the state plan as such. 10 MS. BYERS: Any other public 11 comment? 12 Yes, please. 13 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: I'm Don 14 Kirchhoffer from New Jersey Conservation 15 Foundation. One question I have is I heard what 16 you said about non-environmental groups and 17 builders and map amendments. I didn't hear 18 anything else, maybe that's the only issue, but 19 it seems to me that there is no role for NGOs to 20 come to petition or get before the State Planning 21 Commission; is that correct? 22 MR. HARRISON: Amendments to the 23 state plan policy map can be made by anyone other 24 than municipalities and counties for areas which 25 do not have endorsed plans. 199 1 MR. FISHER: It's the same 2 provision. 3 MS. BYERS: Once the plans are 4 endorsed, then the only petitioner can be the 5 municipality or a county. 6 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: Everybody is cut 7 out of the process until cross acceptance; is 8 that what you're saying? 9 MR. HARRISON: They will have every 10 opportunity when a petition for plan endorsement 11 is pending to participate at local level and 12 state planning; but once it is endorsed, the 13 point is to, you know, give certainty to 14 everybody. 15 MS. SAMSON: It also means that they 16 would be going -- after that, after an endorsed 17 plan, that you would be going directly to the 18 municipality, to the county that got the plan 19 endorsement to try and work through that process 20 to try and have them come back and amend their 21 petition. 22 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: I'm nitpicking and 23 coming back to a situation that I've discussed 24 before, but in the rule, you talk about 25 publishing a preliminary plan. I have gotten 200 1 many assurances from this group, there is not 2 going to be another whole new preliminary plan 3 the way there was the last time. I wonder if you 4 could change the wording so that it states 5 something different than a preliminary plan, 6 proposed revisions in or amendments to or 7 something. 8 MR. HARRISON: We're tracking the 9 statutory language. I would feel uncomfortable 10 if we called it anything other than a preliminary 11 plan. I mean, that's what statutorily starts the 12 cross-acceptance process and trying to give it a 13 different name is only going to cause headaches 14 as to what it is we're doing. 15 MS. BYERS: What we could do is 16 define what a preliminary plan means for this 17 round of cross acceptance not in the rules. 18 MR. HARRISON: I don't think there 19 is any disagreement on anybody's part that we're 20 not starting from scratch and writing a new state 21 plan. I don't think there is staff to do that. 22 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: Another thing, my 23 last point is that some of your timing -- I'm 24 overloaded with all this, I can't remember, but 25 some of your timing is related to the 201 1 reexamination of a master plan, one of your 2 six-year periods, and that's in your rules. 3 There is nothing in the law, there is no 4 enforcement procedure or anything for a 5 municipality to review its master plan so maybe 6 you should say, Section -- 7 MR. HARRISON: I mean, that is one 8 of the few places where the municipal land use 9 law does have a meaningful provision. The 10 municipal ordinances lose their presumption of 11 validity and any builder, environmental group 12 that goes in and challenges the ordinances, they 13 are no longer presumed to be valid and that is a 14 significant shift in the burden of proof in a 15 case. 16 There are not a lot of towns that 17 ignore, the six-year provision. There are a 18 number that are late on the six years, but there 19 are not a lots of towns that ignore the six-year 20 provision. 21 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: My experience has 22 not been that and it's -- I just -- okay, if you 23 say that's the case, but it just seems to me -- 24 MR. HARRISON: And we're now adding 25 an additional incentive because they'll lose 202 1 their plan endorsement if they don't go ahead 2 with the reexamination report. 3 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: Okay. 4 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): Hi, Jacqueline 5 McGowan (ph.), Crystal Springs Builders. 6 I have just a couple of questions on 7 subchapter 7, the plan endorsement. And so that 8 I can I understand, I notice that in section 7.1, 9 paragraph D, the sentence about the petitions 10 that were in prior to March 2001 is not in here. 11 Is this, the working draft that 12 we're looking at today, showing us changes from 13 the proposed rule that came out in January; is 14 that why this sentence is in here? 15 MR. HARRISON: Are you referring to 16 the 2003 language? 17 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): The working 18 draft that we're looking at today. 19 MS. MORIN: Assuming that that 2003 20 rule had already been accomplished. 21 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): I'm sorry? 22 MR. HARRISON: This, although I've 23 noticed a couple of mistakes, is intended to 24 reflect that the 2003 rule proposal has been 25 adopted and will be published at the same time or 203 1 prior to the publication of these rules. 2 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): I was just 3 wondering why the sentence that formerly was in 4 paragraph D, Only those petitions for center 5 designations that have been filed with the State 6 Planning Commission before March 1, 2001, and 7 then it goes on, is not indicated as being 8 deleted in today's working draft. 9 MR. HARRISON: If I'm understanding 10 you correctly probably because it's a mistake. 11 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): Okay. Okay. 12 That's fair, too. 13 And just a little further on that, I 14 mean, as you saw with Fairton today and there are 15 a lot of towns that have worked very hard for 16 several years to get their town center 17 designations, and with the August 3rd deadline 18 coming up, it may not be the best course of 19 action perhaps to try to rush everything through. 20 At the beginning of the meeting, the 21 gentleman, Adam mentioned a letter that would be 22 going out to the parties. And my question is 23 whether that letter will be distributed in time 24 for anyone who wants to make additional comments 25 to the gentleman, the drafter here before next 204 1 Wednesday's deadline. 2 MR. ZELLNER: The answer is yes. 3 And we plan on having a July 29th State Planning 4 Commission meeting specifically for that purpose, 5 to give towns the opportunity who have gotten 6 this letter to come in and address the Commission 7 if they so desire. 8 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): Okay. 9 But as far as getting it -- as far 10 as commenting on the rule and you mentioned that 11 you wanted any comments by Wednesday of next 12 week, I mean is it -- 13 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. 14 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): So it will be 15 coming out in the next couple of days, I guess? 16 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. 17 MS. MC GOWAN (ph.): Fantastic. 18 MS. BYERS: If there are no other 19 public comments or any questions, can we call 20 this meeting adjourned? 21 (All committee members responded in 22 the affirmative; meeting adjourned at 1:33 p.m.) 23 24 25 205 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) 3 : ss. COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ) 4 5 I, ELLEN MARIE NEARY GUMPEL, a Certified 6 Shorthand Reporter and Registered Professional 7 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the 8 State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the 9 foregoing proceedings were taken before me on 10 Tuesday, July 1, 2003; 11 That the within transcript is a true 12 record of said proceedings; 13 That I am not connected by blood or 14 marriage with any of the parties herein nor 15 interested directly or indirectly in the matter 16 in controversy, nor am I in the employ of the 17 counsel. 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 19 my hand this ____ day of _____________, 2003. 20 21 __________________________ 22 ELLEN MARIE NEARY GUMPEL, CSR, RPR 23 July 7, 2003 24 25