1 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2 3 HEARING : 4 OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 : 5 : 6 : -------------------------- 7 8 Date: September 10, 2003 Trenton, New Jersey 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 21 824 W. State Street 22 Trenton, New Jersey 08618 23 (609) 989-9199 24 Audio Recorded 25 Operator N/A 2 1 MR. HARRISON: -- municipal petition for 2 planning endorsement is approved, the state agencies 3 will then need to be in agreement with that and their - 4 - their -- their plans, their capital improvement 5 programs, their funding decisions for the purely state 6 actions is where they're funding a county or municipal 7 program, will be in line with that so, you know, we 8 will have achieved what was really envisioned by the 9 State Planning Act, mainly consistency, coordination, 10 integration of county, municipal and state plans. 11 That's basically it. 12 MS. BYERS: Okay. The -- the only 13 comment I have is that given that we have such limited 14 resources and such a tight budget, I would hate to see 15 us sort of fritter away resources along the way and -- 16 and would very much be in favor of having the -- the 17 bulk of the benefits be in the final petition areas so 18 that, you know, we're not deluding ourselves and we're 19 really incentivising (sic) to getting community 20 endorsements (indiscernible). Do we need to talk about 21 that? 22 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: No. I -- I actually 23 believe that the benefits along the way are the way 24 that we assist the communities to -- to stay -- stay 25 involved. And I think from a local perspective, it's 3 1 going to be easier to, you know, focus only locally and 2 immediately. So we're able to get that into the 3 process and assist them with benefits to continue. I 4 think that is -- had to be equally important. I agree 5 that there's got to be a great benefit at the end of 6 the road, but along the way we've got to get this 7 (indiscernible). 8 MS. BYERS: Yes. I -- I think the latter 9 approach to that is because it's not -- it is a good 10 idea of what -- for the reasons you just said, Marge, 11 but I'm just concerned because we don't have have 12 unlimited resources to get out to towns and, you know, 13 in the past, it would be Smart Growth Plans to be 14 giving out a lot of money to towns that are, you know, 15 it's not even planning money but they're not anywhere 16 near plan endorsement. So I'm just -- I'm just 17 concerned that we keep our eye on the planning 18 endorsement and the bulk of the benefits. But there is 19 no good incentive to encourage counties to go all the 20 way and not just go part way. And in Smart Growth 21 areas, I mean, that could be anything, so I think we're 22 going to need to very clearly define what that means if 23 we are going to get any benefit whatsoever from a smart 24 growth area. 25 MR. ESKILSON: More than the latter, to 4 1 me, it appears to be an inverse pyramid, so -- so to 2 speak, with less benefits on -- on the bottom and then 3 move forward, a broader array of benefits are available 4 as you move through the process that are consented to, 5 but the latter, as -- as you do the -- the benefits 6 expand the -- the possibilities of staying involved in 7 it, those communities (inaudible). 8 MS. MURRAY: There are also -- there are 9 also benefits that exist that are regardless of a smart 10 growth area, which just have to do with other programs 11 that the state has. So that's some of what falls into 12 that initial statewide area. That it's not that 13 they're spending dollars that they wouldn't be spending 14 otherwise. It's just identifying it more clearly for 15 the municipalities. 16 MR. ESKILSON: Yes. There are some -- 17 some programs and benefits that will, by definition, 18 have to go outside the Smart Growth area. Some of the 19 ag programs clearly need to be focused outside the 20 Smart Growth areas and -- and rightfully so. And so I 21 think we recognize that in this -- in this layout. 22 MS. MURRAY: And we are coordinating with 23 all the different agencies, the actual definition of 24 the Smart Growth areas and for some agencies, it has to 25 be different, based on some of their programs, but we 5 1 are coordinating all of those. 2 MS. BYERS: At what point will there be, 3 say, a listing or -- or a recommendation of what these 4 benefits are so we can all start to get a sense of -- 5 MR. ESKILSON: They're -- we -- we're going - 6 - we -- we had a meeting, which we'll discuss later, 7 with the Sussex County communities. We sent our 8 petitions. We told them and we seem to be on track in 9 doing that. Within four to six weeks we would have a 10 (indiscernible) preliminary listing. We're -- we're 11 going to want to keep going through this list until the 12 rules are finalized to say, gee, what about this 13 program and there may be programs in counties and 14 municipalities when they see the preliminary list, say 15 this make sense. The agency will agree that they just, 16 you know, didn't consider it as they were going 17 through, but we're hoping to have what I'll call the -- 18 the major program's benefits identified in the next 19 couple of weeks. 20 MS. BYERS: Okay. (inaudible.) 21 MR. ESKILSON: And that keeps us in time 22 -- in -- in line with the four to six week time frame 23 coming back for the committee? The -- the Sussex 24 County Community were promised on the order of four to 25 six weeks with some answers with respect to specific 6 1 benefits, so I just wouldn't want to see us hold up 2 that process or perhaps they could be presented in -- 3 in draft form, subject to, something like that. 4 MS. MURRAY: Well, we said that we were 5 going to do that. That's -- that's what we're 6 proposing to have for both Sussex and for here because 7 as -- as Bill described, we're going to -- it's going 8 to be refined as we go further through the process. 9 MR. HARRISON: The true test of how well 10 the incentives will work, work, how many of those in 11 (inaudible) first plan endorsement. 12 MS. BYERS: Dave? 13 MR. FISHER: Yes, Michele. I have a few 14 questions, Bill. One, it looks like, based on a 15 comparison of the -- the dates she just outlined as 16 compared to what we looked at back in May, that we're 17 about a month-and-a-half behind in compiling the data 18 layers and sending Ben out to the counties and towns. 19 MR. HARRISON: No we're -- the -- by -- 20 by mid-September, the agencies are supposed to get us 21 some information, as long as you don't think September 22 15th is the drop-dead (inaudible) as we indicated in 23 May. 24 MR. FISHER: Didn't the -- I have the -- 25 the May schedule. I thought it said September 30th. 7 1 The office of Smart Growth sends out state plan map, 2 along with the new -- 3 MR. HARRISON: Well, we -- we -- there 4 was a -- before the May State Planning Commission 5 meeting, we did a revised -- we took a more realistic 6 look at that. 7 MR. FISHER: Oh, okay. I've got an older 8 one. A real old one. 9 MR. HARRISON: Where we went over and at 10 that meeting we handed out a new schedule that had a 11 November 15th date because we -- we didn't think we 12 were going to meet the September 30th, so ... We're on 13 time with what was actually presented. 14 MR. FISHER: Okay. Even though that's 15 compressed, do we still think that that's adequate time 16 for the towns and counties to respond so that the 17 commission can act in January? 18 MR. HARRISON: We -- no. The -- the -- 19 the time for the counties to respond stayed the same. 20 We gave them a two-month period initially. They will 21 have until mid-January to get a -- get a response back 22 to us and then the State Planning Commission will be 23 active in mid-March. We think it will be two months 24 for us to get the responses, meet with the other state 25 agencies and get something to present to you realistic. 8 1 MR. FISHER: Okay. I'm a -- just a 2 little confused on what a Smart Growth area is on that 3 one chart. How is that defined? 4 MR. HARRISON: It's -- this is what is 5 commonly known as a work in progress. 6 MR. FISHER: Okay. 7 MR. HARRISON: And as Robin indicated, 8 this -- the definition may not be uniform for all 9 programs, for all agencies. The basic operable 10 definition that we're using is planning areas one and 11 two and designated centers. As you know, we're -- you 12 know, one -- one of the things that -- we're hoping 13 this will end up being clear when we do the preliminary 14 plan and ultimately adopt the state plan, so there will 15 be a greater degree of consistency or programs will be 16 able to say, you know, for us it's planning area one, 17 whatever -- whatever distinctions they want to make, 18 but it will be tied to the state plan map. 19 MR. FISHER: Okay. 20 MR. HARRISON: And -- and endorsed plans 21 is the other -- 22 MR. FISHER: Will that be consistent with 23 DEP's policies, as well? I mean, I think everyone 24 recognizes the department is still out there talking 25 about the three tiers under the big map to various 9 1 counties and meanwhile, our process continues and I'm 2 assuming all the cabinet members are still on board 3 with the consensus that was reached at that May 4 meeting. 5 MR. HARRISON: Right. I mean, there may, 6 and I think some of the confusion is the DEP, for its 7 regulatory purposes, may want to -- state map, not in 8 terms of what planning areas are, but in terms of where 9 wetlands are, where threatened, endangered species are. 10 We refer to those data layers, but in terms of the 11 basic definition of where development should -- should 12 be being focused, that all the departments are on-line 13 that that would be referenced to the state plan map. 14 MR. FISHER: Okay. Just a caution in 15 terms of the Smart Growth classification, someone told 16 me about HMFA and they have their own what's called 17 Smart Growth locator. I think they're all great ideas, 18 but what we need to be careful about as we go through 19 this process is different state agencies using Smart 20 Growth in different ways and -- and I think it will 21 confuse not only the regulating community, but 22 municipalities in terms of, you know, what does that 23 classification mean and what are the benefits that 24 accrue to that type of designation? 25 MS. MURRAY: That's -- that's part of 10 1 what we're very aware of and actually, HMFA has worked 2 with us from the very beginning to define what their 3 Smart Growth areas are, consistent for their programs, 4 the PA1, PA2 and designated centers was not sufficient 5 in terms of areas they needed to support for the types 6 of programs they have, so they have an added amount of 7 Smart Growth area specific to their programs. And -- 8 and we have worked very closely with them to determine 9 that. 10 The same thing exists for BPU, where they 11 have certain additional concerns, so we're -- as we go 12 along, we're trying to tighten that up, so that it will 13 be very clear within each agency. But there will be an 14 overall, as Bill is saying, PA1, PA2 designated centers 15 is the -- the core and then certain agencies may have 16 additives to that. 17 MS. BYERS: What kind of additives? Can 18 you give me an example what they're involving? 19 MS. MURRAY: HMFA. Currently, with their 20 locator, also includes proposed centers and identified 21 centers. 22 MR. HARRISON: I think the -- you know, 23 we're particularly, as we go through plan endorsement 24 there, the easiest example is we develop in a 25 Brownfield site that may be in, you know, planning area 11 1 4, planning area 5, that it will make sense for some 2 funding programs, for that -- to be eligible for that, 3 so the site can be cleaned up and redeveloped, but you 4 know, not make all program -- make -- make it eligible 5 for all programs. You know, that kind of distinction. 6 I think there may be some unique things in endorsed 7 plans that we will want to tie some benefits to that 8 are not all the smart growth area benefits, but because 9 there's a consensus among all the agencies that, 10 whether a Brownfield, a gray field or again, the 11 easiest examples of that at -- some incentive should be 12 given so they sort of can be redeveloped. 13 MS. BYERS: I think that this -- this 14 month's slide is really pretty much the bottom line for 15 what we're trying to do and the community state plan 16 is, I think, is probably going to need at least a 17 couple hours, maybe even a whole morning of -- with 18 information put out in advance that outlines the 19 definition of Smart Growth areas, perhaps as defined by 20 the various agencies in detail so we know what -- what 21 that means and then what type of benefits to each. And 22 then we really need to hash it out because if there's 23 so much room for delusion here in terms of the small 24 amount of resources the state has (indiscernible). So 25 if we're really going to achieve something here, I 12 1 believe we need to go through this very, very carefully 2 and spend some time on it. 3 MS. MURRAY: We're -- we're in the 4 process of doing that right now, to -- to meet the 5 schedule that we are trying to be successful. 6 MS. BYERS: Yes. I mean, in particular, 7 just as an example, you know, the Smart Growth areas, 8 it means all designated center, planning area 1 and 2, 9 plus (inaudible). Now we could conceivably be, you 10 know, just looking at the whole state and we -- you 11 hear it's very difficult. 12 MR. ESKILSON: Yes, and I think -- and I 13 think one of the things is the benefits that are 14 subject to plan endorsement is where we're going to 15 start taking that split. We're -- you know, there are 16 some things that any Smart Growth area, regardless of 17 whether it's gone through the endorsement process and 18 one of the things we're even looking at is to decrease 19 those over time, but -- you know, that -- that we're 20 looking to have those benefits tied to an endorsed 21 plan, as well as a Smart Growth area. You just don't 22 want us to do all the endorsed plans in terms of Smart 23 Growth areas because there are some benefits, which was 24 indicated, you know, Department of Agriculture 25 benefits, green acres, funding net, are going to be 13 1 tied to non-Smart Growth areas, predominantly. 2 MS. BYERS: You know, it also might be 3 useful to look at this and -- and review it in 4 conjunction with the public infrastructure investment 5 priorities that we have, that we hatched out in the 6 last plan, in terms of what areas received priority. 7 Right now it's urban centers and then an endorsed plan 8 and it goes down the line. I think that, you know, 9 these two kind of are -- interact with each other and 10 could be useful to -- to communicate that they're 11 coordinated and you would not, like letting things fall 12 through the cracks and now -- and maybe even looking at 13 some of these through a prior organization along the 14 same lines. 15 MR. HARRISON: I think if set up, in 16 terms of a subcommittee or a committee to deal with 17 that, the infrastructure has been (inaudible). It 18 seems to me this is part of the -- the overall process 19 of -- of the agency review. It's not just about data 20 layers, but it's about programmatic reviews, as well. 21 It seems to me that's exactly what we're supposed to be 22 doing in just a couple of months so that we're 23 resolving all these issues before we (indiscernible) so 24 we know exactly what we're saying and in a perfect 25 world, all the agencies are on the same page. I -- I - 14 1 - that was the goal, was it not? 2 MR. FISHER: Yes. I'm not necessarily 3 opposed to having Smart Growth area defined 4 differently. As you pointed out, John, agriculture 5 means something different and can't coincide with 6 planning areas one and two all the time. And I 7 understand where you're coming from, Michele, but 8 recognize that the last version of the state plan was 9 designed with centers identified to accommodate the 10 growth. The projections that, you know, this -- this 11 state anticipates, we know that those are changing and 12 you know, we can't ignore the fact that there are still 13 relatively few identified growth centers or designated 14 growth centers out there, but rather there are many 15 proposed and identified that -- that still, you know, 16 need to absorb a substantial amount of future growth at 17 this stage. So I don't think that that's a bad thing. 18 The point -- one last question. When -- 19 when we met a few months ago, we talked about -- it was 20 mentioned about Rutgers preparing new or updated 21 demographic and population projections that, I'm 22 presuming, will go along with this information out to 23 the counties and towns and I also see that we received 24 a recommendation from the NJBA for some sort of growth 25 fit type of strategy where you desegregate populations 15 1 projections and, you know, amongst the counties and 2 towns and -- and have the towns and -- and local 3 municipalities decide how they're going to accommodate 4 that growth. Where are we with that and where does 5 that fit into this process, Bill, or someone? 6 MS. MURRAY: Well, that's what we were 7 passing the ball back and forth, to decide who should 8 do that. We are currently, rather than working with 9 Rutgers, looking at the different groups throughout the 10 state that have developed this type of information 11 already, a data group, and they will be compiling that 12 and comparing it and we felt that was probably a more 13 reasonable way to come to the numbers that we needed in 14 going to the single source and we'll be -- we'll be 15 looking at those numbers probably over the next two 16 months. 17 MR. FISHER: So will that go out with the 18 preliminary plan? 19 MS. MURRAY: That's what we're hoping, 20 yes. 21 MR. FISHER: That's what, March? 22 MR. HARRISON: Right. 23 MR. FISHER: Do you know which groups? I 24 mean, does it -- 25 MS. MURRAY: I -- I can't personally list 16 1 them for you, but we have compiled, I think there are 2 four or five that we felt had the most consistent 3 numbers through the years, based on the census and 4 other data sources and we'll do a whole showing of that 5 and comparison. We're anticipating that on a county- 6 wide basis. Not more specific than that. 7 MR. FISHER: Would the counties then try 8 to desegregate them down to municipal levels, the towns 9 and -- 10 MS. MURRAY: That would -- that would be 11 between the counties and the municipalities. And -- 12 and that's where, obviously, the plan endorsement 13 process becomes important because we're trying to 14 determine where will that growth be accommodated. 15 MR. FISHER: Right. Okay. Thank you. 16 MS. BYERS: Okay. Any other questions or 17 comments from the committee? 18 MR. HARRISON: One -- one last question 19 and it probably was being raised, but I didn't see 20 discussion as far as regarding the relationship to the 21 counties' strategic growth plans, regional plans. 22 MR. ESKILSON: You missed that part? Too 23 bad. 24 (Laughter) 25 MR. HARRISON: No, I'm sorry. You 17 1 covered that (indiscernible). 2 MR. ESKILSON: No, no. It -- the -- let 3 -- let me do it because it is important. The -- we -- 4 we are committed to the counties that have been working 5 on their strategic growth plans, to working with them 6 and continuing that process and not having that delayed 7 by the fact that we're doing a new state plan, but to 8 work with them and, you know, integrate what they're 9 doing into the new rules and fit that in trying, you 10 know, no -- not -- as I said before, not send them back 11 to square one, but so they can continue on, basically, 12 as they -- they have been doing and, you know, they 13 should be among the first entities whose plans are 14 endorsed. And they're ahead of the game, not behind 15 the game. 16 MR. HARRISON: And assuming that what the 17 relationship of the municipal efforts through the 18 county efforts. I think that's what we -- we question, 19 as well. 20 MR. ESKILSON: Yes. I -- I mean, we -- 21 MR. HARRISON: I find the endorsement of 22 a county or a region, what becomes of the constituent 23 municipalities and their efforts and how does that fit? 24 I don't think you can get -- find that I think it's 25 important. 18 1 MR. ESKILSON: Well, under -- under the 2 proposed rules, the -- you know, the first preference 3 is if the municipality comes in with the -- the county 4 and both plans are endorsed together. The -- the 5 second and probably more realistic is the municipality 6 is trailing behind, but I think the municipal plan is 7 consistent with the county plan if supported by the 8 county, they could get priority and review here, so the 9 rules provide. 10 MR. HARRISON: And I guess I'm looking 11 for that. I really -- I don't want to do that today, 12 but in short order, we kind of defined what that means, 13 that priority consideration and how we define 14 consistency with (indiscernible) plan, who determines 15 that, how we move in and what do we do, how we move 16 those municipal plans expeditiously through the process 17 and how we can demonstrate that that is, in fact, a 18 much faster process than going it on your own or going 19 it alone in a county (indiscernible) plan. 20 MR. ESKILSON: I mean, the -- the -- the 21 question and, I mean, as I said before, we were in 22 Middlesex last night and they thoughtfully pointed out 23 if every -- how -- how many we would have to do if 24 everyone came in individually and we'd never get done 25 and we agreed that, you know, we're not -- I mean, the 19 1 -- the priorization is for county plans for regional 2 groupings and municipalities, that the county, you 3 know, isn't marching ahead and toward municipal plans 4 that are consistent with the first -- in the first 5 instance, a determination of consistency is the county 6 supporting a municipal plan and ultimately, the State 7 Planning Commission is going to decide, not whether the 8 municipal plan is consistent with the county plan, but 9 whether it is consistent with the state plan. 10 But the first question when they walk in 11 the door, if they're in a county whose plan has been 12 endorsed is, where is your letter from the county 13 supporting your plan? If they have the letter, they 14 move to the head of the line. If they don't have the 15 letter, they move to the end of the line. 16 MR. HARRISON: Thank you, sir, but -- but 17 aren't we then just checking the county's work? Isn't 18 it as simple as that? If the county plan is to endorse 19 the municipal plans demonstrated as consistent with the 20 county plan, instead of going through the whole 21 process, aren't we simply just checking the counties? 22 MR. ESKILSON: But -- well, in terms of 23 prioritizing it, yes. I mean, there -- the State 24 Planning Commission will have to review it for 25 consistency with the state plan and -- but there's no 20 1 need for any separate determination by the State 2 Planning Commission that the municipal plan is 3 consistent with the county plan. 4 MR. HARRISON: Yes. However, I -- I -- I 5 think you might be missing my point about it. If we 6 send the county plan, as it existed, it hasn't been 7 endorsed, and then the county says yes, this municipal 8 plan is consistent with our county plan, it seems to me 9 it should be a rather simple process for us and the 10 State Planning Commission to determine that yes, in 11 fact, it is consistent with the state plan. Because 12 the county plan is consistent, it's been demonstrated 13 to some reasonable level at the county that the 14 municipal plan is consistent, so we ought to be able to 15 demonstrate that that, in fact, means we're simply 16 checking the work of the county. We're not going 17 through the entire process all over again, the same 18 thing we would be going through with the first one. 19 MR. ESKILSON: Right. 20 MS. MURRAY: And that's what Bill is -- 21 MR. ESKILSON: Yes, right. It's -- it's 22 -- it's my lawyer hat showing through it. 23 MS. MURRAY: Yes. 24 MR. ESKILSON: The -- ultimately, the 25 state planning commission does have to make the final 21 1 request. But the process should be infinitely simpler 2 for a municipality coming in an endorsed county than it 3 has (indiscernible). 4 MS. BYERS: -- more difficult in that 5 though. I'm sorry, Robin, in -- in that New Jersey is 6 a (indiscernible) state and we don't have county plans 7 having the actual effect on managing. So the -- the 8 devil is in the details and I think it's incumbent upon 9 the State Planning Commission to make sure that 10 municipal plans are indeed consistent. And that may 11 require a little bit more than just looking at the 12 county plan. I think we have to look at the municipal 13 plans. 14 MR. FISHER: No, I disagree, Michele. I 15 think it -- it requires us to specifically define the 16 relationship with the county and its whole plan as part 17 of the rule making process over the next few months, so 18 that we don't have to do that. 19 MS. BYERS: But because the county plans 20 are -- are -- are just by -- by virtue of the fact that 21 the counties don't have the vast zoning powers that 22 have local impact, just because a county plan is 23 consistent with a local plan doesn't necessarily mean 24 that the local plan is consistent with the state plan. 25 MR. ESKILSON: You'll have to 22 1 (indiscernible) it better. Really better. Otherwise, 2 we're wasting our time at the county level. I mean 3 really, that needs to happen. 4 MS. MURRAY: John within -- within this, 5 it goes back to some of the issues we were just talking 6 about. Population. 7 MR. ESKILSON: Uh-huh. 8 MS. MURRAY: The county may have an 9 overall plan, but the municipality may specifically be 10 consistent with that and yet have individual directives 11 that the office of Smart Growth would want to look at 12 to see how that fits in with the overall state issues 13 for that particular municipality. And that -- that can 14 be an abbreviated review compared to them not being 15 deemed consistent and it gets them up to the State 16 Planning Commission sooner. But it still needs some 17 review by the office of -- 18 MR. HARRISON: I -- I'm not suggesting 19 that we review that. 20 MS. BYERS: Yes. 21 MR. HARRISON: Don't get me wrong. 22 MS. BYERS: Yes. 23 MR. ESKILSON: Let -- let -- let me give 24 an example that I think, you know, where county plan is 25 endorsed, it includes designating certain centers 23 1 within the county. The State Planning Commission signs 2 off on that. We shouldn't -- the municipality comes in 3 that has one of those centers, we shouldn't have to re- 4 look at center boundaries or anything like that. That 5 should be a given. There may be things in municipal 6 plans that the county plan is general about, about how 7 the environments are being protected, that in the 8 municipal plan we're going to look at, you know, do 9 they have a TDR ordinance or, you know, a -- a off-site 10 clustering that -- that just the county plan doesn't 11 address and we have to look at the specifics within a 12 municipal plan. 13 MR. HARRISON: I agree, but let's maybe 14 be a little more specific about our expectations of the 15 county plans. We have to be (indiscernible) a little 16 more specific on some of those issues with respect to 17 the environment, realizing there is no zoning law. We 18 can't establish density, but we certainly can talk 19 about ranges of densities and the locations of 20 densities and those type of issues. And I think you -- 21 once you get into that point, you drill pretty deep 22 into the municipal planning process and I think we 23 ought to talk about that and what our expectations of 24 those county plans are, so that they are real and that 25 they do have some benefit for both the county and the 24 1 municipalities within the fold. 2 MS. MURRAY: I -- I think we're both on 3 the same page with this. 4 MS. BYERS: It seems to me that what we 5 want to have in the agreement between the county and 6 local governments as to what the planning and 7 implementation agenda is, so there would be an 8 agreement as to what state agencies were going to take 9 -- (indiscernible) John, and there will also be an 10 agreement as to what the towns would do in terms of 11 revising the zoning ordinances to make sure that we get 12 actually the state plan implementation as -- as opposed 13 to, you know, something general and conceptual. And 14 it's got to get there (indiscernible) before that ever 15 happens. We need some agreement and I think that we -- 16 we just cannot go town by town, so there's, you know, 17 there's no -- I don't think there's any support on the 18 commission to go town by town and review every little 19 town planned ordinance. So we view the county and the 20 regional approach in a way of simplifying and getting 21 some support and having, you know, spreading the work 22 load. But we still can't just let the towns, you know, 23 not tow the line. They've got to act -- to be a full 24 partner or a contractual partner to an agreement to 25 implement the state plan as long as we can get to this 25 1 plan the working stage. So that's, you know, how -- 2 how we actually get through all that process, I think, 3 well, we're going to be working hard on that in the 4 next few months. The first few plan endorsements, 5 we're going to learn a lot from it and it's going to be 6 a test and, you know, everyone is going to be looking 7 to see if this is the process that we -- we're going to 8 use to do it. Anyone else? 9 Shall we just move right along to the 10 next part? And then I'd like to get some comments even 11 from the public on -- on this. But I'd (inaudible). 12 MR. DRAKE: Thank you. I think we're set 13 there. I just wanted to give you a quick overview of 14 where we are regarding the Cross-Acceptance Manual. We 15 anticipate is, you know, this manual will also be 16 followed up with a soon to follow Plan Endorsement 17 Manual, but I think getting your feedback comments on 18 this approach will go in first. It's -- it's critical. 19 What we'd like to be able to do is -- is go through a 20 framework or outline on what the manual consists of and 21 then get into a few specific details. 22 Just to go over what some of the proposed 23 changes to the Cross Acceptance Manual that we 24 envision, there's certainly a major emphasis on public 25 outreach and participation in the cross acceptance 26 1 process. So I think that's a critical element that, 2 you know, continues to be the forefront of planning. 3 We also are proposing some changes to the 4 process for the State Plan map amendments. We would 5 anticipate that that process certainly can take place 6 pre-Cross-Acceptance and certainly post-Cross- 7 Acceptance and I'll describe the rationale for that. 8 And I think also very importantly, the linkage of 9 Cross-Acceptance and Plan Endorsement and how we are 10 going to bring together these two processes so that 11 we're -- we're not duplicating our efforts, but really 12 building upon one to the other. 13 I just want to take a moment to thank 14 everybody on the staff who worked very hard on this 15 manual and certainly working hard on the -- the Plan 16 Endorsement manual. Certainly Vanessa and Bill and 17 Chuck and Karen and Joe, Megan and Carmen all have been 18 sort of working through various iterations of this to 19 try to at least bring it to -- bring it to some head 20 and I think we're -- what we're anticipating is that 21 Bill will be probably going to the County Planner's 22 Association on -- on Friday. We'd like to at least 23 discuss with them or give them a copy of the draft and 24 then anticipate, since they're going to be our partners 25 in Cross-Acceptance, that we be able to release a rough 27 1 draft for discussion shortly thereafter. I anticipate 2 we'll be able to publish it or post it on the Web site 3 and also we'll simply attach cover letters, you know, 4 looking for comments on -- on how, you know, is this 5 going to meet your, you know, expectations for Cross- 6 Acceptance. 7 What we looked at as far as a schedule, 8 this is sort of -- this is a schedule that will appear 9 and this is really how we're going to get to May 2005 10 and the readoption of the State Plan and how the Cross- 11 Acceptance process really plays into it. Go to the 12 next slide. 13 I think as we've said before, critical to 14 that element is also what we may call pre-Cross- 15 Acceptance from -- could be called pre-Cross Acceptance 16 is that this -- really from now through February, we 17 have processed not only rule making, but also 18 (indiscernible) manuals, preparing manuals and also 19 compiling data layers from the state agencies, 20 distributing those data layers to counties and 21 municipalities, working sort of in a collaborative way 22 to evaluate potential policy map changes and then 23 incorporate these into the preliminary plan, ultimately 24 for release of the preliminary plan of March 2004 for 25 Cross-Acceptance. 28 1 I'm not going to go into great detail on 2 -- on each of these core components, but essentially 3 that the manual will have, you know, an overview, a 4 context, what is Cross-Acceptance, what is the 5 projected time frame, which we just showed you. Then 6 certainly to continue, who the participants are in 7 Cross-Acceptance, and sort of a description of their 8 roles. The general public, municipalities, counties 9 and so forth, all the way down to office of State 10 Planning, Smart Growth and State Planning Commission 11 and -- and the Legislature. 12 Part of the manual as described includes 13 a description of what the county and the negotiating 14 entity's role will be in this. Traditionally, it has 15 been the county planning departments as our partners 16 and they have traditionally submitted to us the 17 required work program and how it will accomplish Cross- 18 Acceptance. That -- that process is very similar to 19 the way it was before, but I think we're also trying to 20 streamline that process, eliminate some -- some 21 components that, at least at this go-round, for Cross- 22 Acceptance, probably are better served to other parts 23 of our process all together. 24 One of the things we really wanted to 25 emphasize is that the opportunity, this is something we 29 1 sort of emphasized in this manual, is the whole public 2 participation envisioning process. There will be a 3 description of an overview, as well as sort of what we 4 will call required elements of public participation and 5 then recommended elements of public participation. We 6 want to be able to emphasize this aspect of planning 7 and in doing so, we want to be able to sort of at least 8 propose an idea, talking about what we might call a 9 kick-off or a resource planning forum of some sort, 10 which could be any variety of -- of opportunities, but 11 we're looking at it being sort of a -- a meeting that's 12 geared to explaining to counties and municipalities 13 that are actively participating what will be it's 14 simplest process, what will be the most realistic way 15 that they can achieve Plan Endorsement and it will also 16 begin, really, with the public participation process in 17 Cross-Acceptance, really to, you know, as you say, get 18 the juices flowing, get the energy stimulated of what - 19 - what the vision will be for their towns or counties 20 and allow that energy to sort of move into Plan 21 Endorsement. 22 We're -- we're also considering, at least 23 in this concept, how we would approach this and, you 24 know, certainly worthy of discussion, I think we're 25 open to discussion, is that whether or not from direct 30 1 staff or we're -- I think we like to be -- talk about 2 how we would -- might bring in some consultant staff 3 that may help us with facilitating this process, 4 bringing in people that may have the ability to, you 5 know, advise us on what's the most streamlined way of - 6 - of organizing meetings and how -- how we could, you 7 know, help the public really understand what planning 8 is all about, with us included. Certainly, obviously 9 this is still in discussion, but it's certainly worthy 10 of your consideration. 11 One of the things we talked about last 12 night, also, is -- in Middlesex County, is that we've 13 anticipated that this process would be really in a Web- 14 based process, as well. I think what we realized from 15 the last go-round of Cross-Acceptance is that there may 16 have some -- somebody in Salem County who had similar 17 issues as someone in Somerset County or Sussex County, 18 but -- but their exchange of information was only one 19 way. It was from the county to the Commission. But 20 for that exchange out from each individual counties, 21 our abilities, I guess at that time, were not as 22 attuned, but I think we certainly, as we expressed last 23 night, we think we could use the Web much better, to 24 set up a mechanism where this exchange of information 25 from each county could certainly be shared in, you 31 1 know, like board forum or what have you, but I think 2 that would really lead to a greater dialogue. 3 In terms of -- we also anticipate, at 4 least currently now, that there would be some mechanism 5 for, as we've had in the past, for Cross-Acceptance 6 grants. Again, we're -- we're -- the description of 7 the application process and the eligible activities are 8 -- are included in the manual. 9 Getting to really the -- the meat and 10 potatoes of Cross-Acceptance really includes the 11 preparation of a Cross-Acceptance report. The 12 regulations our rules require that a report -- even the 13 State Planning Act requires that a report be prepared 14 by the negotiating entity and we anticipate, you know, 15 there will be an overview, a listing of required 16 elements, a listing of recommended elements and then 17 the opportunity, if an individual municipality wants to 18 submit their own report, they can do so, as well. 19 Let's see here. The type -- the type is 20 a little small, but essentially that the rules require 21 the negotiating entity, be them municipal, county or 22 state, outline the degree of consistency or 23 inconsistency with the Preliminary State Development -- 24 Redevelopment Plan and include proposed modifications 25 to either the Preliminary State Plan or the municipal 32 1 or county plan. So really, this is the ability to have 2 the exchange of information and that was envisioned in 3 the State Planning Act, why cross acceptance was 4 created. 5 I cannot look and read all the text, but 6 one of the required elements we'll be talking about is 7 included in the degree to which municipal county plans 8 have incorporated key concepts and policies from the 9 State Plan, where the negotiating entity with the 10 municipality would review the municipal county plans to 11 make this determination and some of the actions they 12 may do is basically reviewing and coordinating county 13 municipal plans for each municipality, reviewing land 14 use regulations and substantive -- making statements of 15 findings and then reviewing key concepts and policy 16 objectives from the State Plan. So here's a way that 17 even through this report, a lot of these issues can be 18 brought up at Cross-Acceptance and certainly fed right 19 into Plan Endorsement. 20 There's a format in the manual, as we 21 talked about, about if a municipality or a county has 22 particular concerns with policy statements in the State 23 Plan, they can centrally clarify that. They can cite - 24 - you know, we're trying to set up a criteria where 25 they would cite the specific issues so that we could 33 1 catalog it more in a database format and then allow the 2 municipality or the county to submit a proposed 3 alternative and if you can imagine, well, by creating a 4 mechanism where those specific items can be keyed in, 5 you may have several counties, you know, agreeing with 6 -- with the concept and several counties disagreeing, 7 but again, we'll do it in a sort of Web-based format. 8 You could, I think, be able to gauge what the issues 9 are and potential policy changes or modifications to 10 the plan. 11 We're also looking at recommended 12 elements for the, you know, for the report, including 13 identifying growth management issues, having multiple - 14 - multiple jurisdictional or multi-county impacts. 15 This would enable them to discuss any growth management 16 and redevelopment issues that may affect more than one 17 municipality, make recommendations how the plan can 18 address that. 19 Getting more to the important element, I 20 think really, for a topic of discussion today is what 21 this manual does not include and what we -- at least 22 not proposing that it include, we are not recommending 23 from the prior Cross-Acceptance process mapping 24 community development boundaries. This essentially 25 resulted in the creation of proposed centers on the 34 1 current State Plan map. We're also not recommending 2 the identification of cores and nodes (phonetic). This 3 again created those dots on the map and some mapping 4 issues regarding identifying centers. We feel that 5 these activities, although valuable, really should be 6 reserved for the Plan Endorsement process and not a 7 through Cross-Acceptance because I think it led to some 8 confusion, even in the current interpretation of the 9 State Plan map as to what is a proposed center and what 10 is an identified center and what is a designated 11 center. 12 We're also not proposing, at least at 13 this time, use of the OSP growth simulation model. 14 Certainly not the one individual who at least had the 15 most knowledge of it, and Jim Riley (phonetic) is no 16 longer with us, so obviously, we at least are limited 17 in that capacity, but certainly I think -- I think we 18 can entertain use of other models or looking at other 19 models. There's other models out there that exist. 20 But you know, so that's at least one change. 21 And then I think the final discussion was 22 regarding State Plan policy map amendments. What we're 23 hoping is that during Cross-Acceptance, we anticipate 24 discussions on the policies that create the particular 25 plan areas, be it what is a PA 2 and what is a PA 5? 35 1 However, we are recommending that during Cross- 2 Acceptance, it should not be the forum for individual 3 site-specific map amendments. Go to the next slide. 4 Because I think currently our goal is to 5 enable map amendments to occur in a different forum. 6 Right now, Subchapter A as proposed lists the 7 requirements for map amendment. There is a procedural 8 and a substantive requirement in the rules, including 9 notifications, including what is required to make a map 10 amendment. Also it stipulates that map amendments 11 should occur during Cross -- during Plan Endorsement, 12 not Cross-Acceptance. Similarly, if there's relief for 13 minor map amendments, there's a procedure in Subchapter 14 8 for minor map amendments. And -- and I think most 15 importantly is that the rules currently clearly give 16 the State Planning Commission the authority to initiate 17 map amendments at any time. So at any time the State 18 Planning Commission decides they want to initiate a map 19 amendment or map amendment changes, be it on a broad 20 scale or individual scale, that's the authority given 21 to you through your own rules. 22 So you know, I think in conclusion, 23 there's really no requirement in the State Planning 24 Act, nor in our current rules, that stipulate or 25 require that a map amendment should be part of the 36 1 Cross-Acceptance process. And I think looking back at 2 history, that, I would believe, consumed a very large 3 part of -- of the effort during the past Cross- 4 Acceptance and -- and I think there's currently a 5 proper venue outside of Cross-Acceptance to enable map 6 amendments to occur. 7 Really, in conclusion, I just want to be 8 able to say that we're excited about the opportunity to 9 really take Cross-Acceptance to a new platform and 10 really build upon the community participation and help 11 -- to help the towns and counties create a vision for 12 themselves. I would really move this energy that we 13 would create during Cross-Acceptance into the Plan 14 Endorsement process. And that's all I have to say. 15 MS. BYERS: Thank you. Committee 16 members, questions, comments? 17 MR. FISHER: One thing that I would -- 18 one thing that I would just like to -- to ask, in terms 19 of the required elements, you've illustrated three 20 action items. Obviously, there -- there are likely to 21 be more in the draft manual? 22 MR. DRAKE: Yes. 23 MR. FISHER: Okay. Because one of the 24 things I think I'd like to see there is some review 25 relative to growth projections. In other words, how 37 1 the municipality intends or the region intends to 2 comply and accommodate projected growth. I know the 3 Land -- review the Land Use Regulations may get at 4 that, but ... 5 MR. DRAKE: It certainly, I mean, you 6 don't -- you know, we're -- we're hoping that with a 7 draft manual for discussion that can be released, that, 8 you know, if I'm correct from Bill sitting here, the 9 anticipation is it won't -- it wouldn't be needed to be 10 released until the rules are released, which is 11 essentially ... 12 MR. HARRISON: Right, yeah. We -- we -- 13 you know, we're -- we're trying to get a draft out as 14 quickly as possible so everyone can look at it, but it 15 is just that, a very preliminary draft that, you know, 16 we want to get comments from the State Planning 17 Commission, as well as the, you know, particularly the 18 counties, but also public comments and municipal 19 comments, so I, you know, what should and shouldn't be 20 in the process and making the manual as clear as 21 possible to having some municipalities, so you know, 22 we're -- we're getting -- you know, we're going to do 23 an initial distribution at the County Planners meeting 24 on Friday and, you know, send it out, you know, shortly 25 thereafter to a fairly wide distribution and have it 38 1 available on the Web site and get comments. But as 2 Paul said, we do not need to formally -- you know, 3 formally have the manual that goes out until the 4 preliminary State Planners meet in March. We want to 5 give people an idea up front, but we also want to give 6 them an opportunity to say, this should be in, this 7 should be out, this should be worded better, whatever. 8 MS. BYERS: Anyone else? Well, Mike, I - 9 - I'm happy to see that and having been through the 10 last process, I'm happy to see us taking map limits 11 out. You know, you're right. We spent almost all of 12 our time on map amendments and it really dragged the 13 process out so long. It took nine years to -- from '92 14 to 2001 until we could readopt the plan. And then 15 putting that kind of resource in a lot of meetings and 16 endorsements. So we have the control, rather than just 17 more (inaudible). So that -- that looks good. 18 What I'd like to do now, before we go on 19 to the centers is just to go out to the members of the 20 public to see if you have any comments on the Plan 21 Endorsement and the Cross-Acceptance manual. Please 22 state your name and organization for the record. 23 MS. ASHMAN: I'm Candy Ashman. State 24 Planning Commission groupie, I guess. I've been 25 through some of this a few times and I just have a 39 1 couple of comments on -- on what's been said. And I 2 think it really relates to what John brought up and one 3 is that there's absolutely nothing in here that will 4 tell anybody what plan consistency consists of. In 5 terms of the counties, some of the counties only do 6 what they really have to do, which is a drainage plan 7 and a transportation plan and one of my questions is, 8 can a county plan be partly consistent and if you're 9 going to have a -- a -- a relationship between the -- 10 and the municipality having to talk to the county, 11 which is good, but what happens when the county doesn't 12 have what constitutes a master plan in everybody's 13 view? 14 In the original or prior rule, there was 15 an adoption of a -- it says, according to the 16 guidelines for plan endorsement adopted by the State 17 Planning Commission and we have an awful lot of 18 discussion about that and the reason being that the -- 19 the guidelines, we didn't -- none of us, I think, 20 commissioners and others, thought that it should be in 21 the rule of what the guidelines were because you might 22 want to change them and that takes a huge long time. 23 But that there should be an adoption by reference of 24 guidelines of what constitutes plan consistency. 25 Otherwise, it's a -- a whole issue that there are -- 40 1 even though you can interpret the State Plan in a 2 million different ways and it's vague all the way 3 through here because it talks about the executive 4 director, the commissioners, the public, the 5 municipality, the county having to make their own 6 judgment. Are they consistent or not? Because the 7 definition only talks about, and I know this is -- this 8 is about the rule, but on the other hand, it's also 9 about Plan Endorsement and -- and in -- in the rule, it 10 defines consistency as a plan that has the same effect 11 as the provisions of the State Development Plan. 12 That's a -- that can be a very political decision and I 13 think that people have to wonder. I mean, as a 14 municipal official, it would be very hard to decide 15 what to bring to you and then have to argue about 16 whether that's consistent or not. And since it -- the 17 whole system of Plan Endorsement depends on different - 18 - at different time frame decisions on what's 19 consistent, all the way from the executive director, 20 who takes the petition through to the commission, who 21 finally make a decision. 22 So I would just suggest that -- that all 23 the documents plus the rule are really deficient in -- 24 in defining it in some way and -- and I think the old 25 way worked because there were guidelines and you could 41 1 adopt them yourselves and you could change them, but at 2 least it gave guidance to people, what constituted 3 endorsement. Thank you. 4 MS. BYERS: Robin, Marge do you want to 5 respond to that in terms of where we are at 6 (inaudible). The state agencies have been asked and 7 are coming in with their threshold, if you will, to 8 what constitutes a consistency for plan endorsement. 9 Is that correct? 10 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: No. I would -- we 11 have been meeting extensively with the state agencies 12 and you know, I think for the most part, as Bill has 13 outlined, getting from our partner agencies exactly, 14 you know, what they need to see in terms of 15 requirements for Plan Endorsement and, you know, what 16 they can accept now, what they can accept later. And 17 so, you know, I think that by the time that we have all 18 that information, it will be better and will certainly 19 be (indiscernible). 20 MS. ASHMAN: No, but that -- that -- that 21 would be the adoption of guidelines. The problem is, 22 you have no reference to that adoption. 23 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: Right. I -- I 24 understand and I think that, you know, clearly, it's -- 25 it's a work in progress. The counties that don't have 42 1 a master plan, and I heard your question with county 2 plans. As far as inconsistent, you know, I think 3 that's a part of what we are -- are trying to encourage 4 our county -- 5 MS. ASHMAN: I -- I understand that, but 6 the problem is the -- the municipality is stuck if the 7 county hasn't done that, you know, and -- and the way 8 the rules are all written and the processes, I know 9 you're trying to get to regional planning and I'm all 10 for you, but on the other hand, in the counties where 11 they aren't really wanting to play, it leaves the 12 municipalities kind of out in left field. 13 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: Well ... 14 MS. ASHMAN: The way it's written. I 15 don't -- 16 MR. HARRISON: In -- 5:85-7.2(g), there 17 is a requirement that the state planning issue, plan 18 endorsement guidelines is the information that needs to 19 accompany both the initial and final petition for plan 20 endorsement. You know, so we are doing that. That is, 21 as Marge said, the -- what we are meeting with the 22 state agencies, getting what information they're going 23 to require, but the more significant part of this and 24 what is different and really we'll be providing the 25 petitioner, whether it's a county, municipality, with 43 1 what they need is that the thought level will be 2 required for the final petition will be spelled out in 3 the plan endorsement contract that will be 4 individualized to that municipality or county and that 5 will list in detail, here are the 20 things you need to 6 do and here are the, you know, 17 things that various 7 state agencies will be doing either to assist you or in 8 conjunction with you to provide the assistance to get 9 you there, but that contract is going to tell each 10 petitioner exactly what needs to be provided. It will 11 be based on the Plan Endorsement, guidelines will be 12 provided, but you know, it also varies, so for a given 13 town, they don't have any agriculture in the town, 14 there will be a whole set of things that don't go in. 15 You know, a town that has it, they will get those, but 16 it will be tailored individually based on the 17 guidelines we'll be doing that. 18 We're actually part of, in addition to 19 the benefits part that, to answer somewhat, we're 20 interested in, we will be providing the -- initially, 21 the Sussex County towns that have center petitions, but 22 as -- but everybody by early October, we will have here 23 is a draft of what the requirements, which, in essence, 24 will be the Plan Endorsement guidelines. But the -- 25 the significant difference in the rules is we will have 44 1 this contract that, you know, there will be no question 2 in municipalities' minds what it -- what it needs to 3 submit to have its position endorsed by the State 4 Planning Commission. 5 MS. ASHMAN: I guess -- I -- 6 MS. BYERS: I think this is a different 7 issue, though. This isn't about the physical, what you 8 submitted as -- much as an issue of how you determine 9 that it is consistent. 10 MS. ASHMAN: Right. 11 MR. HARRISON: But that -- but that will 12 -- 13 MS. BYERS: And -- 14 MR. HARRISON: That also will be part of 15 the contract. 16 MS. BYERS: That's (indiscernible). 17 MR. HARRISON: They're not just saying 18 submit a circulation plan element. There will be 19 detailing what needs to be in there for it to be 20 endorsed. 21 MS. MURRAY: And that's what I think -- 22 where the -- your concern is that we have guidelines 23 from the beginning that discuss what constitutes 24 consistency. If you've got an ag plan and the county 25 has an ag plan and the state has an ag plan, what 45 1 constitutes consistency? Is it -- 2 MS. ASHMAN: Well, I -- and I -- and I 3 understand that it's different everywhere. You know, 4 but that isn't -- but -- but in the old guidelines, 5 there were things like you would have to at least have 6 started your co-op process. There are some things like 7 that that -- that were set forth in -- in the 8 guidelines themselves. 9 MR. HARRISON: Right. And then those -- 10 those kinds of things will be there. 11 MS. MURRAY: Those -- those are in. 12 Those are in. Those are part of the -- 13 MS. ASHMAN: But -- but see, I read that 14 as being the information that you must submit. Now 15 every commission could have a different idea of what 16 information you can -- should submit. Should you 17 submit a CoAH certification or maybe this town will and 18 this town won't or maybe this year we will and next 19 year we won't. That's -- 20 MR. HARRISON: Well, there -- there will 21 -- what -- what we're doing and -- is that there will 22 be a matrix that says this is what needs to come in 23 with an additional petition. This is what needs to 24 accompany the final petition. This is what will be in 25 a planning and implementation agreement that can wait 46 1 until after you're endorsed. And that will be spelled 2 out. 3 MS. ASHMAN: But it still doesn't say to 4 me that you can't get endorsement, for instance, and it 5 could be something else, you can't get endorsement 6 unless you have CoAH certification. I'm not saying 7 that would be necessarily one of them, but it -- it's 8 one that's easily talked about. 9 MR. HARRISON: The -- the -- the 10 guidelines will say in general, you need this to get 11 your initial petition endorsed. In general, you need 12 this to get your final petition endorsed. And then for 13 the Plan Endorsement contract, that will be spelled out 14 -- it will -- those general requirements will be taken 15 and made specific to that municipality. 16 MS. MURRAY: The only other question I 17 think I heard you say is, you know, is the municipality 18 left out in the cold if their county doesn't come in? 19 MS. ASHMAN: Yes, I just -- I just don't 20 know what that relationship would be if you have a 21 county that -- because I know you're trying to stress 22 the county. 23 MS. MURRAY: Certainly in regard -- I 24 mean, I would recommend that we certainly prioritize 25 the county and regional plans and then the 47 1 municipalities are part of those plans, so the 2 municipalities should not left out in the cold. The 3 municipality certainly has the right to come in on its 4 own for the Plan Endorsement process and will be given 5 all due respect and -- and, you know, proper review and 6 -- and stand behind to -- 7 MS. ASHMAN: I would hope so because 8 otherwise -- 9 MS. MURRAY: Absolutely. 10 MS. ASHMAN: -- it's going to be very 11 hard for some people. Thank you. 12 MS. BYERS: Okay. Thanks. Any other 13 members of the public? Yes, sir? 14 MR. CALT: Good morning. I'm Bob Calt. 15 I'm the Regional Planning Coordinator for the 16 Burlington County Department of Economic Development 17 and Regional Planning and I also want to point a 18 personal privilege being almost as long in the tooth on 19 this process as Candy Ashman. I appreciate the work of 20 the staff and the -- and the committee and -- and the 21 discussions this morning and leading to these 22 discussions. I'd like to ask a few questions of the 23 committee to help me be able to relate this discussion 24 and -- and guide our municipalities in working in this 25 process and anticipating this process, if I may. 48 1 One first point is that having the first 2 regional plan endorsed by the State Planning 3 Commission, the Route 130 corridor and working on a 4 plan for the Route 206 farm belt region and -- and the 5 Bordentown city region, we appreciate the work that 6 Sussex County was doing in the vanguard in -- in 7 working to the next level of -- of Plan Endorsement. 8 So a question that I have in -- in 9 following up on the discussion that -- with some of 10 John Eskilson's ideas and -- and Michele, your ideas, 11 would the Commission entertain, knowing that for 12 municipalities to put a Plan Endorsement application -- 13 petition together, even if it's something that's kind 14 of a follow-up position to a county plan, it's still 15 they get -- there are consultants and there are lawyers 16 involved and -- and involves a small but substantial 17 amount of money for municipalities with small budgets. 18 It's one way to deal with the issue that -- that John 19 raised, to enable counties to forward a joint county 20 and municipalities petition that the municipalities 21 jointly, you know, send a resolution of -- of support, 22 their part of it and so that when the endorsement goes 23 through, then the county is endorsed, then those 24 municipalities that joined with that petition are also 25 endorsed, so that there's no gray areas there. 49 1 MS. BYERS: I think that's the intent. 2 Correct me if I'm wrong, but -- 3 MS. MURRAY: That -- yes. 4 MR. CALT: Okay. Thank you. On the -- 5 on Page 5 of Bill Harrison's presentation, for both the 6 initial petition and the final petition, it talks about 7 a state and federal agency period of review. Are there 8 specific federal agencies that -- that are 9 participating in this process and do they participate 10 through a memorandum of agreement of some sort? 11 MR. HARRISON: You may have better 12 knowledge than I have as to what has been historically 13 involved. I don't think there's been before a formal 14 memorandum. You know, there are a list of federal 15 agencies that we have been sending documents to. You 16 know, I -- unless there are specific issues, federal 17 issues that relate to, you know, what a county plan or 18 municipal plan that's coming in, I don't know that 19 we're going to chase them down. If there are, you 20 know, I'll -- I'll do -- I'm trying to do a place that 21 doesn't raise some other issues. There are issues with 22 tick and tinny arsenal (phonetic) in Morris County's 23 plan that, you know, that -- that we would, you know, 24 aggressively go after the feds to get their comments to 25 make sure they're, you know, on board with what we're 50 1 doing. I mean, the whole purpose is to make sure all 2 levels of government are comfortable with a plan or if 3 they have problems, to raise them. So you know, if 4 there are specific federal issues that we will make 5 sure -- do everything we can to get a response from the 6 federal agency involved. 7 MR. CALT: Okay. Thank you. Also, in 8 those same slides, the petition -- the approval for the 9 petitions talk about approval by both the executive 10 director and the State Planning Commission. Can that 11 be interpreted as, since the executive director is a -- 12 is a staff member of the Commission of the Department 13 of Community Affairs, that the Department of Community 14 Affairs has two votes on -- on a Plan Endorsement and 15 one of them is a veto? 16 MR. HARRISON: No. This is a shorthand 17 in the slide. There is a, you know, as there has 18 always been, there will be a recommendation for the 19 executive director to the State Planning Commission. 20 The -- we're not yet giving him a vote. 21 MR. CALT: Okay. 22 MR. ESKILSON: Thanks for asking. 23 MR. CALT: Anything to help out, John. 24 Okay. One -- okay. Last question and then an 25 observation. The January 15th deadline for counties 51 1 having comments back on the package of materials that 2 we'll be receiving in November, pardon me, that as -- 3 as the -- I don't even think the -- the Office of Smart 4 Growth staff has a full appreciation of what they will 5 be getting from the state agencies and so the counties 6 have an even less idea of what we're in for. But my 7 question is how hard of a deadline is that January 15th 8 going to be for -- for the counties and municipalities? 9 As you probably know, all local 10 governments reorganize during the first two weeks of 11 January and since the comments that you're looking for 12 are not only findings and verifications and validations 13 of fact, but also opinions, that as the governing 14 bodies change, those opinions may change. Certainly -- 15 and -- and you're also dealing with a period that's 16 really not two months, but more like about six weeks, 17 when you consider that that period includes 18 Thanksgiving and the December holidays. 19 The -- while we would certainly 20 appreciate that any comments that come in on, you know, 21 before and -- and by January 15th will be fully 22 considered by the commission, can I communicate to -- 23 to my municipalities that anything that comes in 24 afterwards, that the sooner the better, but there would 25 -- there would still be some consideration by the -- by 52 1 the Commission and the staff? 2 MR. ESKILSON: I mean, there are some 3 realities that we're trying to get the State Planning 4 Commission to, you know, propose a preliminary plan at 5 its March meeting, but yes. I mean, we're not, oh, 6 it's January 16th, too bad, it's not going to be our 7 view. You know, this -- this process that we're doing 8 this fall and early winter is really an extra step in 9 the process and, you know, we're trying, you know, to 10 release the best possible preliminary and get as much 11 input as possible into the process and the more we 12 have, we think the better the plan will be. So you 13 know, they shouldn't say oh, we missed it, we're not 14 meeting until the 17th and too bad. I mean, that will 15 be fine. If they keep us informed of their drafts they 16 can get us, that would make our life easier so -- 17 because what we want to do is meet with the state 18 agencies on, you know, say Burlington County has 19 suggested such and such. What are your thoughts on 20 that? And we need some time to do that and to get a 21 document ready for the State Planning Commission. All 22 -- all the deadlines are -- 23 MS. MURRAY: It's -- it's a way to take 24 more off the table sooner, so that we can focus on 25 where the real issues are. 53 1 MR. CALT: Right. I understand the 2 reason for it and just that the timing of it at the 3 cusp of the year is -- brings in some complications. 4 MS. MURRAY: There -- there will be 5 issues that continue beyond January 15th. 6 MR. CALT: And through the whole -- 7 MS. MURRAY: Yes. 8 MR. CALT: -- first six months of that 9 process. Thank you very much for the indulgence of 10 your time. I just have one more question or -- or 11 comment or observation. The McNamara-Brownfield 12 Redevelopment Law (phonetic), it does call for 13 redevelopment plans being part of or some kind of plan 14 being part of financing Brownfield's redevelopment and 15 reacting to Bill's comment about possibly saying that a 16 Smart Growth area is a Brownfield site to -- to clean 17 up in Planning Area 4 and 5, that certainly the cleanup 18 of these sites is a public health and safety issue and 19 -- and -- and should proceed on those merits, but other 20 assistance to -- for redevelopment of those sites, the 21 commission might consider a way that these -- that 22 these redevelopment plans, which are important to set 23 the context for what's appropriate redevelopment of 24 those Brownfield sites and then bring in the community 25 involvement and -- so that there's some acceptance of - 54 1 - of what might mesh there, that those could be plans 2 that might be brought into a plan endorsement process 3 that can then also provide a priority for -- for the 4 redevelopment -- for the funding redevelopment of all 5 those sites. Thank you very much for your time. 6 MS. BYERS: Thank you. Any other members 7 of the public? Yes? 8 MR. FISHER: Michele, before the next 9 member, I just wanted to follow up on -- on Bob's 10 comment about redevelopment plans. One thing that's 11 come to light with -- with our company on a particular 12 project and this is evidently, I guess, DEP's view of 13 the McNamara legislation in terms of the legislative 14 history on remediation and it's different than what has 15 occurred in the past and -- and I'm concerned because 16 the posture now is that if you are the remediator of a 17 site, not the responsible party, but the one that 18 entered into a memorandum of agreement to clean up the 19 site, it's DEP's view that you are responsible for not 20 only assessing, but restoring off-site contamination 21 and natural resource damages and, you know, should that 22 policy continue to be rigid and enforced that way? My 23 fear is that very few Brownfield sites are going to be 24 cleaned up in this state and it will curtail 25 revitalization and redevelopment throughout the state 55 1 in a serious way. I think we need to look into that 2 and be prepared to -- to discuss that with the DEP and 3 -- and the Legislature if -- if necessary. Thanks. 4 MS. BYERS: Thanks, David. 5 MR. TITTLE (phonetic): Hi. Jeff Tittle, 6 New Jersey Sierra Club. And I guess part of my 7 question is going to be, you know, what's going to be 8 the role of the sort of State Planning groupies that 9 are out there, meaning the citizens and public that are 10 concerned? I mean, it -- it seems a lot of this seems 11 to be driven by local and counties and in many cases, 12 there's always a -- there may be conflicts between 13 citizens and during the last round of Cross-Acceptance, 14 there was quite a -- quite a lot of that and where the 15 State Planning Commission, you know, became really more 16 the final arbitrator. And I'm also kind of concerned 17 about that during the Plan Endorsement process. 18 One thing that I'm -- I have sort of a 19 little bit of a mixed feeling on is that we're going to 20 go out for Cross-Acceptance and there are major 21 portions of the mapping that needs to be corrected and 22 yet, that's only going to happen during Plan 23 Endorsement, but the question is if the county doesn't 24 come in for Plan Endorsement or a town doesn't come in, 25 how do the citizens then get at what might be a fairly 56 1 serious error in past mapping or even where state 2 agencies see direct conflicts between protection of 3 endangered species, habitat or critical water supply 4 areas and how will they be -- how will those fairly 5 egregious mapping errors get -- get addressed sooner 6 versus later because Plan Endorsement could be out, you 7 know, who knows how many years from now and meanwhile, 8 we see agencies going forward with definitions of smart 9 growth, including things like vacant Planning Area 2, 10 which could be right to reservoirs or identified 11 centers, which to me is the biggest joke of all, since 12 if you look at the list of identified centers, you'll 13 see the -- the Village of Upper Rainwood, which is a 14 Super Fund site, and you'll see the Village of Edison 15 mines, which is actually now a state park. So those 16 are the kinds of things that I -- I wonder how that's 17 going to be addressed. 18 And also for a lot of citizens and the 19 reason I bring up this conflict, back during the first 20 round of Cross-Acceptance, the wonderful town I was in 21 wanted to make Planning Area 2 all around the Wanaque 22 Reservoir for an industrial park and luckily people 23 like Candy and other State Planning Commission members 24 didn't do that and followed the citizens and the state 25 interest and -- and I can give you another good 57 1 example. In Wayne, next to Point View Reservoir, they 2 wanted to -- the mayor wanted to make Planning Area 1 3 next to the reservoir. The county went along with it 4 and the State Planning Commission did not overturn it. 5 That mayor -- Mayor Mesercola (phonetic) went to jail 6 because that site that they made PA 1, he took a 7 $50,000 bribe for putting an eight-story apartment 8 building on it. So that's why you see an eight-story 9 apartment building in the middle of Wayne. 10 And the reason I bring that up is because 11 I think you have to look at this very deliberately and 12 very carefully. In essence, go forward and make sure 13 that there's a -- a strong role for citizens and the 14 different nonprofit groups that are out there, because 15 sometimes they do know more on specific areas of the 16 state and specific parts of their communities than 17 sometimes the elected officials. 18 MS. BYERS: Thanks. So what I hear 19 you're -- you're saying is that there's concern about 20 the -- the degree of public participation in the 21 process? 22 MR. TITTLE: Uh-huh. And what weight do 23 -- the public actually has, compared to a municipality 24 or a county. 25 MS. BYERS: Right. And then the other is 58 1 the (inaudible) integrity. 2 MR. TITTLE: Right. And the timing of 3 making some of those changes that are out there, 4 especially when we have, you know, strong initiatives 5 by the governor of C 1 streams that he wants to have 6 protected and where you have now PA 2 in a lot of those 7 areas, areas of endangered species that have been 8 identified by the Landscape Project, things like that. 9 And that's not just in planning areas. It's also in 10 some of the older centers that are out there and -- and 11 how some of those things are going to get clipped. 12 MS. BYERS: All right. In -- in terms of 13 public participation, I'll take a shot at responding to 14 that. I think when we put the -- the Plan Endorsement 15 rules together and -- and talked about lessons learned 16 from Center Designation, we plugged in more of our 17 public participation requirement at the local level. 18 And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my recollection 19 and -- and the reason was because we had so many 20 complaints from local citizens, they -- they were left 21 out of the local Center Designation discussions. 22 MR. TITTLE: Uh-huh. 23 MS. BYERS: That it was not a big enough 24 public participation. 25 MR. TITTLE: Yes. 59 1 MS. BYERS: But I think our rules and our 2 guidelines and -- and our policies right now all, 3 instead of structure in place for public participation, 4 you know -- but unfortunately we don't also have a 5 budget in terms of marketing and promoting the program, 6 which would be fantastic if we did. We could, you 7 know, get articles in the paper and radio shots and, 8 you know, flyers and a lot more information out there 9 to encourage people to participate. We could probably 10 really grab up the degree of public participation and I 11 don't see that as something that's possible, at least 12 through the -- the state's budget right now. 13 But I think we do have a structure in 14 place that requires it and maybe some of the nonprofit 15 groups could find ways to do more in a way of promoting 16 public participation in the process. Because I agree, 17 I think that, you know, until we get -- it's only going 18 to be as good as the -- the amount of citizens that get 19 -- get involved in this. 20 MR. ESKILSON: And we should encourage 21 that. But we're also talking to the public's 22 representative when we're talking to municipal and 23 county officials and (inaudible). 24 MR. TITTLE: No. I can tell you many 25 times there is that dichotomy, a split. And I'll use 60 1 my own, wonderful town that wanted to bring sewers in 2 for an industrial park. Their referendum went down 3 3500 to 1000. Go look at Hopatcong, where the citizens 4 have voted against sewers, as well. So -- but yet 5 there are people still pushing them, so ... 6 MR. HARRISON: There is a valid remedy to 7 that. It's putting new people in positions of most 8 governing bodies. There is a remedy and -- 9 MR. TITTLE: The point that I'm trying to 10 get at is that there has to be a certain amount of 11 weight given to the public and there are some people 12 who think that, you know, local elected leaders know 13 all, and that's not the case and I want to make sure 14 that the public -- and it's not just, you know, from 15 the environmental side. It's also from the building 16 side. It's also from the different stakeholder groups 17 that are involved in a process, but they do have a 18 certain amount of weight in that decision making. 19 MS. MURRAY: I -- I think to address your 20 other aspect, the fact that we're doing this pre-Cross- 21 Acceptance evaluation of the data from the different 22 agencies will help inform people about the type of 23 conflicts you're talking about. We have not had that 24 before in as easy and accessible manner. We have not 25 been able to read it right through and see, you know, 61 1 what does the state plan say, what does DEP say, what 2 does DOT say, what does AG say? So I think that will 3 help provide the information for the public to have a 4 better sense of it, both county, municipal and general 5 public and the MDOs. So I think that that's a time 6 that's critical, for -- for them to be aware and to 7 access that information. 8 MR. TITTLE: Though there's also the 9 public, who may also have quite a bit of that 10 information themselves because the local environmental 11 commission has done an NRI, a local environmental 12 group, a watershed association, which may even have 13 better data than even the state agencies. And you 14 know, part of it -- you know, my concern is that -- is 15 the timing because some of these decisions have to be 16 made soon versus later and that the Plan Endorsement 17 process and for some of the counties it may or may not 18 come in. You know, an example I'll use is, you know, 19 Essex County. I don't know if Essex County really 20 cares to come in. I mean, who knows? I mean, they 21 haven't been involved, really, in the process in the 22 past and yet there is some critical wetland areas, 23 especially in the western part of the county, that are 24 -- you know, where there's even proposals for new roads 25 and things like that, that -- there's some mapping 62 1 disputes and things like that that have to be looked 2 at. And if the county doesn't come in and the town 3 doesn't come in, how can -- what role will citizens 4 have in getting the commission to take a look at some 5 of those areas and some of those issues? 6 MR. ESKILSON: Let me do -- there -- 7 there's actually going to be several ways that can 8 occur and I have a much more positive view of Essex 9 coming in, although that may be counterproductive to 10 the extension of a certain road that they may come in 11 advocating, even though they're comfortable with the 12 wetlands mapping in that area. But we -- we actually 13 had a positive meeting with them and on, you know, 14 pursuing Plan Endorsement. But -- 15 MR. TITTLE: Well, Jerry Dee (phonetic) 16 is a good -- 17 MR. ESKILSON: Be careful what -- 18 MR. TITTLE: Jerry Dee is a good friend 19 of mine. I was talking more about the previous 20 administration. 21 MR. ESKILSON: Be careful what you ask 22 for because there -- there will be municipalities that 23 will be strongly advocating that road, as you know. 24 But one of the reasons we're going to out with this 25 pre-Cross-Acceptance phase is to, particularly with the 63 1 map and any information from the agencies, is to see if 2 there are areas in the current State Plan policy map 3 that should be changed when we release the preliminary 4 plan. And we are going to be seeking county, municipal 5 and public input into that and -- and some of -- some 6 of those changes we will be able to reflect in the new 7 preliminary plan when that is released. 8 Two, the -- we -- you know, and some of 9 the policy related, you know, that will still be coming 10 up as part of cross-acceptance, where, you know, to -- 11 to do the easiest example, unscored PA 2, should those 12 be continued to be mapped? That is a policy issue -- 13 MR. TITTLE: Right. 14 MR. ESKILSON: -- that -- that will be 15 part of Cross-Acceptance and will be, you know, be 16 addressed in some fashion during that. 17 There are also, you know, where a county 18 or municipality is not coming in for Plan Endorsement, 19 one, as Paul stated, there is the mechanism of the 20 State Planning Commission to move to amend the map if 21 it feels it is appropriate and three, there, you know, 22 anyone, including any member of the public, a 23 stakeholder group, whatever, can -- may not endorse a 24 community petition for a map amendment. So there is a 25 process if -- if Plan Endorsement is not occurring. 64 1 The other thing is, we are not intending 2 as, you know, part of the Cross-Acceptance process, to 3 include a proposed centers -- center identification, so 4 those will not be showing up by the state. Designated 5 centers will be showing up, but, you know, ones that 6 were previously identified or proposed are not going to 7 be on the map. 8 MR. TITTLE: Yes. I was -- I was more 9 addressing the HMFA rule. 10 MR. ESKILSON: I understand. That's HMFA 11 rules dealing with the world that existed a few months 12 ago. But I -- I think there will be opportunities for 13 map amendments no matter what -- what evolves in terms 14 of Plan Endorsement. 15 MS. BYERS: Okay. Thank you. Anyone 16 else in the public, and then we need to move on to the 17 center discussion. Yes? 18 MR. KURK: I'm Don Kurk. I'm from the 19 New Jersey Conservation Foundation. And I guess I have 20 a question and -- because it's hard for me to assume, 21 sometimes, that I read these things right, but in 22 Chapter -- Subchapter 7.6 it appears to me, as I read 23 that chapter -- 24 MS. BYERS: Where are you going? 25 MR. KURK: Subchapter 585-7.6 -- 65 1 MS. BYERS: Of the rules? 2 MR. KURK: Of the proposed rules. And it 3 has to do with Plan Endorsement. And what this says to 4 me is that there's really a two-step process in the 5 initial and in the second -- in the final plan 6 endorsement in that the State Planning Commission 7 approves the petition and then it goes through another 8 process to approve the contract. The way I read it, 9 that adds 60 days to the process. Do I read that 10 right? 11 MR. FISHER: I -- I'm not sure if you're 12 reading it correctly. That's not our intention and if 13 that's what it's saying, we will fix it. It -- the two 14 would occur simultaneously. The rule is structured as 15 it is to deal with the eventuality if we are not 16 recommending approval of the -- or the State Planning 17 Commission is not approving, then obviously you would 18 not deal with a contract. But if -- if the executive 19 director will be recommending approval, if he would 20 simultaneously be recommending approval of the planning 21 versus the contract and again, if the State Planning 22 Commission is going -- is approving the plan -- the 23 petition for Plan Endorsement they would simultaneously 24 then approve the Plan Endorsement contract and I'll 25 make sure the rules are -- are clear on that. They're 66 1 written the way they are to deal with if we're not 2 approving it, then obviously, you don't deal with the 3 contract. 4 MR. KURK: I guess that's just another 5 example of me not being able to understand. 6 MR. FISHER: No. It may be my not being 7 able to write may properly. 8 MS. BYERS: Okay. Thank you. 9 UNIDENTIFIED: Before we move on -- 10 MS. BYERS: Yes. 11 UNIDENTIFIED: Just a question for staff. 12 There was a recent -- some recent correspondence from 13 the (indiscernible) New Jersey Association and Counties 14 and (indiscernible) and the County Planning Association 15 regarding the process. Have we received that and has 16 there been a response to that yet? 17 UNIDENTIFIED: A meeting is being 18 scheduled in the near future. I'm not sure if the date 19 has been finalized or not. We're having discussions, 20 trying to get everyone together in the same place on 21 the same date. 22 MS. BYERS: Okay. The status of the 23 pending center petitions. I hear they're all completed 24 now. Is that right? 25 MR. FISHER: Yes. They're all done now. 67 1 UNIDENTIFIED: (indiscernible) last week. 2 You missed that meeting. 3 MR. FISHER: I -- I can be quick, 4 recognizing we're almost on time here. What we're 5 looking at is approximately 15 centers, plus or minus, 6 again depending upon how you slice it. Some centers 7 have been pending, where we have been communicating 8 with them and they have reasonable expectations, but 9 they are in the process. Other centers, we've 10 communicated with them in the past. We have not heard 11 from them, so the number 15 is a good number as far as 12 what -- how many centers are out there that are 13 reasonably, you know, communities have reasonable 14 expectations and are moving forward. 15 So we are working with the majority of 16 them already. We're receiving phone calls. We've sent 17 out letters, as you're well aware. In July there was 18 the amendment to the budget bill which extended these 19 centers. We subsequently -- subsequently sent a out a 20 letter to these communities. They were advised that 21 we'll be getting -- reaching out to them in -- in 22 September. We've successfully reached out to a large 23 percentage of those centers, which all occurred in 24 Sussex County. 25 We met with Sussex County last week. We 68 1 had eight towns representing five centers, because some 2 -- some centers were more than one municipality. And 3 we at least had a round table discussion whereby there 4 was a fairly extensive dialogue on -- on what are the 5 issues, as well as where the agencies sit with regard 6 to many of the issues that are still under discussion. 7 Our goal throughout this whole discussion 8 process, I think pretty well -- pretty -- clearly 9 articulated is that to the best that we can, 10 encouraging communities to pursue plan endorsement. I 11 think that the opportunities we -- we've expressed to 12 them that the abilities and the -- the benefits, as we 13 will continue to lay out, sort of will exceed what the 14 benefits they would be entitled to under Center 15 Designation, so we -- even with the Sussex County 16 centers, we discussed with them that the benefits, as 17 we lay them out in the coming weeks, clearly will -- 18 will be beyond the centers as a mission. 19 I think we have a reasonable response to 20 a few of the centers that they're seriously considering 21 Plan Endorsement. We had a discussion with another 22 community down in south Jersey and I think that they 23 have given us a pretty clear indication that they feel 24 Plan Endorsement would -- would benefit them. So 25 that's again another center that we're talking to and 69 1 we've heard some positive response from them that they 2 think plan endorsement is -- is the way to go. 3 So as we move ahead, we're looking to 4 sort of, as best we can, advocate for Plan Endorsement, 5 but we also realize that some communities still may 6 feel Center Designation is for them. We created a time 7 line that we handed out at the meeting for Sussex 8 County which sort of, you know, if you look at all -- 9 all our objectives for the next coming months, around 10 March is -- is sort of, at least a rough cutoff time 11 frame for when any community would have to at least 12 fish or cut bait, make a decision to either continue to 13 pursue along Center Designation because then we would 14 at least have ample time to schedule them, you know, 15 certainly by the time these would expire in July. But 16 when we raised that issue in March, even in the Sussex 17 meeting, you know, I was going to -- we were saying 18 that that was sort of the -- the last time frame, 19 because it takes at least a minimum of two months to 20 sort of get to, you know, discussion amongst agencies, 21 do the reports, get out the information, schedule a big 22 meeting. So that would be March, April, May, June. 23 But again, I think we have a fair assessment of where 24 we're at. We'll continue to follow-up and I think 25 we're -- we'll be sending out follow-up letters in the 70 1 next week or so with more detailed information to these 2 centers of what we expect. 3 MS. MURRAY: What we'll be trying to do 4 is, based on the time line that we looked at, obviously 5 with 15 centers, that they all try to come in for 6 Center Designation, the number of meetings we have 7 between now and the drop dead date in June is 8 insufficient to pull everyone through. And so the fact 9 that we have some who are willing to go to planning 10 board belies that because that can be carried forward. 11 What we're trying to do over the next two weeks is get 12 an assessment from the remaining seven to find out 13 where they are so that we can also tally them into the 14 time line and then work specifically with Sussex so 15 that we will have in four to six weeks an idea of where 16 they are specifically, with very specific issues and 17 benefits for Plan Endorsement versus Center 18 Designation, so that we can know where they fit in and 19 then also hopefully have a response from the other 20 communities so that we know what our agenda will be 21 from now through June as far as them accepting 22 designation issues. 23 MS. BYERS: And that was my question. 24 What does the fall schedule look like and who's likely 25 to be on it? What can you begin to anticipate in terms 71 1 of meetings and agenda? 2 MS. MURRAY: We will probably have a 3 strong answer for that in four to six weeks. That's -- 4 that's what we're -- 5 MR. DRAKE: I mean, we -- we try, at 6 least looking at our current schedule and everything 7 else, I mean, there is a November big meeting 8 schedule. Obviously we don't have anybody at this 9 point to say -- to put on the agenda, but should we 10 decide, the one is scheduled for the November agenda. 11 Any centers, obviously we've had to make some decisions 12 very quickly as to which ones would be eligible and 13 potentially, as we talk to Sussex County, you know, if 14 the stars and moon align the right way, it's a 15 possibility. But again, we're -- we're still looking 16 through a lot of what remains. 17 MR. FISHER: Do we still have an October 18 1st meeting, too? 19 MS. BYERS: Yes. I have that on my 20 calendar. 21 MR. DRAKE: Yes. There is an October 5th 22 meeting scheduled. Again, we're -- we're hoping that, 23 you know, looking at agenda items. You know, certainly 24 as we continue to move ahead and detailing the Plan 25 Endorsement and Cross-Acceptance. I think, you know, 72 1 the dialogue we have today absolutely helps us 2 understand where -- direction. So we don't foresee a 3 Center Designation issues coming forward in October, 4 but certainly, you know, I think -- 5 MS. MURRAY: We still have other issues. 6 MR. DRAKE: Yes. 7 MS. MURRAY: To entertain ourselves with. 8 MS. BYERS: So -- and -- and on -- for 9 the October 1st meeting, you will continue on moving 10 forward in all of these avenues, but also (inaudible) I 11 hope we would have a more specific idea of where we're 12 going and what it's going to mean. 13 MR. DRAKE: We can lay out a time line. 14 We'll lay out a more definitive time line. That's no 15 problem. And then, you know, lay out each community, 16 who they are and -- and what is their response? What 17 is the probability that they decide to do Plan 18 Endorsement, what is the probability that they're going 19 to continue Center Designation? I think that's 20 reasonable. 21 UNIDENTIFIED: You're going to have that 22 for October 1? 23 MR. DRAKE: Well, I mean, as far as 24 lists. I mean, I'm talking -- 25 MR. HARRISON: It's hard to gauge a 73 1 municipality's willingness to (inaudible) Plan 2 Endorsement by October 1 because I -- I don't suspect 3 they will have all the information they need to even 4 come close to making that decision, but I hope one -- 5 I'm hoping shortly thereafter they will. 6 MS. BYERS: Well, some of them might. I 7 did speak with the mayor of Ocean Township yesterday, 8 Mayor VanHelt (phonetic), who said they were going for 9 Plan Endorsement. And he made that his public 10 announcement at the (inaudible) meeting. So ... 11 MS. MURRAY: There are some -- and -- and 12 that's -- that's partly of what we're looking for, is 13 to see if some are strongly committed, we can take them 14 off the critical list that comes with the June 15 deadline. Some, the ones that are ambiguous, 16 obviously, will take time to address. 17 MR. FISHER: So of the 15 active, 5 are 18 in Sussex County? 19 MS. MURRAY: Eight. 20 MR. FISHER: Eight are in Sussex? Five 21 townships, five centers? 22 MR. ESKILSON: Eight. Eight. 23 MR. FISHER: Five centers, yes. 24 MS. MURRAY: Five -- five petitions, 25 eight communities. 74 1 MR. FISHER: Okay. So we have ten others 2 and maybe of those ten, three or four may go to Plan 3 Endorsement. So we're looking at Sussex County plus 4 maybe another six or seven. 5 MS. MURRAY: Yes. 6 MR. FISHER: Okay. 7 MS. MURRAY: Staying with plan 8 endorsement. I think that's still yet to be 9 determined. 10 MR. HARRISON: Well, the county is 11 committed to go Plan Endorsement -- 12 MS. MURRAY: Right. 13 MR. HARRISON: -- through its contract 14 with the state. 15 MS. MURRAY: Right. 16 MR. HARRISON: We have it. 17 MS. MURRAY: The -- the individual center 18 petitions are making that determination over the next 19 month-and-a-half. 20 MR. DRAKE: Some of the towns, you know, 21 who are -- we're continually talking to them as far as 22 what are their issues and some towns are just not ready 23 for their own reasons and, you know, we'll obviously 24 have to time them out as far as well, here's a deadline 25 under which you can make a decision by this date. 75 1 We're going to proceed to make a recommendation that 2 they not be designated. I think that's the other thing 3 is, we -- what we hadn't done in the past and it maybe 4 it's certainly top of a discussion is on some of these, 5 whether or not we proceed to make a recommendation not 6 to designate them and we haven't traditionally done 7 that. We just haven't brought centers forward, but in 8 order to sort of close out that chapter, it may come 9 where we're going to have to say we're going to make a 10 recommendation not to designate and your alternative is 11 Plan Endorsement. 12 MS. BYERS: Right. 13 MR. DRAKE: And that's something we 14 haven't, you know, we honestly realize it could be a 15 consideration, but up until now, we haven't done that. 16 MS. MURRAY: And -- and actually, as -- 17 as a counter to that, some may decide that they really 18 feel comfortable getting their Center Designation and 19 then proceeding through Plan Endorsement, because much 20 of the data is the same information and process. So 21 you could get a Center Designation. We're saying you 22 can't come in through Plan Endorsement. 23 MR. FISHER: One of the things, Paul, you 24 said triggered a thought. You -- you mentioned the 25 fact that it's likely that there will be enhanced 76 1 benefits through Plan Endorsement as compared to Center 2 Designation. For those towns that currently have a 3 Center Designation, do we anticipate that whatever 4 benefits they're realizing now, when their designation 5 expires under the next plan, they would have to pursue 6 Plan Endorsement to receive the enhanced benefits or 7 how is that likely to work? Do you know? 8 MR. DRAKE: Yes. As -- as I, you know, 9 and I know Bill here with the rules, you know, as I 10 understand the rules, there's a sunset provision in -- 11 with centers. Certainly the plan is clear that a 12 Center Designation is at least equivalent to an 13 endorsed plan in the context of benefits. But the way 14 the rules are structured, there a sunset provision for 15 -- for centers so when those -- those centers would 16 expire, the alternative would be they would need to 17 come through Plan Endorsement. 18 UNIDENTIFIED: And until they do, they -- 19 they can't realize any benefits, I guess, in the 20 interim period? 21 MR. DRAKE: No. I believe that it would 22 be the equivalent of an endorsed plan, although in a -- 23 in the context of a municipality, if an endorsed plan 24 is an entire municipality and -- and the Center 25 Designation is only the small center, then obviously 77 1 your benefits are more focused on -- 2 MR. FISHER: Right. But what if their 3 Center Designation expired and it took them another 4 year or so to achieve endorsement? 5 MR. ESKILSON: The -- the -- there -- I 6 think, in all instances, the way the rules are 7 structured, there is more than ample time before any of 8 the centers will expire, for -- to immediately pursue 9 Plan Endorsement. That really shouldn't be an issue. 10 If they're going to do it, they should be able to get 11 it done in ample time. So you know, where all the, you 12 know -- and some of this is done, you know, a lot it 13 works depending upon how much of the town is the -- 14 constitutes the center that, you know, that may 15 facilitate the Plan Endorsement. 16 MR. FISHER: I think that's an important 17 issue, though, moving forward, that we consider. 18 Particularly I'm thinking of communities where the town 19 center and the boundary lines are the same. Those 20 towns might not necessarily see the reason to move 21 forward with Plan Endorsement, or (indiscernible). But 22 I would also -- would not want to see them lose out on 23 the benefits of Plan Endorsement simply because they're 24 a center with a municipal boundary is (indiscernible). 25 I'm thinking of the town of Newton. 78 1 MS. BYERS: But if Sussex County is 2 already on board with the Plan Endorsement, then 3 there's no reason why Newton is going to be brought 4 into that. 5 MR. FISHER: I agree, if we define the 6 relationship properly, yes. Absolutely. That's my 7 point earlier. 8 MS. BYERS: We should be able to capture 9 those existing centers through a regional Plan 10 Endorsement process. 11 MR. FISHER: And so you're saying the 12 county plan captures those centers and the county plan 13 is endorsed, then those communities realize the 14 benefits of Plan Endorsement? 15 MS. MURRAY: They -- I think we -- we 16 went through this before, that they still need to file 17 their petition and -- 18 MR. ESKILSON: But shouldn't I -- in the 19 case of Newton, there is -- 20 MS. MURRAY: -- in the case of a 21 (indiscernible) group -- 22 MR. ESKILSON: -- no reason that Newton 23 can't walk in, sit down and (inaudible) Plan 24 Endorsement. I mean, that -- 25 MS. BYERS: Right. 79 1 MR. ESKILSON: I think there -- there -- 2 there -- there are no issues in, you know ... 3 (all talking together) 4 MR. FISHER: Right. But -- but on the 5 other hand, what we wouldn't want to have occur, at 6 least what -- what I wouldn't want to see is a town 7 presuming then, and -- and the state agencies still 8 provide them with the benefits of the designation or 9 endorsement, yet they're not adhering to their PIF. 10 MS. BYERS: Right. 11 MR. FISHER: And in fact, they're not 12 implementing the plan locally. 13 MS. BYERS: It would be a good 14 opportunity to do some monitoring. 15 MR. FISHER: Right. And that would be 16 something as, you know, when they come in for Plan 17 Endorsement, we would be doing. The earliest, under 18 the rules, the earliest any center would go away would 19 be 2008. 20 MS. BYERS: Okay. Any other comments, 21 questions? Members of the public? 22 Okay. So our next meeting is October 1st 23 and I hope we can get more information on the Cross- 24 Acceptance Manual. 25 (End of recorded proceedings) 80 1 CERTIFICATION 2 I, Jennifer Linnartz, the assigned 3 transcriber, do hereby certify that the foregoing 4 transcript of proceedings before the New Jersey 5 Division of Community Affairs on September 10, 2003, is 6 a true and accurate non-compressed transcript of the 7 proceedings to the best of my knowledge and ability. 8 9 10 11 Jennifer Linnartz Date 12 (For Coleen Rand AD/T 419) 13 AudioEdge Transcription, L.L.C. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25