1 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 3 STATE PLANNING COMMISSION 4 5 In the matter of: : 6 : 7 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE : 8 : 9 10 11 State House Annex 12 West State Street 13 Trenton, NJ 08625 14 Wednesday, November 12, 2003 15 Commencing 9:19 a.m. to 12:10 p.m 16 17 18 19 20 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 21 824 West State Street 22 Trenton, New Jersey 08618 23 609-989-9199 or 800-368-7652 (TOLL FREE) 24 (609) 392-7978 (FAX) 25 http://www.renziassociates.com 2 1 H E L D B E F O R E: 2 3 DAN RYAN, Environmental Protection 4 DAVID FISHER, Public Member 5 ROBERTA LANG, Agriculture 6 JOHN ESKILSON, Municipal Official 7 MARGE DELLA VECCHIA, Community Affairs 8 ADAM ZELLNER, Office of Smart Growth 9 MICHELE BYERS, Public Member 10 TIM TOUHEY, Public Member, Chairman 11 JIM LEWIS, Transportation 12 PAT STERN, Deputy Attorney General 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 A G E N D A 2 3 PAGE 4 CHAIR'S REMARKS 4 5 DISCUSSION OF CROSS-ACCEPTANCE MANUAL 6 Review and discussion of actual 13 7 Cross-Acceptance maps 8 Discussion of the process of state 21 9 plan policy map amendments 10 Public Comments 31 11 DISCUSSION OF PLAN ENDORSEMENT 76 12 INCREMENTAL PROCESS 13 Public Comments 104 14 DISCUSSION OF THE PENDING STATE PLANNING 115 15 RULES 16 DISCUSSION OF THE CALENDAR FOR THE 122 17 REMAINING CENTERS 18 PUBLIC COMMENTS 134 19 ADJOURNMENT 142 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 MS. BYERS: Good morning, everyone. 2 Sorry for the delay. We're hoping to get a few 3 more commissioners here, but we're going to 4 start. We have a big agenda today, and what I'd 5 like to do is, as we go through each item, pause, 6 and give time for public comment; and then at the 7 end of the meeting, we'll have general public 8 comments. 9 Tim, do you have anything that you 10 want to say before we get started? 11 MR. TOUHEY: Obviously, we're at an 12 important agenda, I'll say, that we worked very 13 hard over the summer months through this year to, 14 you know, get to this place. We had set out a 15 time line to get all the data layers and 16 information from each of the state agencies, as 17 well as departments, and I think we're there 18 today. 19 You'll hear a lot about the 20 presentation on the data layers, and the 21 information that we received. We've laid out an, 22 obviously, time line to get us to 23 cross-acceptance, also our guidelines on plan 24 endorsement which we're still working through and 25 we're still getting comments on; so I think 5 1 there's been a lot of positive direction moving 2 towards consolidation and coming up with one map 3 and getting ready for the State Plan 4 cross-acceptance process. 5 So I want to thank the staff and 6 others on the commission that worked very hard to 7 get to this point; so we expect feedback from, 8 obviously, the commission members today. Some of 9 this is the first time they're going to see this, 10 so that's it, Michelle. 11 MR. BYERS: Thanks. The only thing 12 I'd like to add to that is we adopted a new State 13 Plan just a couple years ago after having gone 14 through a long cross-acceptance process, and 15 effectively rewritten a plan that added a lot of 16 policies; and our goal at this point, is to do 17 the best possible -- make the best possible 18 effort to limit cross-acceptance, and not rewrite 19 the plan, but to focus people on specific areas 20 of the plan and not to go through a rewrite and 21 put out a brand new preliminary plan. 22 So we're doing our best to get to 23 implementation instead of spending another three 24 to five years on rewriting the plan and putting 25 off implementation to that point, and I'm saying 6 1 that because I sort of -- taking liberty of 2 saying that as the chair of the committee, that's 3 what I've been pushing for, for the last few 4 months, and I think there's general agreement 5 from the commission on that. 6 And then secondly, what we would 7 like to do today is we'll have a presentation is 8 to get, as Tim said, the data from the various 9 agencies that can inform the State Plan map and 10 improve the State Plan map that we have now, so 11 that we can get that more fine-tuned to better 12 represent growth areas and nongrowth areas, and 13 have a little bit more consensus about the 14 integrity of that map than we've got right now. 15 So I think that's been a major issue 16 for a long time; but now having the DEP going 17 through the map process, we have a lot better 18 data than we did back, even a few years ago, so 19 you'll hear a little bit about that today; and 20 then the last part of it is the plan endorsement 21 process which is critical that we establish a 22 plan endorsement process that's clear and does 23 really yield the outcomes that we want at the 24 other end, as opposed to a fuzzy process that 25 makes it very difficult to ascertain whether a 7 1 town or a region is consistent with the State 2 Plan or not. 3 So that's the charge of the 4 committee. That's what I'm interested in seeing 5 happening, and we'll be touching on most, if not 6 all, of those points in the meeting today. Let's 7 move on in the agenda to the cross-acceptance 8 manual. Bill, would you like to come up and go 9 through that with us, please? Bill. 10 MR. HARRISON: This is 30 seconds. 11 We sent out the cross-acceptance manual to the 12 county planners in September. I think all the 13 members of the commission got a copy. We have 14 gotten some comments back, and we encourage those 15 who have not commented, to get us comments so we 16 can make it a better document that will give 17 towns and counties the guidance they need to go 18 through cross-acceptance. 19 But at this point, we're awaiting 20 comments. As I said, we've gotten a handful, but 21 ideally, I'd like to get comments and do another 22 draft before we send that out, and make sure we 23 have as good a product as possible before we 24 finalize it after we adopt the rules. 25 MS. BYERS: How broadly was it 8 1 distributed, Bill? Who has gotten it, who hasn't 2 gotten it? What do we need to do to get it out? 3 MR. HARRISON: It's on the OSG 4 website. It went out to all the county planners, 5 and it went to you. That's pretty much it. 6 There have been some other people that have asked 7 for it, and gotten copies, but it is available on 8 the website and we give people hard copies if 9 they want it. 10 MS. BYERS: I think it's about 40 11 some odd pages, right? 12 MR. HARRISON: Right. 13 MS. BYERS: So it might be hard for 14 some people to download that off the web, so if 15 we could get hard copies available, that would be 16 great. 17 MR. HARRISON: People could call, 18 and then we'd get it out to them. 19 MS. BYERS: Okay. 20 MR. TOUHEY: Bill, what's been the 21 general concern so far about the cross-acceptance 22 manual comments? Is there a comment theme? 23 MR. HARRISON: Well, the comment 24 theme has been the people have commented, but 25 it's been an improvement on its predecessor. The 9 1 other -- the biggest concern that has been raised 2 is what map changes would occur during 3 cross-acceptance, and I think we put in some 4 language that was intended to clarify the 5 relationship between plan endorsements and 6 cross-acceptance. It seems to have confused the 7 people, so we'll fix that language to make it 8 clear that map amendments can occur through the 9 cross-acceptance process. 10 MR. TOUHEY: Would you repeat that 11 again, Bill? 12 MR. HARRISON: And amendments can 13 occur through the cross-acceptance process. 14 MR. TOUHEY: Thank you. 15 MS. BYERS: Anything else? Any 16 questions for Bill from the public on the 17 cross-acceptance manual? 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I, as the public, 19 have not gotten a copy of that. 20 MS. BYERS: All you need to do is 21 call, and you'll get a copy sent to you. 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: There is some 23 coming down now. 24 MS. BYERS: They'll be copies 25 available today. 10 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: When is the 2 closing period for comments? 3 MR. HARRISON: We can't adopt the 4 manual until we adopt the rules. We're 5 encouraging people to get comments in as quickly 6 as possible so we can make revisions and get 7 another draft out, but, you know, the rules would 8 not be adopted until the January State Planning 9 Commission meeting, so in theory, you have until 10 the end of December to get us comments. 11 MS. BYERS: I think what we wanted 12 to do now is move right into review and 13 discussion of the maps, cross-acceptance maps and 14 the process. 15 MR. TOUHEY: Before you do that, and 16 I always get this sense from those that attend 17 these meetings, I want to be very clear. We want 18 this to be a very open process. Not only do we 19 want large participation, we think that probably, 20 again, I don't have the institutional history 21 with cross-acceptance prior; but what I keep 22 hearing at large from a variety of leaders and 23 communities and municipalities is that everyone 24 is focused on this time, so we'd like to get it 25 right, and we think we have a unique opportunity 11 1 to do that. 2 We have great participation across 3 the board from all state agencies. We have 4 leadership at the top that wants this to happen 5 and happen in the right process, so we are 6 limited in staff at times, it's fair to say, 7 Adam? 8 MR. ZELLNER: Fair to say. 9 MR. TOUHEY: So your input is 10 welcome, and that's what we want this to be. 11 Thank you, Michelle. 12 MS. BYERS: Okay. 13 MR. FISHER: Excuse me, Michelle? 14 Can I just ask one question before we go to the 15 maps? Bill or maybe Adam, in the schedule there 16 is talk about a Smart Growth resource form, 17 January to March as a general time frame, and you 18 talked about it a little bit in the public 19 outreach section, but what's really intended by 20 that event or series of events? Could you 21 explain more kind of the objectives and what 22 you're doing to prepare to, I guess, send out 23 invitations to it and get that up and running? 24 MR. ZELLNER: Sure. As you guys 25 probably know, the Office of Smart Growth has had 12 1 a resource kit for a while that describes the 2 different resources from the different 3 departments that are waiting for Smart Growth to 4 help redevelop and etc. Otherwise, known as the 5 Drake Report, to give credit where credit is due. 6 We have been working with the 7 departments and sort of, again, to echo Tim's 8 comments before, I want to thank the folks up 9 here in all the hard work getting the data layers 10 together. Because in addition to those data 11 layers, as you know, we have been working very 12 hard to also pull resources together and to begin 13 to have the departments focus their efforts 14 around the Smart Growth efforts around the 15 process. 16 What we envision doing is over the 17 next couple of months, we will begin to finalize 18 those resources that are available, and we will 19 go out and try to make them available to the 20 public through public outreach, through seminars. 21 We're not sure exactly the vehicle yet. We're 22 looking to probably team up with other partners 23 out there, the league, association of counties, 24 builders, other interest groups, environmental 25 groups, etc. that have an interest in helping us 13 1 get the word out, and we'll be coming together 2 with the final details probably in a few weeks. 3 So we're just waiting for the 4 session to get over so we can sum up all the 5 benefits that are available once they wrap up the 6 legislative session, probably some time late in 7 December is my guess, so that's it. 8 MR. FISHER: Thanks. 9 MS. BYERS: Okay. Can we move onto 10 the cross-acceptance maps? Who is going to do 11 that? 12 MR. ZELLNER: I think we're waiting 13 for Steve to arrive with the actual maps 14 themselves. 15 MR. HARRISON: I can explain what 16 we're doing, and then hopefully the visual aid 17 will appear. We got the data layers from DOT, 18 Department of Agriculture and DEP. What we're 19 going to be sending out is the environmentally 20 sensitive areas, as identified by DEP, which will 21 be on the map as well as the important 22 agriculture lands that the Department of 23 Agriculture identified along with various 24 transportation projects that DOT has identified. 25 Those will all be put on one map 14 1 with the State Plan layers. Overlaid on that is 2 white lines with the appropriate planning layer 3 written within the boundaries, so you can 4 immediately see how the planning areas match up 5 with the data layers, identify discrepancies, 6 inconsistencies, and it should be fairly easy for 7 a town or a county to say oh, gee, given this 8 data, it may make sense to switch this planning 9 area from two to 4B for example, or it may make 10 sense to switch something three to two, depending 11 upon what data is out there. 12 We'll also be sending out a separate 13 map with simply the State Plan on it with the 14 normal coloration so people can see that. 15 Everything is being done at quad scale, you know, 16 so each municipality will get each quad that 17 covers that municipality and each county will get 18 every quad that covers that; and without a map, 19 that's all I can say but it is very easy when you 20 look at the maps to match up the planning areas 21 with the data layers from the state agencies and 22 see how well they match up and where they don't 23 match up. 24 MS. BYERS: Is the data layer that 25 includes approved sewer service areas available 15 1 as well? Because I think that's always been one 2 of the problems between the planning areas and -- 3 MR. HARRISON: One of the things, 4 and we are hoping to get feedback from the 5 counties and municipalities, is we're still not 6 fully comfortable that we have an accurate 7 mapping of where the sewer services are, where 8 the actual sewers in the ground are, and that we 9 are hoping that is among the feedback we get from 10 the counties and municipalities, hopefully before 11 we do the preliminary State Plan so we can get 12 that information correct when we do that. 13 MS. BYERS: Can you talk a little 14 bit more about the process, as far as how those 15 maps are going to be distributed and what role 16 the commission and this committee would have in 17 that process? 18 MR. HARRISON: We're going to give 19 one county to each member of the commission, and 20 you'll go and distribute it. 21 MS. BYERS: That will be 22 interesting. 23 MR. HARRISON: Well, as each county 24 is done, we'll be mailing it out to the county 25 and the municipalities in that county. It will 16 1 go with, I'll call it an explanation sheet, so 2 they understand what they're getting. It just 3 won't be limited to a caption on the bottom that 4 says this color equals this or the shading equals 5 this, a little explanation as to what the 6 information means that they can go to the DEP web 7 site and get further detailed information on the 8 information that is contained within the DEP 9 layers. 10 And then we're going to get a bunch 11 of questions; but the county planners are meeting 12 on Friday and we should be able to bring the same 13 maps we're going to show you, and show them and 14 give them an illustrative, so they'll at least 15 understand when they get them what the colors 16 mean and what everything is showing, and be able 17 to do that; and there is a second county planners 18 meeting in December, after which, they will 19 receive the maps and we can answer more detailed 20 questions that they have. 21 The staff, you know, as always, will 22 be going out to different meetings of the 23 counties and municipalities to answer any 24 questions they have. 25 MS. BYERS: So, are there going to 17 1 be maps that go to each town, into the 566 towns, 2 as well as to the counties? 3 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 4 MR. ZELLNER: I will just add to 5 that, interested parties can get them, and 6 they're also going to be available 7 electronically. The paper is obviously for those 8 who don't have an electronic access. Electronic 9 is probably easier to look at it, so they have it 10 both ways. 11 MR. FISHER: Bill, can you explain 12 to us what went into the data layers for 13 Agriculture, Transportation and DEP? Do you know 14 off the top of your head? In other words, what 15 comprises, how did Agriculture come to or 16 maybe Roberta -- 17 MR. HARRISON: All the agencies -- 18 this is still a work in progress. This is not 19 intended to be a final version of their thing, 20 and part of this process is to get information 21 back to the agencies, so they can refine their 22 maps. The Agriculture identified the areas with 23 prime agriculture soils, and there is a second 24 category, whose name I should remember, and then 25 they broke that down into areas with sewers in 18 1 sewer service areas, without sewers, and with no 2 sewers available were their basic breakdowns. 3 The Department of Environmental Protection, I'm 4 not going to remember all the information that 5 went into it. It was Threatened Endangered 6 Species, both state and federal -- I 7 don't -- wetlands. 8 MR. PURDIE: We've got a beach data 9 layer, open space layer -- 10 MR. TOUHEY: Why don't you come to 11 the mike. Thanks. 12 MR. PURDIE: Beach, open space, 13 natural heritage priority sites. We're using our 14 landscape data maps, natural heritage priority 15 sites, open space, beach, landscape maps ranks 16 three, four and five in certain planning areas. 17 We have wetlands. We have subwatershed layers 18 with watersheds containing category one waters, 19 watersheds containing and draining into service 20 water intakes, watersheds containing reservoirs. 21 We have a variety of data layers 22 based on that. Ground water recharge areas, and 23 we differentiate between the built up and not 24 built up areas with sewers and no sewers, and 25 that's pretty much it. 19 1 MS. BYERS: Is that all? Any other 2 questions from the committee? 3 MR. TOUHEY: Bill, talk a little bit 4 about, because I know it was raised as a concern 5 regarding what we're going to be providing on 6 population numbers and potential job growth 7 opportunities. Is there anything that we're 8 going to be providing as it relates to that? 9 MR. HARRISON: This information was 10 just intended to be a mapping exercise. We are 11 working on doing the population and employment 12 provisions. We're going to be sending out a 13 range of numbers, you know, going through what 14 Department of Labor, etc., had come up with and 15 say, you know, this is the high, this is the low. 16 And, you know, then that will also 17 go out for comment as to one of the comments we 18 got on the rule, one of the counties, Monmouth 19 County said that we should use their population 20 projection versus anything else the state has 21 done, and we're going to want that feedback back 22 from them, but, you know, we're going to be 23 giving a range and see how everything fits 24 together and make sure the sound is correct, and 25 not everyone is low balling or high balling. 20 1 Low balling being the more likely, 2 make sure everything comes together to come to an 3 appropriate statewide total. 4 MS. BYERS: While we're waiting for 5 the maps, can we start the discussion about the 6 State Plan policy map amendments and the process 7 that we're going to go through to make 8 amendments? 9 MR. ZELLNER: I just want to add one 10 more thing. There are other layers, to complete 11 your question. DOT has layers on their COAH 12 sites and a variety of other information. 13 Transit, even within the DOT structure, capital 14 improvement projects, bridge projects, even great 15 road conditions; so where you have, you know, 16 your DEF standards that people would be worried 17 about, they're listed on there so there's 18 additional layers that are there too. 19 And what we'll do is we'll provide 20 an accurate list of all of those layers so 21 everybody can see them, but I also want to make 22 clear, so people don't think this is the most 23 confusing map in America, that it is structured 24 in a sense that you can see, for example, when 25 DEP has a certain whatever on the map; and then 21 1 you would be required to go through those down 2 layers to get into the more specific because, if 3 not, it would be a 500 color map and it wouldn't 4 make much sense, so I want to clarify that that's 5 how it comes out in the view, and hopefully when 6 Steve gets here -- I know he's stuck across the 7 bridge. That's it. 8 MS. BYERS: I'd like to go ahead and 9 start the discussion about the process of making 10 map amendments. That's the second bullet 11 underneath this item for the agenda. Can you do 12 that, Bill? 13 MR. HARRISON: There are a couple of 14 points in this process that the current State 15 Plan map will undergo changes. The first part of 16 that is what we're doing now, is sending the data 17 out to the counties and municipalities to get 18 their input as to what changes they think should 19 be made. 20 While that's going on, we're going 21 to be sitting down with the state agencies, 22 trying to reconcile differences between the 23 agencies, and make the determination when we get 24 it. After we've done that, we get the feedback 25 from the counties and municipalities, and we'll 22 1 be recommending changes to the State Plan map 2 that will go with the preliminary State Plan that 3 will be proposed in March. 4 That's in response to the comments 5 we've gotten from municipalities and counties 6 that they want the state agencies to go through 7 cross-acceptance, so the map that will be 8 accompanying the preliminary State Plan will 9 reflect a consensus of the state agencies, you 10 know, in effect, state agency cross-acceptance 11 will be the map that they agree should be going 12 out, not that they think this is the final map. 13 The whole point of cross-acceptance 14 is to do that, and we will be incorporating, at 15 least some of the county and municipal comments 16 will get there reflecting where we think things 17 should be going or we think their approach is a 18 correct approach. Then, there will be the formal 19 cross-acceptance process where the state 20 planning -- the preliminary State Plan, as well 21 as the map, will be discussed with the agencies. 22 As Michelle said, the State Plan is 23 relatively current. It's more going to be the 24 mapping issues that will be discussed during that 25 process because of the information from the state 23 1 agencies where that's updating the information 2 that was available in 2000 and early 2001 when 3 the State Plan was last adopted; so the focus 4 will be on map amendments based on the new 5 information from the state agencies. 6 While that is going on, we will be 7 working on cross-acceptance. As you're aware, 8 many of the cabinets have previously received 9 Smart Growth grants. There are additional 10 entities that have now received Smart Future 11 grants. We'll be working with them on plan 12 endorsement, and that will be the process where, 13 you know, centers will now be designated, and 14 there will be refinements in the map, the State 15 Plan map, that will occur during that process 16 where boundary lines are adjusted to be more 17 easily administered and to tie into the municipal 18 zoning. 19 MS. BYERS: So the preliminary plan 20 will include a map that will be adopted by the 21 commission before it goes out that will 22 incorporate the state agency changes including 23 feedback that comes in from the counties and 24 towns? 25 MR. HARRISON: Right. 24 1 MS. BYERS: So that will come back 2 here, and the commission will adopt and propose a 3 preliminary plan and map to go to 4 cross-acceptance? 5 MR. HARRISON: Correct. 6 MS. BYERS: Does everybody 7 understand that? Does that make sense? 8 MR. FISHER: That would be done, 9 what, around March, right? 10 MR. HARRISON: Right. 11 MR. FISHER: Presumably, at our 12 March meeting we would review prior to that 13 whatever the preliminary plan is? 14 MR. HARRISON: Right, we would 15 both -- we would be going over with the PIC in 16 February, and probably the PIC meeting in 17 January, start going over some of the basic ideas 18 with you in February, and show you a preliminary, 19 preliminary map and we find that for the March 20 State Planning Commission meeting. 21 MR. FISHER: As always, I'm 22 concerned about the growth component in the plan, 23 and I realize that we've gotten the data layers 24 in from the various agencies, some of which talk 25 to growth issues like transportation. You 25 1 mentioned sewer service areas, and you're not 2 quite certain as to the extent of all the sewer 3 service areas throughout the state; but to what 4 extent is the staff and/or the various state 5 agencies looking at how we can accommodate, what 6 we believe to be, the projected growth for the 7 next 20 years into either proposed centers, 8 existing centers, planning areas one and two? 9 We had talked several months ago 10 about population projections that might be 11 developed, but I think at the last meeting, I 12 don't know whether it was Marge or Robin 13 mentioned that we're not getting updated numbers 14 from Rutgers or from one source. We're 15 collecting a variety of different, I guess, data 16 sources to compile population projections for the 17 next planning period; and what are we doing 18 between now and when these maps are to be 19 released, to insure that we have adequate room to 20 fit that anticipated population? 21 MR. TOUHEY: Bill, before you -- in 22 the last few meetings, David, I've raised this 23 very point, and what I understand, and that's why 24 I ask the question of Bill is that -- we will be 25 relying on some of the Rutgers numbers and other 26 1 Department of Labor numbers as it relates to both 2 employment and growth as a way to get to the 3 counties; and the counties have their own, if you 4 will, projections to respond to that, so someone 5 may have misspoke regarding the Rutgers meeting. 6 I wasn't here, but I want to make sure you 7 understand that. 8 MR. FISHER: Are these new numbers 9 Rutgers is developing, or are they enhanced 10 numbers based on -- 11 MR. TOUHEY: These are the new 12 numbers, as I understand. 13 MR. ZELLNER: They are enhanced 14 based on the 2000 census, and as you know, we 15 have a variety of agencies who collect numbers as 16 is. Department of Labor has been doing that. 17 They're also the MPOs in the state who use a 18 slightly different methodology of collecting 19 numbers. 20 Some of the counties have a 21 methodology of collecting numbers, and one of the 22 things we didn't want to get into was, well, if 23 it becomes a fight as to whose projections are 24 accurate. So what we have done is we've said to 25 the counties, we will provide a range based on 27 1 several different sources, and you as a county, 2 so that you don't have individual towns that can 3 work within a county structure to look at what 4 that county's growth projections are going to be, 5 settle on a projection based on this range and 6 look within their endorsement plan to accommodate 7 such a projection. 8 So as they build towards their 9 master plan individually, those master plans are 10 incorporated into the county plans and they, of 11 course, are incorporated into the State Plan; so 12 that's basically what we've been doing, and I 13 think we've all been down this road. People get 14 into the, well, their methodology does it this 15 way, and it becomes just a battle over whose 16 numbers rather than folks being able to present 17 at least a range of numbers based on different 18 sources. 19 MR. FISHER: Okay. 20 MR. TOUHEY: Also beyond that, the 21 Department of Agriculture, and again correct me 22 if I'm wrong, is that they gave us a priority in 23 their map being where they would see some of the 24 preservation being invested, and so obviously, 25 that's a priority from Department of Agriculture. 28 1 It's going to be in the other communities where 2 the dollars won't be going to potential growth 3 opportunities; is that fair? 4 MS. LANG: Yes, not all communities 5 will be receiving funds for farming and 6 preservation because there is just not 7 agricultural lands there, so that's fair to say. 8 MR. FISHER: And just one follow up. 9 Back in August, you sent the commission a copy of 10 the proposal, and they called it Growth Fit, and 11 I think the whole purpose there was to remind the 12 commission that, especially in this round of 13 cross-acceptance, when we adopted the 2001 plan, 14 everyone had called for, you know, it's time to 15 implement the plan and to make it work, 16 especially in areas where we need to encourage 17 growth and redevelopment. 18 So I was wondering what the reaction 19 was by either the staff or the other agencies to 20 that concept and how working with the counties 21 and municipalities on anticipated ranges and 22 projections we hope to accomplish, I guess, 23 amendments or revisions to the State Plan map and 24 process to promote that type of strategy. 25 MR. ZELLNER: There's two things. 29 1 One, we did, obviously, through the comments and 2 in part the strategy of looking at these range of 3 numbers. We are for the first time trying to 4 provide to counties and municipalities numbers, 5 so they actually can make some decisions based on 6 long term growth projections that are real. 7 Two, the Office of Smart Growth is 8 going to be looking at these plans, and in part, 9 I think this is a big accomplishment with these 10 data layers being pulled together because for the 11 first time, municipalities and counties, and I 12 saw from the League before, this is going to be a 13 great tool for folks to be able to make the 14 long-term planning decisions that I think we 15 have, as a state, lacked in giving them. 16 So it's been difficult for a 17 municipality or a county to make those kind of 18 projections because, frankly, we've never as a 19 state been able to provide the kind of resources 20 that say here is where our dollars are going to 21 go, here's where we're going to help you address 22 your concerns about the growth because, again, I 23 think the comment was that I think people are all 24 going to go towards the low side of the range. 25 That is indicative of the fact that 30 1 people are concerned about growth because of tax 2 structure and everything else, infrastructure, 3 quality of life issues. I think a big part of us 4 working with municipalities and counties in 5 identifying where the states resources are going 6 to go, is going to help them where the growth is 7 going to go, so we can accommodate it in a way 8 that doesn't scare everybody. 9 So we can get the trains or the mass 10 transit and the bus routes and the ferries and 11 the things that people want in place before it 12 happens, or as its happening, rather than the 13 reactionary world I think we've all lived in, so 14 we did take it very seriously. Again, all are 15 going to be incorporated in our discussions, and 16 again, I think by providing both avenues of the 17 information and the projections, you begin for 18 the first time to be able to see it for the long 19 term plan based on landings in a county and 20 municipality; so, yes, we will be working very 21 closely to look at that, and make sure the 22 counties are looking to accommodate what they see 23 is their range of projection. 24 MS. BYERS: Are there any other 25 comments from the committee, and do we have any 31 1 idea when Steve will get here with the maps? 2 What I'd like to do then is ask if there are any 3 public comments on this portion of the agenda 4 that deals with the cross-acceptance manual, how 5 the maps are going to be put together and 6 distributed for comment and how map amendments 7 are going to be made. I'd like you to come up, 8 please, to the microphone and give your name for 9 the record, and limit comments just to this 10 portion of the agenda. 11 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: I'll go first. 12 MS. BYERS: Name, please. 13 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: I'm Don 14 Kirchhoffer from the New Jersey Conservation 15 Foundation, and try desperately in my job to keep 16 up with what you're doing partially successful. 17 MR. TOUHEY: Me too, Don. 18 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: My basic concern, 19 and I need to understand because I think the 20 language today has been vague, as far as I'm 21 concerned, is the map amendments. My positive 22 comment is to urge you to officially adopt 23 changes in the maps as a result of this data that 24 you've got rather than place it through the whole 25 cross-acceptance. You've come very close to 32 1 saying that, but you don't quite say that, and I 2 think I heard something that is contrary to the 3 rules. 4 If you're going to officially amend 5 it, it's in the present rules, the process that 6 you have to do, and my only point to make is that 7 you recommend that you do that before you go into 8 cross-acceptance. The primary reason for that is 9 that, as I understand, you're going to be doing 10 plan endorsement during the year and 18 months 11 that you are going to spend on cross-acceptance. 12 If you're going to do that, on a map that is 13 knowingly out-of-date and not what you want, it 14 just seems to me that that's a fatal flaw in the 15 process that you're going through. Thank you. 16 MR. TOUHEY: Before we have more, 17 can I respond? Because this has been an issue, 18 an issue where I've gotten a number of calls, but 19 in the sense of a fair and open process, for 20 those, and I'll use your words, for those 21 groupies, that don't follow us around and hold on 22 to every word that may be for the first time in a 23 long time, we may have public interest at a level 24 we've never had before as we're going through 25 cross-acceptance and find denied some discussion 33 1 or opportunity to cross-acceptance, and make some 2 change to the map, I don't know if that's a fair 3 process either. 4 So what we're saying is, and correct 5 me if I'm wrong, staff, diligently through plan 6 endorsement to make these changes, however, we're 7 going out in a critical time where everybody is 8 watching us, and that maybe at a very intense 9 level, strong discussions, and let's not kid 10 ourselves. I think for the last 15 months all I 11 heard was is about the map, is the map right, 12 this is the DEP map, this is a Department of 13 Agriculture map, this is the DOT map. 14 So the sense that we can't, in 15 cross-acceptance, deal with some of those issues 16 if they arise, I don't know if that's fair. 17 That's just my feeling, and take on this. I 18 can't speak for all the commission members, and 19 I'd like to get your feedback on that. 20 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: Can I respond? 21 Again, that doesn't deal with the what you're 22 going to do during the plan endorsement period, 23 and second, I think that if you look at the State 24 Plan policy map to get a big view of the map, I 25 think when you go to the municipality and 34 1 counties, you're going to get this detailed stuff 2 that if you saw two step -- if you went through, 3 and in your judgment it is a good State Plan map, 4 based on the new data that you've got, so that 5 you then make a pick on the little parks because 6 everybody knows has had the experience of going 7 anyplace on the map and you lay it on the table, 8 and as soon as you do, you're in trouble and 9 that's what's going to happen with all 10 cross-acceptance. 11 MR. TOUHEY: We think -- 12 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: I urge you, again, 13 to officially approve it before it goes out, 14 particularly for plan endorsement. 15 MS. BYERS: We are going to 16 officially approve it because the commission will 17 adopt a preliminary plan, and a preliminary map 18 to go to cross-acceptance, so it will be an 19 adopted map that will then go through to 20 cross-acceptance. 21 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: That was my 22 confusion because if you say that, I don't hear 23 -- you have a process in the present rules that 24 you have to go through. Are you going to go 25 through that process and adopt it? If you're 35 1 going to do that, I'll be quiet, but I didn't 2 understand that to be. What you send out, will 3 this be the map that will be used for plan 4 endorsement in the 18 months? 5 MS. BYERS: Bill, could you respond 6 to that on the rules? 7 MR. HARRISON: There are two 8 separate issues, and the question for the State 9 Planning Commission is whether, in addition to 10 proposing a -- with a new map, with a preliminary 11 plan, whether you want to amend the current State 12 Plan map to reflect the new data as making 13 changes that are consistent with the current 14 policies and the State Plan, and say this revised 15 map is more consistent with those policies, and 16 then that map will be used for plan endorsement. 17 Well, the separate map, which could 18 be an identical map, is going out to the 19 cross-acceptance process and would be changed as 20 it goes through that process; and if you are 21 doing that, you have to go through the process 22 that is set forth in your rules for amending the 23 State Plan map, but that's a choice you have to 24 make is to, you know, when and how you want to 25 incorporate the new data that you have from the 36 1 state agencies into the, formally into the State 2 Plan map. 3 In addition, you want to wait until 4 you go through cross-acceptance, or you want to 5 incorporate at least some of that data initially, 6 and then make further changes to the 7 cross-acceptance process. 8 MS. BYERS: It seems to me that my 9 suggestion would be that we would go through the 10 process that you outlined, to revise the State 11 Plan map based on the new data and the input from 12 the counties and municipalities, have a 13 preliminary map that goes through 14 cross-acceptance; and at the same time, go 15 through a rule amendment process so that as we do 16 plan endorsement, the same map that is going 17 through cross-acceptance is being used for plan 18 endorsement. 19 Knowing it may change slightly 20 through cross-acceptance again, at least we would 21 have, you know, the same map that's being used 22 for both processes rather than the current map 23 and a proposed map to the preliminary and 24 cross-acceptance process. I don't know how 25 difficult that could be, but it certainly doesn't 37 1 make sense to me to be doing plan endorsement 2 based on the current map and going through 3 cross-acceptance with a proposed preliminary map 4 that everybody agreed has the most recent data 5 and has the input from counties and towns. That 6 would be, I think, not a good process for us. 7 MR. ESKILSON: I'm having a little 8 trouble following this, so I'm with you, Don. I 9 thought what we were doing was incorporating the 10 state agency data into the map, adopting that map 11 as part of the plan that goes out for 12 cross-acceptance, so that local government has 13 the opportunity to cross accept that map. That 14 map is also the map that may be amended through 15 the plan endorsement process, through local 16 governments bringing it forward, petitions for 17 plan endorsement. Is there something else I'm 18 missing? 19 MR. TOUHEY: Michelle said the same 20 thing but in a different way, but I think that's, 21 John, what is being laid out. 22 MS. BYERS: But there is a little 23 glitch here, and that is, that if we use the 24 current plan, rather than the proposed 25 preliminary plan that has the new state agency 38 1 data in it, if we go to plan endorsement under 2 the rules right now without formally changing 3 that plan, then when we go to plan endorsement, 4 towns and counties are going to have to use the 5 current plan for plan endorsement, not the 6 preliminary plan that is going through 7 cross-acceptance. 8 And that, I think, is a glitch and 9 something that we are going to address and fix 10 now because it wouldn't be fair for the towns, 11 and it would be hamstringing us to some degree, 12 going through the plan endorsement based on a map 13 that is not going through cross-acceptance. 14 MR. TOUHEY: John, if I understood 15 you right, I think you just said the same thing. 16 That we wouldn't be adopting a preliminary map, 17 Michelle, and that is what you're suggesting. 18 That preliminary map would be used during the 19 plan endorsement process. 20 MS. BYERS: Only if we adopt it. 21 MR. TOUHEY: Let me finish. Then 22 through cross-acceptance, once -- preliminary 23 means, to me, preliminary, and through 24 cross-acceptance, when we're all said and done, 25 that's when we adopt the final State Plan map, 39 1 but you're suggesting in the rules that we would 2 have to amend and adopt the preliminary map as 3 part of the plan endorsements process. 4 MS. BYERS: To be able to use it in 5 the plan endorsement process in advance of the 6 completion of cross-acceptance. 7 MR. TOUHEY: To me, that is two 8 different issues -- 9 MR. ESKILSON: I get the problem. 10 MR. TOUHEY: I want to make sure 11 because this is, and I'm looking at Marge when I 12 say this, again, if we adopt it during plan 13 endorsement preliminary map after all the data 14 layers are in, that's what we're going to use 15 during the plan endorsement process. However, 16 the counties, municipalities and towns are going 17 to respond to that preliminary adopted map and 18 through cross-acceptance, it could change. 19 I'm going to say could and probably 20 will, and after that process is the final map 21 because there is a sense out there that you won't 22 be able to make any changes during the 23 cross-acceptance process, and I don't want that 24 to be. 25 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: You called it a 40 1 preliminary map. If you adopt it, it is the map. 2 It's not a preliminary. If you adopt that map, 3 which in turn can be changed -- 4 MR. TOUHEY: Doesn't the rules allow 5 the adoption of a preliminary map? I thought the 6 rules allowed that. Within the rules, adopting a 7 preliminary State Plan; is that the question? 8 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: If you adopt a 9 map, it's no longer preliminary. 10 MS. BYERS: Bill, why don't you try 11 to summarize this for everyone, and bring it to a 12 head. 13 MR. TOUHEY: I can't wait for 14 cross-acceptance. It will be fun. 15 MR. HARRISON: There will be two. 16 If the State Planning Commission decides to 17 change the current State Plan map, there will 18 really be two things going on simultaneously. 19 One, you will have revised the map. You will 20 also be going out with a map, probably the same 21 map that's part of the preliminary State Plan 22 that can be cross accepted, and the towns and 23 counties interest groups can suggest changes too. 24 And presumably there will be changes 25 made during the cross-acceptance as during plan 41 1 endorsement there will be changes made, including 2 center designations and things of that nature. 3 Probably the most important message in this is 4 whatever you do in March is not going to be a 5 fixed object that is going to be written in 6 stone. It is going to be an evolving document 7 going through cross-acceptance and plan 8 endorsement as data gets defined and more 9 localized information gets brought in. 10 MR. ZELLNER: I'm going to add one 11 more thing just to make this real simple because 12 this is a classic government conversation. 13 Sussex has a plan. They're looking for plan 14 endorsement. This is real simple, and it's real 15 easy. We're going to go to Sussex County during 16 cross-acceptance, and you know what plan they're 17 going to present to us during cross-acceptance? 18 The same plan that they're going to have in plan 19 endorsement. 20 We are going to be working together 21 to walk and chew gum, to be able to look at the 22 plan with the additional information that we have 23 on it as to the preliminary plan. That is why 24 we've gone through this process of bringing all 25 this state data together in a painful, painful 42 1 process, and now it's all together. We want to 2 use that because it would be silly not to use it 3 as we go through this process, but I think people 4 need to take a deep breath. 5 We are going to be going out, and 6 looking at, as we go through cross-acceptance, 7 the comments based on what people see with this 8 new information. Any endorsed plan is going to 9 have to look exactly the same because we're not 10 going to be able to endorse a plan that they 11 would come out with that looks totally different 12 than what they're looking for in 13 cross-acceptance. 14 So we are going to be able to get 15 this together, and it will match up and we will 16 be using the new data as we go out on the 17 preliminary plan; so I want to make it clear 18 that, yes, we may need to make some amendments to 19 our rules to make this all possible and we're 20 working on what we need to as we get our comments 21 in right now. 22 We just got it all together, the 23 data we need to look at it first, make some 24 rational decisions after we look at, get our 25 comments from our internal partners out there so 43 1 we're not jumping before we hear from everybody; 2 so I want to add that and to let people know that 3 we are going to be able to do this 4 simultaneously, and I think pretty officially. 5 MS. BYERS: That is great, but I'm 6 thinking about, you know, the bits and pieces of 7 what we have to do to get that to happen, so does 8 that mean that we have to formally go through the 9 rules to adopt a new amended plan as well as 10 propose a preliminary plan and make sure they're 11 the same thing? There are two processes that we 12 have to do. 13 Can those both be done in parallel, 14 and can we get them done in time to meet our 15 schedule, so we're not confusing everyone, so we 16 are all operating with the same proposed plan? 17 Because as you said, it's not going to be fixed 18 in stone, but it's got to be the same template 19 that everyone is working off of. 20 MR. ESKILSON: As I understand it, I 21 think we can have it all ways here. There is a 22 process by which we amend the map. That's what 23 we're going through now in reviewing the state 24 agency data. We will officially amend the map. 25 That's now our map because it's gone through the 44 1 process of amendment as laid out in the rules. 2 Then there's this other set of rules that says 3 that map becomes the preliminary map because that 4 is how the rules explain. It is one in the same 5 thing. 6 MS. BYERS: If it is, that's fine. 7 That's my question. 8 MR. ESKILSON: Make it so somehow. 9 Please, make it so. 10 MR. HARRISON: We will make it so. 11 MS. BYERS: Thank you, John. 12 MS. ASHMAN: Could I comment, 13 please? 14 MS. BYERS: Go ahead. 15 MS. AHSMAN: I'm Candy Ashman. I am 16 a former member of the commission, and did the 17 first cross-acceptance. As a chair of that 18 committee, I can suffer with you and I was 19 involved in the second cross-acceptance, and 20 so -- 21 MS. BYERS: And you're back for a 22 third time. 23 MS. ASHMAN: I congratulate you on 24 the streamlining, but if you get through this in 25 less than two years, it will be a miracle. Maybe 45 1 you'll pull off a miracle. I don't know. As far 2 as the map is concerned, the thing that appeals 3 to me about getting this data into the map is so 4 you'll be playing with a full deck when you go 5 through plan endorsement during this process. 6 I would point out to you that you 7 don't even have to wait to adopt the new rules 8 because the process is in the existing rule. You 9 can start tomorrow morning. You don't have to 10 wait, which is a whole other wait. It will also 11 provide the public with some opportunity which we 12 don't have now because it's all going to 13 municipalities and the counties, and it's very 14 difficult for us to participate, but we can 15 participate when you do your hearings for the map 16 amendment process. 17 And I just would say that that's 18 really critical, and I'm glad you finally have 19 all gotten on the same page in that regard. As 20 for the cross-acceptance, you certainly -- I 21 would think, take that same map because if you 22 don't believe in it when you amend it, it seems 23 sort of ridiculous. 24 The only thing might be that you 25 might look at the criteria in the various 46 1 planning areas in the existing plan and want to 2 change them in the preliminary plan, in which 3 case, you'd have to reflect that in the map that 4 you go with the preliminary; so the word 5 preliminary basically means a preliminary plan 6 and map to go for cross-acceptance. 7 The existing plan and its map, and 8 its amended map, because now you have a whole 9 slew of new data, they are two separate issues; 10 but the public had not been involved in any of 11 this up to now, and so I would just ask you to 12 give us all an opportunity and the map amendment 13 process would be a great way to do that for 14 everybody, not just for municipalities and 15 counties. Thank you. 16 MR. TOUHEY: Thank you. 17 MS. AMTECK: Hi. My name is Julia 18 Amteck. I'm from ANGEC, and most of what I was 19 going to say has already been said this morning, 20 but I'd like to reassert our position on some of 21 these issues. We feel it's critically important 22 that the new map reflect most of the information 23 that was mentioned from the DEP, specifically, 24 the landscape data and sewer service areas; and 25 in addition to that, someone mentioned on the 47 1 commission that the municipalities would be faced 2 with the burden of providing where sewers are in 3 the ground in response to the maps that's being 4 sent out? 5 MR. TOUHEY: To clarify, I think 6 feedback and maybe some assistance. I don't want 7 to be sensitive. We're relying on the counties 8 to do all that work, correct? 9 MR. ZELLNER: We provided 10 information based on all the departments, and 11 what we are doing is sending it out to the towns 12 and to the counties to make sure what we see is 13 what they see, so alls we actually are going to 14 have to do is fact check what we have, and if 15 they see everything is being accurate, give us a 16 nice okay and send it back. We want to make sure 17 that's done, so when we get down the road, there 18 is no misunderstanding what we thought versus 19 what they thought. 20 MS. AMTECK: That's wonderful. 21 That's a great process. However, from my 22 understanding, the existence of data as to where 23 sewers are actually in the ground is a big 24 problem, so I'd just like to point out that 25 that's something that hopefully will be addressed 48 1 in its process. 2 And finally, the last thing, just 3 echoing the comments of both Don and Candy, it's 4 critical that we get this new map out and 5 integrate it into the cross-acceptance process, 6 so that towns that come in for plan endorsement 7 are using the most accurate and most up-to-date 8 information with regard to the map. Thank you. 9 MS. AHSMAN: I think there is one 10 other thing, and that is that people don't 11 understand is that this -- we're talking about 12 mile square, and people -- you need to remind 13 people all the time that you're not talking about 14 less than a mile square in terms of the way these 15 lines are drawn because that causes a problem 16 until you get the plan endorsement, and then 17 someone can pick that place smaller. You're 18 mapping, basically, on a mile square, so people 19 need to understand that. 20 MS. ESKILSON: Just a point on the 21 sewer service question. I hope we're going to 22 ask not only for where pipes are actually in the 23 ground, but where plant capacity has been 24 assigned, either through contracts or local 25 approvals, that may not be in the ground but 49 1 certainly is accounted for. I think that's a 2 critical piece of information. 3 MS. AHSMAN: I think the original 4 plan was in the ground or funded or some word, 5 and you need probably another word. 6 MR. ESKILSON: Yeah, contractually 7 assigned or attached to local approvals that may 8 not have a TWA or a sewer extension permit. It 9 may not be on the state's radar screen, but ones 10 I'm familiar with, a series of contracts that 11 assign plant capacity, and it will be very 12 difficult to unwind. I hope we're not going to 13 attempt to do that, but I think that's why it's 14 critical that we have that piece of information 15 as well. 16 MS. BYERS: Any other members of the 17 public would like to comment on this portion of 18 the agenda? 19 MR. TOUHEY: Come on up. 20 MS. CALLUS: Good morning. My name 21 is Megan Callus, New York, New Jersey Baykeeper. 22 Just a quick thing in regards to the map and the 23 amended new map. Although we support the data 24 layers, the DEP has provided to enter into this 25 new map, there is still a problem that urban 50 1 areas have not been well inventoried as a result. 2 Basically, what's happening is a 3 void of data is being translated into these areas 4 being considered growth, and so just as an issue, 5 that needs to be addressed. We need to find out 6 how we can add this information into this data 7 map, and how to adjust this problem because it's 8 huge. We're talking about significant 9 watersheds, basically, having blank spaces 10 because the inventory simply hasn't been done. 11 MS. BYERS: Are you talking about 12 DEP's inventory? 13 MS. CALLUS: Obviously, we've been 14 talking to them directly about this. The 15 inventories can't take place until the spring 16 which is going to be past the time which you go 17 through cross-acceptance. 18 MR. RYAN: Who have you been talking 19 to? 20 MS. CALLUS: Larry Niles, as well as 21 Jean Irv, Mark Marotto, Ruth Enger. 22 MR. TOUHEY: Recast your position 23 again. You're suggesting what again? 24 MS. CALLUS: We're suggesting that, 25 basically, the preliminary map that will 51 1 incorporate the new DEP data layers actually wait 2 a little bit longer for us to do surveys of the 3 urban areas which have not been done, and are not 4 reflected. There is not accurate data in terms 5 of what actually exists in these areas, and so we 6 even need a time frame to allow for those 7 surveys, or somehow more open dialogue with DEP 8 to insure this information that we have already 9 available to us. 10 MR. ZELLNER: It's a big concern in 11 the commission, so, obviously, we recognize in 12 part of urban redevelopment that the environment 13 is a big part of what is happening to urban 14 redevelopment to clear the environment, so we are 15 going through this cross-acceptance process 16 county by county so we can, in part, work with 17 not only the county, the county environmental 18 commissions, the DEP, but also interest groups 19 within those counties that will help us, 20 Baykeeper Riverkeeper. 21 It's going to be a big part of that 22 I know, especially as we get up in Bergen County 23 and those areas, so we're going to be looking. 24 Remember, our time line has us going out until 25 March before we begin; and to Tim's point, the 52 1 preliminary plan, part of what that is also going 2 to do is, as we get out to our urban counties, we 3 will be incorporating information about watershed 4 protection, and the Meadowlands Commission has 5 some things that they have even outside their 6 jurisdiction up the river for protection. 7 So we will be working closely and 8 meeting, of course, encouraging the different 9 interest groups that may have concerns specific 10 to a particular area, and make sure they are at 11 the table and they are making sure they're heard 12 as part of this process, and that's before we go 13 ahead and adopt a map. 14 And I think, before we get to a 15 final adoption, by the time we go through all 21 16 counties and things, DEP will also have updated 17 any information that you guys are looking at for 18 your survey which will have time to be 19 incorporated. 20 MS. CALLUS: What is the time frame 21 that you think we will be allowed to incorporate 22 this data? One of our concerns is that plan 23 endorsement will go forward, and towns will 24 basically determine what will be done based on 25 misleading information, and that particular map 53 1 won't be updated for a long period of time. 2 MR. ZELLNER: We're going to be -- 3 we start in March going through our formal 4 cross-acceptance process. Plan endorsement 5 itself, it varies. There are different counties 6 in varying states going through the process. 7 Again, however, in plan endorsement, there is an 8 opportunity before any plan is endorsed, several 9 opportunities in fact, for members of the public, 10 different commissions, different concerns to come 11 forward and present information to us which we 12 then would work, obviously with DEP very closely 13 on, to make sure that whatever is out there, we 14 have before us, before we endorse any plan. 15 MR. TOUHEY: Does your association 16 or organization, have you begun to do an analysis 17 yourself that you could share information with 18 the commission? 19 MS. CALLUS: Yes. 20 MR. TOUHEY: So that would be great. 21 That's one step. Two, from DEP's process, I'm 22 sure they are working closely with you. Does 23 this time frame concern DEP? And there has been 24 a historical disinvestment in our communities 25 beyond environment that we have to deal with in 54 1 this process as well, and many neighborhoods to 2 see what's happened so I personally -- my bias is 3 to Urban Vitalization, and being very serious 4 about it, so where is DEP on this issue? 5 MR. RYAN: I wasn't aware of this 6 issue until you just brought it up now, and I 7 will discuss with these individuals your 8 concerns, but as Adam said, this process isn't 9 going to be over in March. It's starting in 10 March, and your data is going to be coming March, 11 April, May. I would imagine you could slide it 12 right in because it is a preliminary plan, a 13 preliminary map we are doing. We will make 14 changes, plus we will, plus as we hear more from 15 the counties, so I don't see this as a final 16 thing right now. I see it as the beginning. 17 MS. CALLUS: I hope that's true. 18 The reason why we're particularly concerned and 19 why we're bringing it up right now too is that 20 with our conversations with Larry and others at 21 DEP, they're basically saying that these data 22 layers are closed. They will not be reopened, 23 and so I'm incredibly concerned about that, 24 particularly since we know we're planning on 25 doing service in the spring. We want to make 55 1 sure that information is incorporated before, or 2 at least considered, during the plan endorsement 3 process. 4 Don't get me wrong, Larry is great 5 and really gave us a good idea, but we're 6 concerned that might be incorporated into the 7 landscape data layer, but not in terms of the 8 Smart Growth data layer. Thank you. 9 MS. BYERS: Thank you. 10 MR. KULL: Good morning. I'm Bob 11 Kull from the regional board for Burlington 12 County. I have two comments. One relating to 13 some policy issues regarding projections that I'd 14 like to alert the members of the committee to, 15 and the other regarding the current conversation 16 regarding the amendment of the State Plan map 17 prior to the preliminary plan. 18 If I'm understanding the process 19 correctly, that the committee proposes to amend 20 the State Plan map formally before the 21 preliminary plan goes out. The effect on the 22 counties will be that we're compressing the 23 cross-acceptance process looking at map changes 24 over a year and-a-half to get to the March 2001 25 State Plan. 56 1 It, essentially, compressed to a 30 2 or 60 day window, and at the same time, that 3 we're looking at all the data that's coming in 4 from the Office of Smart Growth and the state 5 agencies, and I don't see a lot of good coming 6 out of that. I think that planners are used to 7 working with changing information; and I would 8 suggest that it's probably better to look at a 9 plan endorsement process that can work with the 10 best available information without complicating 11 it with here is a new State Plan map that 12 suddenly we have to turn around on a dime, and 13 then it's a local cross-acceptance process after 14 that. I think it would be very confusing to 15 local officials and the public. 16 MR. TOUHEY: Your suggestion is what 17 then? 18 MR. KULL: The suggestion is that it 19 will be -- I think it's desirable to incorporate 20 as much new information as you wish into the 21 preliminary plan map, but not to change the 22 current -- not to officially adopt a new State 23 Plan map based on that information until it goes 24 through cross-acceptance or plan endorsement. 25 MR. TOUHEY: I'm trying to 57 1 understand. Your suggestion on the preliminary, 2 again, if we adopt the preliminary map based on 3 the new data layers, that's troubling to the 4 county? What I've heard from them is we're 5 having dialogue, what I've heard for 17 months, 6 is we don't have enough information, at least let 7 me know what's going on and we work very hard to 8 get the stages to give us that data layers to do 9 that, and now I'm hearing something different. 10 MR. KULL: No, you're not hearing 11 different from that. I'm comfortable with 12 incorporating all the new data in the preliminary 13 plan map and adopting it as part of the 14 preliminary plan, but that is not the -- the 15 preliminary plan is not the State Plan that is in 16 effect that the March 2001 policy map has 17 amended, which is the map that state agencies 18 deal with. 19 If there is -- if I'm understanding 20 your discussion correctly, that your proposal is 21 to look at the information that comes in through 22 the state agencies and translate that into a new 23 plan amendment that has a new map, new policy map 24 in it, that is the effective map, then I don't 25 know if I'm comfortable with that or not and I 58 1 will have about 30 days to review that in the 2 same kind of process as the cross-acceptance 3 process would have been, and at the same time 4 that other information is coming. 5 MR. ESKILSON: Bob, if we're 6 following your suggestions, wouldn't that argue 7 that we have to, in essence, stop the plan 8 endorsement process because what we have what we 9 know to be dated information, old information. 10 Why would we go through plan endorsement based on 11 that when we've got all this new information? We 12 showed all our cards. 13 Here is everything we've got. Here 14 is all the state agency pieces. You're cross 15 accepting that realizing there might be changes, 16 but how do you figure the plan endorsement 17 process into this without just stopping it if we 18 follow that suggestion? 19 MR. KULL: My understanding is that 20 the plan endorsement process is the bottom up 21 part of the planning process, and that provides 22 for opportunities to change the map based on the 23 best available information of both local and 24 state information. If you're requiring that the 25 plan that comes from the -- that comes from the 59 1 county be consistent with the adopted State Plan 2 map, then that's a top down process of which your 3 plan must conform with the State Plan. The plan 4 endorsement process, I think, provides that 5 opportunity to incorporate this new information. 6 MR. ESKILSON: But I believe we're 7 allowing for amendment of the map through the 8 plan endorsement process, and that is how that 9 gets flipped, Bob. 10 MR. ZELLNER: I just want to, 11 basically is to -- we get the data. We send it 12 out. There is a limited amount of time for 13 comment. It is a fairly quick turn around, but 14 that's because it is only one of three or four 15 bites that you can actually get out of the apple 16 on it. We're going to adopt a preliminary plan. 17 We're going to go back out there and 18 put everything on the table, and depending on 19 which county we scheduled for several months out 20 beginning in March, which will get everybody 21 through several more months, and depending on 22 when we get there, to relook at that information 23 and put it back out on the table. 24 Whatever your endorsed plan is going 25 to look like, we'll also be, once you come 60 1 forward with the cross-acceptance, so at the end 2 of the day, if you have an endorsed plan that is 3 somehow countered in this new state information, 4 and you believe that the county is more accurate, 5 you would present that when we get you to 6 cross-acceptance anyway, and we would say, okay, 7 this is the plan that you want to endorse. 8 Well, we've agreed with the 9 following information. We disagree with the 10 others, and once we get the cross-acceptance, we 11 iron that out, so there is an opportunity for you 12 to come back, when everything else is on the 13 table, to say we don't agree with this. We don't 14 like this. 15 We think this is inaccurate, and for 16 us to come back and forth. So I just want to 17 make sure that there is clarity amongst everyone 18 that the preliminary plan goes forward because we 19 have this new state data. What it does is it 20 helps us when we get to that endorsed plan, make 21 sure that it looks like what is happening in 22 cross-acceptance, so you don't have that 23 splitting of the road there where you have a plan 24 that is being endorsed; but the physical map, the 25 layout of the area, doesn't fit the plan in any 61 1 way, shape or form, and that is what has happened 2 in the past, and that's what we're trying to 3 avoid this time. 4 MR. KULL: And all I'm trying to 5 avoid is a different kind of a split that, 6 essentially, a new State Plan appears upon. I 7 don't know how significant these changes are 8 going to be, so I don't know what kind of -- 9 whether it's going to be a problem or not. 10 However, in its best case scenario, 11 it's fine and no problem and we're working with 12 the best available information. If the changes 13 are substantial, then the counties and working 14 with our communities and our local interests, are 15 put in the process of looking at cross accepting 16 a whole new State Plan in 30 days with no impact 17 assessment associated with it, and there will be 18 issues of fairness that will raise in that. 19 So I simply raise that as a concern 20 because it's an unknown at this point, and all I 21 want to do is communicate that perspective. 22 MR. FISHER: If I could add 23 something, and I think I understand where Bob is 24 coming from and this relates back to Don 25 Kirkoffer's comments. The regulations indicate 62 1 that, you know, notwithstanding the preparation 2 of a preliminary plan, and this is how it reads, 3 "The current state development redevelopment plan 4 shall continue to constitute the official state 5 development and redevelopment plan until such 6 time as it is revised and readopted by the State 7 Planning Commission." 8 I think it's almost a matter of 9 perception at how this process will be perceived 10 by local municipalities and counties, when you 11 talked about top down versus bottom up. I think 12 we have to make it clear when we go out there 13 that whatever we do with this new preliminary 14 map, it's just that. 15 It is a preliminary map, and unless 16 we change the rules, it's not the official map 17 and it should not be used as such, and I think 18 that's important in the way the towns out there 19 and the counties and other members of the public 20 perceive the process. Because if they feel that 21 we've already declared this to be the new 22 preliminary plan and adopted it as such, then I 23 think we're inconsistent with the existing rules. 24 MS. BYERS: I also think there is an 25 issue of fairness as well for the towns that want 63 1 to go through plan endorsement during 2 cross-acceptance. Because it would be completely 3 unfair and inefficient and a waste of everyone's 4 time for plan endorsement to go forward on the 5 existing State Plan map if there is a preliminary 6 plan map that is being proposed that has updated 7 information and is different. It would be 8 pointless, so we've got to walk both of those 9 tight ropes together at the same time. 10 MR. TOUHEY: I want to echo David's 11 comment because I don't want to create that 12 confusion that this is the map. Let me back up. 13 Prior to, I'm going to lose the context of time, 14 but clearly this commission took serious into 15 heart that we didn't want to take that approach, 16 and we also wanted to provide as much real 17 information and new data that we could provide as 18 we go through this process, and this isn't by 19 law, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't 20 cross-acceptance supposed to happen every two 21 years? 22 MS. BYERS: Three. 23 MR. TOUHEY: So I'm appreciating 24 your concern regarding the time frames, but what 25 we're really trying to do is to get you as much 64 1 factual information as we can from state 2 agencies, get you that preliminary map in focus, 3 and I don't think -- I'd love to have every 4 county line up for plan endorsement, but I don't 5 see that happening. 6 I see some counties prepared and 7 ready to go, but sitting on this commission and 8 watching the process work, I don't think we're 9 going to get a mad rush, unless I'm wrong, Adam, 10 unless you're out there pushing it, but we're 11 trying to get as much factual -- we're trying to 12 help you. Maybe the information may not be 13 overwhelming when you get it, but we're trying to 14 get you true real information as we move forward, 15 and we got the sign in of all the state agencies 16 and departments into this that we were trying to 17 give you the opportunity to respond as you move 18 forward. 19 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: The only other 20 thing I would add to that is that even if we were 21 working off of the 2001 state planning map, which 22 of course the premises, you know, that will be in 23 part of what we're working off of, the new 24 information would certainly be considered during 25 any plan endorsement application. It would not 65 1 be seen in a vacuum. 2 MR. KULL: Absolutely. That's my 3 point. 4 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: Yeah, and so 5 that's why I'm not quite as concerned with 6 working off the preliminary map because it will 7 be the same as if we were working off the 8 existing map and looking at the data layers that 9 we now have. 10 MR. TOUHEY: That's a good point. 11 MR. KULL: My second comment had to 12 do with -- had to do with some policy issues 13 regarding projections. A lot of technical issues 14 will be dealt with at the appropriate technical 15 levels, but I'd like to raise a couple of points 16 for you to consider as you're putting projections 17 together. 18 Mr. Zellner raised some points that 19 we need good projections to be able to anticipate 20 infrastructure needs in the future, so one aspect 21 is population. Another strong aspect is 22 employment projections, and that's where any kind 23 of consensus or logic or reason often breaks down 24 because there is such a lack of data at the local 25 level on unemployment. 66 1 It is usually collected more at a 2 county level, and you'd have to make certain 3 assumptions to break it down, and there are 4 different sources of information, some of which 5 include self-employment. Some not. Most don't 6 include agricultural employment, but the 7 committee or the plan development committee 8 should be looking at what are the objectives for, 9 what are the needs in terms of employment data 10 and employment numbers. 11 If self-employment is an issue, then 12 it means that you should be looking at a certain 13 series of information. Agricultural employment 14 should be an issue. We're currently doing a 15 study funded by DCA on looking at the viability 16 of agriculture in Burlington County, and the 17 numbers that are coming up say that agricultural 18 employments, the labor factor is the most 19 expensive aspect of agricultural production, so 20 that's an aspect that should be looked at and 21 guides employment numbers. 22 Agricultural employment tends to be 23 seasonal, so one needs to look at, not just 24 year-round, but also seasonal projections to both 25 employment and population. We've known it to be 67 1 a long standing issue in coastal counties that 2 some adjustments be made to census numbers to 3 capture seasonal population. 4 It is also not quite as substantial, 5 but quite a significant factor in the resort 6 areas in the northwest and the forested areas, so 7 that as you're thinking about putting in a 8 package of projections together, that you may 9 want to be looking at what are the components of 10 employment as well as the seasonal and year round 11 population. That's all I have. Thank you. 12 MS. BYERS: Thank you. We're a 13 little bit off track of our time frame here which 14 I think is probably not such a bad thing because 15 this is an important discussion to have, but I 16 see Bill has some maps in front of him, so can we 17 move onto a review of the maps at this point and 18 then we'll get quickly back on track with our 19 agenda. Thanks. 20 MR. HARRISON: This is the basic map 21 that we prepared using the data layers. The 22 green on -- this is Princeton Borough. This is 23 295. 24 MS. BYERS: We'll flip the map 25 around, so the public can see it as well. 68 1 MR. HARRISON: The green is the 2 environmentally sensitive areas identified by 3 DEP. These crosshatch areas are the areas 4 identified by the Department of Agriculture. The 5 pink areas are COAH sites. These gray areas are 6 projected COAH sites that have not been 7 developed, and the DEP, this yellow stretch of 8 Route 1 here, one there is the red circles are 9 also DEP projects, so that's basically the over 10 riding information we'll be given. 11 What we did, we'll also be sending 12 out this current State Plan map on the quads, and 13 then what we did is we took the DEP information 14 and put the planning areas, and overlaid that in 15 white so towns can immediately look at and see 16 where the discrepancies were; and a lot of places 17 you'll see that the boundary, this is planning 18 area one here, and there's just a little version 19 of environmentally sensitive into that. 20 Most of it is, you know, consistent, 21 not impacted the same with the center here. 22 There is very little green, and not much in the 23 way -- no agriculture in that. We do have the, 24 in the nearby, significant road improvements to 25 Route 1 being proposed by DOT, but it's something 69 1 that we think towns and counties should be able 2 to look at and fairly easily say, gee, this may 3 not make sense or this does match up very nicely 4 with what the data is. 5 MS. BYERS: Can you point out some 6 of the inconsistencies? 7 MR. HARRISON: You have here in the 8 suburban planning areas you have this 9 environmentally sensitive. That means something 10 that is appropriate to become a COS since it's 11 smack in the middle versus at the edge. We have 12 to look at that. There are a couple at the edge 13 of the center that we have to look at to see what 14 that is to see if the center boundaries should be 15 adjusted there to reflect whatever the data is. 16 MR. ESKILSON: Bill, are we going to 17 be able to look at what caused the area to be 18 colored green? I mean during the big map 19 discussion I recall, and I don't know if this 20 process has changed any, under the big map, there 21 were, let's say, 20 to 30 criteria. Any one of 22 which being present would cause an area to be 23 colored green, and those were broken down into a 24 series of polygons on the GIS system. 25 I know in Sussex County, we 70 1 question, we had our GIS person drill down to the 2 polygon data, and found in a number of instances 3 we had polygons where one parameter solely caused 4 that area to be colored green and a parameter 5 such as a discharge to a public water supply 6 intake, which turned out to be Trenton, 7 Philadelphia in Sussex County. 8 We don't necessarily think that's an 9 area that ought to be designated green or 10 environmentally sensitive, so I wonder how much 11 of that discussion will be going on with 12 municipalities, and how much of that underlying 13 data, because that's critical, will be available 14 to counties and municipalities. 15 MR. HARRISON: We're working on how 16 we're going to do that. We're talking about 17 sending a disk out to the counties that would 18 have all of that information on it and having, at 19 least in terms of the DEP information, which I 20 think is the key one that people are concerned 21 about having available on their web site, so 22 municipalities could access it that way or get it 23 through the county. 24 A lot of municipalities don't have 25 the capability to play with GIS, and so we want 71 1 to make sure the counties have it and it is 2 available to municipalities even through the 3 counties, either our web site or DEP's web site. 4 MR. ESKILSON: So part of the 5 discussion is looking at these potential 6 conflicts between growth areas and areas that are 7 designated environmentally sensitive; and as part 8 of that discussion, we will be looking at the 9 actual data and whether or not the mapping is 10 valid or flawed. 11 MR. TOUHEY: I mean, and I'm not 12 trying to be flip about this when I say this, I 13 mean, the cross-acceptance process, that's a 14 battle. We have a representative hired on the 15 commission from DEP and hearing from the counties 16 and the towns and those are the differences, and 17 those are the kind of debates we're going to be 18 having, so I want to put that in context. Again, 19 not to the top down approach, but the bottom up 20 approach. 21 MS. BYERS: We do need to get to the 22 heart of what John is talking about as we adopt 23 the preliminary plan and maps so that when the 24 commission adopts it to go forward, we have at 25 least some consensus in the integrity of the data 72 1 and we understand it, and this is our best step 2 forward to be proposed for cross-acceptance which 3 we know will change, and we will be continually 4 informed with new information, but we do need to 5 get to that sort of internal basis first before 6 we go out to cross-acceptance. 7 MR. ZELLNER: Let me state, part of 8 what the department is doing internally, is we 9 will work together, now that we have this to look 10 at, inconsistencies between planning areas and 11 constraints. Looking at listing out what those 12 constraints are so we can get ahead on what may 13 be something just picked up on the blip because 14 it's there versus real constraints that are going 15 to have to be really dealt with. 16 In part, it also helps us create a 17 blueprint before we get out there on 18 cross-acceptance to know what we're going to face 19 because it's a big state. There's a lot to do. 20 We don't want to take four or five years, so 21 we're going to try to get ahead of this. A lot 22 of the departments have done their homework, 23 Agriculture, DEP, DOT. 24 We're all out getting public 25 comments and having county meetings, did IPRs. 73 1 Our research staff has been putting those things 2 together, so we are going to have a pretty good 3 blueprint, before we get out there, of what some 4 of those inconsistencies are about. We're also 5 going to know based on public comment, based on 6 some things that we've heard, where some of the 7 bigger issues are going to be, and I think that's 8 what we'll -- hopefully, we'll be able to put 9 some of the small things away before we get out 10 there, so we can focus on the bigger policy 11 issues. 12 MR. FISHER: This seems to be the 13 first time where, and correct me if I'm wrong, as 14 the green areas show up on that map, they're 15 being shown everywhere. There aren't any 16 overriding priorities, either in a center or 17 planning area, one would say, despite the layer 18 coming up green, we're not going to show it, 19 correct? 20 MR. HARRISON: No. 21 MR. FISHER: Could you explain? 22 MR. HARRISON: The difference, 23 particularly if you look at the center, there is 24 minimal green within the center there. What DEP 25 did in developing the layers was it distinguished 74 1 what was showing up in different planning areas, 2 so some of the factors that are showing up in 3 planning area 4B and five, are not being 4 portrayed in centers planning area one because 5 they further distinct. 6 Each planning area is somewhat 7 different criteria that is being used in terms of 8 what is being shown, so it is not -- their 9 mapping did not do the same thing throughout the 10 state. It did distinguish based on current 11 planning areas, and how it would find the data. 12 I think one of the things that needs to be looked 13 at, as John said, is what is causing the green. 14 You might have a different answer depending upon 15 what factors are causing it. 16 In some instances, the boundary 17 needs to be adjusted because it is a key 18 environmental feature, maybe several things 19 present. In other instances, we may make a 20 policy judgement that that is an area that needs 21 to be developed if the resource is being 22 protected by what's happening outside the center, 23 outside the planning area one and two. 24 MR. FISHER: Okay. That's good 25 actually because one of my concerns is that we've 75 1 always had environmentally constraint plans 2 throughout parts of planning areas one and two 3 that will never be developed for whatever reason, 4 slopes, wetlands; and to the extent though, that 5 those are newly recognized, this ground of 6 cross-acceptance, I think we have to be mindful 7 of the fact that we need to remind the towns and 8 counties that those planning areas one and two 9 were designed to accommodate a certain level of 10 growth; and with all of us recognizing that that 11 may not be fully recognized, as we look at those 12 planning areas today, then we need to look at 13 alternatives, so I think that has to be part of 14 the conversation. 15 MS. BYERS: Okay. Any other 16 comments? I'd like to move on to the next item 17 on the agenda. 18 MR. FISHER: Michelle, are we done 19 on public comments on the whole cross-acceptance 20 map process? 21 MS. BYERS: I assume so, and so we 22 want to move to the plan endorsement incremental 23 process. Everything seems to be quite 24 incremental, so we're formalizing that. Now, who 25 is going to give this overview? 76 1 MR. TOUHEY: Bill. 2 MR. HARRISON: As we started to get 3 comments on rule proposal, as we started to write 4 the plan endorsement guidelines, we realized that 5 we were not conveying well what we were trying to 6 do through plan endorsement, and we were making 7 it sound like a very intimidating process for 8 municipalities and counties, which was not our 9 intention, and not so much that we are changing 10 the process as we envisioned it, but we are 11 changing the way we are describing the process to 12 make it clear that it is up to the municipality 13 or county as to how far they want to go with plan 14 endorsement. 15 The way the rule was originally 16 written, the one change that we are making was 17 basically a requirement that towns reach what was 18 called final plan endorsement, and we started to 19 recognize that that really didn't make a lot of 20 sense for a number of communities that we wanted 21 to make the initial step something the towns 22 could do, in one sense, easily. In another 23 sense, it is not easy at all. 24 By focusing in on planning documents 25 that the towns already are legally required to 77 1 prepare, master plans, some mandatory elements of 2 the master plan, master plan reexamination 3 reports and the like, and what we looked at as we 4 were writing the plan endorsement guidelines, we 5 were listing a lot of things that had to be done 6 in initial plan endorsement and realize that 7 those were all things that were properly included 8 into. 9 For example, we had a section on 10 housing, but housing element of the master plan 11 is a mandatory element; and what we thought the 12 better way to present that was to say, give us 13 your master plan and mandatory elements, and then 14 describe what needed to be included in the 15 housing element of the master plan to do that. 16 And what I mean by, in one sense, 17 it's a relatively easy process for towns that 18 have done a good job with their planning process 19 or counties that have been working with Smart 20 Future grants. These things are already spelled 21 out in what they had to do in developing their 22 Smart Growth plan. They're going to give us 23 their existing documents, and by and large they 24 are going to be consistent with the State Plan. 25 We're going to detail within the 78 1 plan endorsement guidelines what that means, that 2 it needs to reflect the policies of the State 3 Plan and go through those as they apply to the 4 municipality. Where it's going to be difficult 5 is for towns that have not done a good job with 6 their planning, where their master plans or the 7 required elements of the master plan cross over 8 issues, do not address, as a master plan is 9 supposed to do, the State Plan, are not showing 10 growth where it's supposed to be occurring, not 11 showing appropriate means to protect 12 environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands. 13 A lot of those are going to have to 14 go back to square one and effect a new master 15 plan, but we're not adding an obligation on the 16 part of the municipalities. We want to make sure 17 their basic planning is consistent with the State 18 Plan going through each of the policies of the 19 State Plan as it applies to that municipality in 20 making sure, or county, if the county comes in, 21 and makes sure that they do match up. 22 What we're then going to do, as the 23 rule indicates, for those counties and 24 municipalities that want to go further, they'll 25 be able to identify what additional benefits they 79 1 want. If they want a water quality management 2 plan, if they want COAH certification, if they 3 want DOT funding. There would then be specific 4 things they would have to do, circulation element 5 of the master plan, the normal information that 6 would have to be provided for COAH certification 7 or to get a water quality management plan 8 amended. 9 But they would be able to 10 accomplish, both getting a subsequent additional 11 plan endorsement approved and get that approved, 12 not having to do a two step process for this 13 State Planning Commission, and then go to DEP to 14 get the Water Quality Management Plan Amendment 15 is a totally separate process. The agencies 16 would be reviewing it together and each 17 municipality, based on its need -- if it doesn't 18 need a water quality management plan, then it 19 doesn't need to go through those items. 20 And then the benefits would be -- as 21 we have discussed, the benefits would be spelled 22 out in a plan endorsement contract that would 23 enable the town to know if I do X, Y and Z, and 24 do it appropriately, I will get these benefits at 25 the end of the process. The initial step of plan 80 1 endorsement will, again, largely carry benefits 2 that are relating to planning to do additional 3 steps, be relatively limited. 4 The bigger benefits will, as we 5 originally envisioned, will be further into the 6 process, but each town would be able to determine 7 which benefits they wanted to pursue, which 8 additional planning efforts it wanted to proceed 9 with, enter a plan endorsement contract with 10 those and proceed. Obviously, if the town wants 11 to do more with the first step, they can. We'd 12 have to sit down and spell out what those 13 additional things would be they would have to 14 accomplish. 15 If they want to designate a center, 16 if they want their COAH certification, if they 17 want a Water Quality Management Plan Amendment up 18 front, we'd specify what they would need to 19 submit with that and then also specify the 20 benefits; but we want to encourage towns to enter 21 the process, present this to them and give us the 22 document that you're already legally required to 23 do, make sure they have gone through the 24 visioning process of what their master plan is 25 doing, is reflecting what the community -- how 81 1 the community wants to develop and then sitting 2 down and going through policy by policy of the 3 State Plan and making sure what they submitted 4 matches up with that. 5 MS. BYERS: Thanks, Bill. I'll make 6 a comment, and then I'd like everyone to comment 7 and ask questions. I think the concept could be 8 good because we do want to incentivise (ph) the 9 process, and we, in fact, don't have the 10 resources to take all 566 towns, even if they 11 came in regional clumps, to get them all through 12 plan endorsement all at once, so I think there's 13 some merit. 14 But my biggest concern is that we 15 not dilute this and give out all the benefits, 16 you know, to towns that don't make it all the way 17 through, so the delve is really going to be in 18 the details here, and I'd like to see, you know, 19 a chart, a memo, a list of what incentives we're 20 talking about, pegging what phases of this 21 process so we can all get what a sense of this 22 means and is it going to achieve the result; or 23 are we going to get half of New Jersey halfway to 24 cross-acceptance and that's what we get in the 25 next three years as opposed to a bigger result, 82 1 and that's my biggest concern with it and we look 2 forward to seeing the actual, you know, proposal 3 in writing so we can start. 4 MR. HARRISON: What would be helpful 5 is if we have a list of projected benefits, both 6 regulatory and funding that we could send out to 7 you and that you could give us your comments at 8 what point you think those should be available. 9 You know as, as I said, most of the regulatory 10 benefits would be at a later stage, funding ones 11 predominantly that we're thinking about for some 12 saying you get X priority points when you do the 13 initial step plan endorsement, and then you get 14 2X, 3X priority points if you move on to a 15 subsequent stage related to those benefits. 16 MS. BYERS: And those curves where 17 you get the additional benefits, that's going to 18 be critical. 19 MR. HARRISON: Correct. 20 MR. ESKILSON: I'm not at all 21 concerned with the municipalities. The local 22 government will get something that I'm entitled 23 to through this process, but with that being 24 said, a couple of specific questions, Bill. The 25 plan endorsement contract and the plan 83 1 implementation agenda, could you just speak to 2 how those are related and how they're different, 3 what does each mean? I'm not quite clear how 4 they differ. 5 MR. HARRISON: I'm trying to think 6 of the simple way to make the distinction. 7 Planning an implementation agreement will be what 8 will be entered into for a town that is stopping 9 at a point and saying, okay, you're stopping 10 here, but in order to insure that you are 11 implementing the planning documents that we've 12 just approved, here are some additional things 13 that you're going to have to do. 14 I do not view them as being, as 15 likely being as extensive as what you've been 16 used to in the center designation processes, but 17 there may be some ongoing things that the town 18 has identified in the master plan and the 19 mandatory element of the master plan that needs 20 to be seen through to make sure that they are 21 carried out in a way that's consistent with the 22 State Plan. 23 Let me say, for example, that they 24 have adopted an open space tax, that there may be 25 a requirement to make sure that that money ends 84 1 up being used in a way indicated in a portion of 2 the township that would tie into, you know, the 3 monitoring function that is part of the rules, 4 and it would really be setting forth how we're 5 going to be monitoring looking at that making 6 sure the money is being spent as indicated it 7 would be spent, something like that. 8 The plan endorsement contract is 9 really saying, is the document that says in order 10 to get from step one to step two or step two to 11 step three, the process to do these additional 12 steps, here are the things you are going to have 13 to do to have that approved by the State Planning 14 Commission. If you do them correctly, you are 15 insured of being approved by the State Planning 16 Commission, and once you are approved, here are 17 the seven additional benefits, whatever that you 18 will be entitled to based on your doing that. 19 MR. ESKILSON: On the waste water 20 piece, you had talked about waste water 21 management plan amendments being front loaded, 22 and I think that's a great idea and something 23 that was talked about for a long time. Have you 24 wrestled with the issue of county 208 committees 25 and freeholder approval that is required before 85 1 those plan amendments get to the DEP, and how do 2 we deal with that piece? 3 MR. HARRISON: One of the things -- 4 I mean, there are a couple of ways. One, because 5 counties keep getting nervous about this is that 6 we're not writing the counties out of the 7 process. The ideal plan endorsement process is 8 the county is through the door first, and then 9 it's either bringing the municipalities with them 10 or the municipalities are following and coming 11 along with the county saying, yes, this is 12 consistent and part of that is, presumably, if 13 they're coming in for the step that includes the 14 Water Quality Management Plan Amendment is the 15 county signing off on the proposed change. 16 If the county is lagging behind in 17 the municipality, or group of municipalities in 18 the county are coming in, we would -- and whether 19 we're doing it through the State Planning 20 Commission process or through DEP, I think I 21 haven't thought that far ahead, but the county 22 would be brought in and have input into the 23 process one way or the other. 24 I'm partially hesitating because 25 while we're not going to have -- someone would 86 1 not have to go through the current 208 process 2 with the DEP, DEP will still have to take an 3 action or two to amend the plan. We view it as a 4 formality, and that's where I'm struggling how 5 best to fit the county in if the county isn't 6 pursuing the plan endorsement. 7 MR. ESKILSON: So it sounds like 8 you're suggesting the county strategic planning 9 process be somehow merged with the county 208 10 process? You don't need to answer that, and I'm 11 not really arguing for keeping the status quo, 12 don't get me wrong, but I think it's an issue 13 that's out there, and I think we need to deal 14 with it as we move forward with the plan 15 endorsement guidelines. Otherwise, it's going to 16 be a question that keeps coming back at us 17 because this is, obviously, a critical component. 18 MR. HARRISON: The municipality 19 doesn't have to come in with the 208 planning 20 piece as part of it. I think they can. It may 21 make sense, but what I'm saying is that at the 22 point a municipality is coming in seeking a water 23 quality plan amendment, if the county has 24 proceeded, even if they haven't done that, the 25 county still has to sign off on what the 87 1 municipality is coming in with, and the county at 2 that point will involve the 208, its 208 process. 3 I think at some point, five years in 4 the future, we need to look at how these 5 different local planning efforts are done that 6 are currently disjunct, and whether they should 7 be made uniform, but I think this is not this 8 year's reform. 9 MR. ESKILSON: Last question for me 10 has to do with the relationship of municipal plan 11 endorsement petitions and the county plans. I 12 read through the draft, and I didn't see much in 13 there about that relationship, and I think it is, 14 again, it's critical moving forward that 15 municipalities and counties understand that 16 relationship, particularly to the county plan, so 17 that there is a reason and incentive for 18 municipalities to sign on to their county 19 regional planning effort; and I know you've been 20 wrestling with it, Bill, but I didn't see it yet 21 and I just want to keep it out front as something 22 you really need to do. 23 MR. HARRISON: What we gave you was 24 the introduction. The body is going to address 25 the preference and is going to be given to 88 1 municipalities coming in with the county or if 2 not coming in with the regional grouping of 3 municipalities if the county isn't foreseen. 4 MR. FISHER: Bill, in the draft that 5 was provided to talk about the incremental 6 approach, the plan endorsement, the second part 7 talking about, I guess, the partial benefits upon 8 review by the State Planning Commission for 9 consistency, nonapproval. Towns and counties 10 would be eligible for the following, and you 11 talked about regulatory benefits, starting plans, 12 and authorization to enact TDR and impact 13 reordinances. I presume, when you say that, 14 assuming that statewide legislation is adopted 15 first? 16 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 17 MR. FISHER: All right. My 18 suggestion would be if we determine that 19 something like an impact free ordinance or 20 authorization to move forward with that 21 is -- first of all, I don't know how you withhold 22 it, if the statewide legislation passes, but 23 assuming we can confer that onto a town in some 24 form that creates a real benefit, hold the best 25 benefits for last, I wouldn't do things that are 89 1 perceived by towns as a monumental benefit early 2 on in the process. It's just a suggestion. 3 MR. HARRISON: One of the things, in 4 terms of the TDR legislation, built into that is 5 really an advanced stage of plan endorsement. 6 What you have to do under that legislation is 7 very in detail refined planning, and that we 8 would normally say was a later step in the 9 process, and so I don't have the concern yet with 10 that because to adopt an appropriate TDR 11 ordinance, they will do a lot more than they 12 would have to do for an initial plan endorsement 13 convention. 14 MR. FISHER: Right. I hope so. 15 They are complicated, and I'm sure as Bob Kull 16 knows down in Burlington County, there are still 17 problems and issues with the Chesterfield 18 program, especially related to the credits, so 19 they aren't easy programs to administer. 20 MS. BYERS: Go ahead, Dan. 21 MR. RYAN: I want to reiterate some 22 of the comments you made, Michelle, or concerns 23 you had on the plan endorsement incremental 24 process. In light of the fact that in the next 25 few months we'll be starting with the 90 1 cross-acceptance process, wouldn't it be better 2 to put our energies into the development of plan 3 endorsement process that almost all towns could 4 achieve? 5 It could be expedited or fair rather 6 than bifurcating the process and having two plan 7 endorsements, a plan A, a plan B, or a quick one 8 or a slow one. Wouldn't it make sense just to 9 develop a schematic where all towns could come in 10 under one scenario and get it rather than have 11 two? There is so much, I'm not going to say 12 confusion, but there is a lot of questions about 13 the cross-acceptance process we're not ready to 14 start, and all the public things that have to be 15 done, why would you want to, at this point, 16 create two scenarios for plan endorsement? 17 Rather than just having one, that's 18 very reasonable. Don't raise the bar so highly 19 that only a few towns can get it. Make it a 20 reasonable height for the bar where everybody 21 could get it if they put some energy into it, and 22 it would be one process that everybody understood 23 how it worked and what the benefits were. 24 MR. HARRISON: Because we started 25 doing that, and it didn't work. The problem was, 91 1 what we were doing initially, even though it was 2 a two step process, was saying everyone had to 3 reach final plan endorsement, and the difficulty 4 we had was that as we were setting forth every 5 conceivable situation, towns with agricultural 6 lands, towns without agricultural lands, towns 7 that were only planning area one, towns that were 8 only planning area 4B and five, that you were 9 listing so many different things and saying come 10 in and we'll tell you which applies to your town. 11 And based on the comments we were 12 getting, it was serving to discourage anyone from 13 entering the process because it seemed like such 14 an overwhelming task. I think what we're doing 15 is actually what you're saying, in saying the 16 saving initial bar applies to everyone, that 17 everyone has to meet this and then say, okay, 18 there are additional things out there that have 19 particular applicability to particular towns and 20 if you're interested in doing those, go and 21 pursue those paths, do that. 22 If it doesn't apply to you, Farmland 23 Preservations is irrelevant to you, if the Water 24 Quality Management Plan Amendment is irrelevant 25 to you, you don't have to do that. If those do 92 1 apply, go do them and you'll get the benefits 2 that are attended to those; so I think we're 3 actually doing what you're saying, is there is 4 one process that everyone goes through, and then 5 depending upon your particular circumstances, you 6 can go beyond that if you need be. 7 I think a lot of towns are going to 8 stop at the first step because there just is not 9 a lot of things there, or very limited additional 10 things for very -- either because they are 11 already fully developed suburban communities that 12 don't have a great interest in a lot of state 13 programs, or because they are a very rural 14 community in the highlands where not much is 15 anticipated to occur and to try and have those 16 towns do more than the basic seems inappropriate. 17 If they want to because there is a 18 program they're interested in, fine, but I think 19 the main thing, and where I'm in full agreement, 20 is that first step has to be a meaningful step 21 that applies to everyone. 22 MR. ZELLNER: If we just describe it 23 as one process and the more benefits you're 24 looking for from the state, the further you have 25 to go in that process because the more 93 1 complicating the planning becomes to engage those 2 benefits. We want to create a system where 3 people can come through to a certain level that 4 may not be able to do much more because their 5 situation doesn't warrant more, but there will 6 also be a lot of towns, especially those that 7 I'll call going through, you know, crushers at 8 this point that will have to go further because 9 they're going to want to engage more tools, and 10 that will get to a lot of the bigger issues that 11 we're facing now. 12 But I think it's critical to make 13 sure that we don't -- I mean, listen, we've all 14 been here, and we know we're center number 102 15 after all these years. We've got to create a 16 process where people feel they can come in and if 17 they don't need everything, at least they can 18 engage us and we can have a dialogue, and we 19 begin to open up the local master plan and the 20 local initiatives and begin to take a look 21 compared to what we're doing at the state and 22 create that open dialogue without scaring 23 everybody to death, so it is just one process. 24 But people will go a certain 25 distance on that process depending where they 94 1 need to go as a town, and again that comes back 2 to the visioning. It comes back to making sure 3 that we have the initial -- because if the master 4 plan and the vision doesn't match what people are 5 asking us to do, then we are going to come back 6 to them and say, listen, you're going to have to 7 do more because you actually want a lot more. 8 If it does, that will be a certain 9 situation, and I think to look at, through 10 practicality reasons, we definitely want to be 11 able to do, take those towns and those counties 12 then only looking to do X and have a plan for X 13 and be able to move them quickly so we can focus 14 on those that have the bigger lift. Because just 15 from the work standpoint, it is a lot to do. We 16 are going to need to do it fairly quickly as we 17 go through this. 18 MS. BYERS: I think the most 19 important thing that we need to address, and I 20 heard this in this discussion is what is our 21 goal. In my mind, the goal has always been to 22 get everybody through the process, and have them 23 plan endorsed whether it's a town that's built 24 out that needs to look at redevelopment, or 25 whether it's a rural area that doesn't have a lot 95 1 of growth pressure right now, but may in a few 2 years. 3 And, you know, if there's a goal 4 that says, okay, well, we can get part of the 5 state where the hot spots are to get through plan 6 endorsement but the others aren't that important 7 and they only need to get partway there, that's a 8 whole different goal, and the process needs to 9 fit the goal that we all have and so I just 10 heard, you know, a different goal than what I 11 thought the commission was pursuing. 12 MR. HARRISON: The goal is to get 13 everyone into plan endorsement, and all I was 14 saying was that's why we're doing the process as 15 we are, so we can distinguish between those that 16 have less interest in the state programs, and 17 those that have more, but to set up the process 18 so they are all encouraged to participate in it 19 and get them all in. 20 The second step of the process of 21 the additional steps. That's where the variation 22 comes in, but the major goal, and the reason 23 we're doing it this way is so all towns are 24 encouraged, not towns that have a limited 25 interest are discouraged because they see a list 96 1 of 100 things and we're saying, we'll wave them 2 for you but here are the basics that everyone has 3 to do, come into the process and then you decide 4 how much further you want to go along. 5 MS. BYERS: Right, but I think we 6 have to be responsible to encourage the towns to 7 be incentivised to go all the way, not just say, 8 okay, it's all right, you know, town X, this is 9 all you need to do and we're not going to really 10 dangle any bigger incentives out there for you to 11 do anything further. 12 MR. ZELLNER: If I could, I think we 13 are going to do that. Number one, I envision the 14 goal as consistency with the State Plan. We have 15 gone through a lot of effort in the last year 16 and-a-half to make sure that the State Plan 17 finally is consistent with ourselves with state 18 agencies, with our resources with what we are 19 doing, and now we're ready to present that. 20 I think what we need to do, though 21 in looking at that consistency with the state 22 plans, there are going to be towns that are very 23 close to being consistent with the state plans 24 that are going through the planning that, don't 25 have that don't have a lot further to go. 97 1 I want to make sure we get those 2 folks in so we look at their master plans and all 3 those elements and the vision; and it if it does 4 indeed match and it looks like now is consistent 5 with the State Plan and all the resources that 6 exist up here, we want to be able to say, thank 7 you, and we want to be able to move on to the 8 next folks. There are always going to be 9 additional incentives that will change by town if 10 the town wants to go further. 11 If a town, for example, that is 12 consistent now decides it wants to do something 13 different, we're going to have to look at that. 14 If a town that is not consistent wants even the 15 basics, they are going to have to be consistent. 16 It is not a situation where a town can just say 17 here is my stuff and thanks very much, and give 18 me the resources, and we just put a check on it. 19 They're still going to have to go 20 through a review. They're still going to have 21 the map plan. As Bill described, there are going 22 to be a lot of towns that have done nothing in 23 preparation. They're going to have to finally 24 step up to the plate, and at least look in the 25 mirror, look at their own towns, look at their 98 1 map plans, begin to adopt the basics. 2 At the same time, again, we 3 definitely don't want to scare people who have 4 not participated at this point from saying, you 5 know what, we don't want to play at all, and 6 we're going to ignore this whole thing because 7 we've got to have that sort of system, but let's 8 be clear. The game is to engage everyone. It is 9 simply a recognition that some people have 10 actually paid attention to the process and done a 11 pretty good job. 12 There are going to be a lot of towns 13 that are really going through a lot of effort to 14 update their master plans that are very 15 consistent. I've got a couple around me in my 16 neighborhood that have spent millions of dollars 17 redoing the master plan, and inadvertently built 18 out. They've got it done through 20/20, and 19 they're going to absorb the population, and they 20 should be relatively easily to look at and simple 21 to build through. 22 Again, others will be much more 23 difficult. I would also tell you that I think a 24 lot of your urban centers will go further because 25 the incentives that are out there that they need 99 1 will help them move along the trail, and that's 2 so critical as we know. Some of those urban 3 centers are perhaps the most critical element to 4 get them in and getting them started in the 5 process. 6 MR. RYAN: For the many of the town 7 centers that we approve, we always have a PIA 8 attached and depending on how hard we have to 9 hold our nose, the agenda could be very long. 10 For the plan endorsements we're talking about, 11 are we going to do something similar where we're 12 going to say, you owe us something three years 13 from now, or are we going to say we'll get 14 approval for plan endorsement as you give the 15 item to us. How do you want to -- 16 MR. ZELLNER: Do you want to talk 17 about the contract, Bill? 18 MR. HARRISON: As I said before, I 19 am hoping that PIAs are not the extensive 20 documents they are currently. Whether we're 21 talking at the first step of plan endorsement or 22 subsequent steps of what we have is consistent 23 as is, not here are ten changes we want you to 24 make in the future that the PIA, as I said 25 before, will be much more a timing to the 100 1 monitoring that is going on that is required to 2 make sure that what they have said in their 3 master plan is in fact occurring, not that they 4 have to do things beyond that to correct 5 something. 6 The plan endorsement contract, I 7 mean, that's where we're going to be spelling out 8 for towns that want to perceive to get what I 9 will call the "big benefits," that these are the 10 things they have to do in order to get those, and 11 they will be spelling out in detail what they 12 need to do in the future to say, if you're 13 interested in these benefits, here are the 14 specific things that you need to do in order to 15 achieve those. 16 And that's going to vary both on the 17 circumstances and municipality as well as the 18 benefits that they are seeking as to what they'll 19 have to do. 20 MR. ESKILSON: Question on that 21 subject, Bill, and the question that keeps coming 22 up to me is under the contract or through the PIA 23 municipality where maybe it's only a half a dozen 24 things and it's pretty clear if they don't 25 comply, we have the ability to rescind on 101 1 endorsement of our efforts. The question that 2 keeps coming to me is, well, yeah, okay, that's 3 great. 4 We're going against a contract with 5 the state of New Jersey that will spell out what 6 they are going to provide and when they are to 7 provide who is in charge, but what if they don't 8 comply with their end of the contract? And I 9 understand the public embarrassment, but what is 10 else is there? I need to be able to answer that 11 question at some point. 12 MR. HARRISON: There are two parts 13 to that. I think there is a funding part where 14 you're going to be assured of getting priority, 15 and there will be regulations written to give you 16 priority. Whether you actually get the dollars 17 is going to be a function of how much money is in 18 the state budget for that, but what the real 19 answer is most of the benefits we are talking 20 about, whether they are funding benefits or 21 regulatory benefits will be in regulations. 22 It will not be a discretionary item 23 on the part of the department as to give those, 24 so it will be indeed each regulation, whether 25 we're talking about streamline permitting or 102 1 we're talking about substantive regulatory 2 benefits, that if you do X, and that plan is 3 endorsed by the State Planning Commission, those 4 benefits will then be available too, that you 5 will get the priority points. That's not 6 discretion. 7 How much money is in the pot may 8 affect whether you actually get dollars, but on 9 the regulatory side, you know, the DEP, 10 Threatened Endangered Species regulations will 11 provide for habitat management plans, so that if 12 a community comes in, develops a habitat 13 management plan that results in an area of being 14 designated as a center or a planning area to 15 expand it, or whatever it is, making an area to 16 grow, that area will be treated as a growth area, 17 and that Threatened Endangered Species issue will 18 be off the table because that will be protecting 19 habitat elsewhere in the community. 20 That will be in the regulations. 21 That's the protection, is most of these things 22 will be built into regulations. It won't be 23 something that they'll be able to say nevermind 24 or too bad, we're not doing that here or we're 25 raising this red flag even though we said we 103 1 weren't raising it in the plan endorsement. 2 MR. ESKILSON: As part of our 3 monitoring, we'll be monitoring compliance with 4 performance on the 90 day turn around provisions 5 on the fact that no new regulations, contrary to 6 what's on the books, has been introduced or 7 contemplated, I would hope that we'll be doing 8 that type of monitoring as well. 9 MR. HARRISON: Not that they won't 10 do new regulations because presumably new 11 agencies do that, but how they will apply in an 12 area with an endorsed plan, so it doesn't engage 13 a endorsed plan. 14 MR. FISHER: Marge, didn't the 15 office send out letters to all towns that had 16 designated centers, or have designated centers? 17 Did they ask them how they're doing in meeting 18 their PIA agenda? Have we gotten much of a 19 response back from those? 20 MR. DRAKE: We are getting some 21 responses, meeting with a few folks, so they are 22 coming in sort of dribs and drabs. 23 MR. FISHER: It's good to get a 24 sense as to how much monitoring now may uncover 25 concerns and issues that we can use in this next 104 1 round of cross-acceptance because I know there 2 are towns out there that probably ignored their 3 PIA. Others that have actually changed the 4 zoning, such that their center designation 5 probably couldn't be achieved to that. 6 MR. DRAKE: We're scheduling sending 7 letters in increments so we don't get bombarded 8 all at once, but certainly we are working 9 through, obviously with 101 centers now, so each 10 one is getting a letter that says, hi, how are 11 you doing, where are you and we're interested 12 following up on the PIA and helping to assist you 13 complete your PIA, so that's where we're at. 14 MS. BYERS: Any other questions on 15 this from the committee? Members of the public, 16 comment just on the plan endorsement process 17 environmental, please. 18 MS. ASHMAN: I just wanted to 19 comment that you're working from a paper that 20 none of us have seen, so we don't have any way of 21 judging what you were talking about. It is 22 terribly confusing, but on top of that, it sounds 23 to me, and really it's a question, are we going 24 to end up with plan endorsement grade A, plan 25 endorsement grade B, and plan endorsement grade 105 1 C? I mean, it sounds as though there are going 2 to be different levels of plan endorsement, and 3 really I'm asking the question, I want to know 4 how this is going to work. 5 MR. HARRISON: I'll go with what is 6 public because I don't think we're actually 7 substantively changing that. There will be an 8 initial step of plan endorsement that the goal is 9 to get every community in the state and have that 10 apply that will make sure that their planning 11 documents match up with the State Plan. Then 12 municipalities, if they want, what I will again 13 call the "bigger benefits," that will be 14 available through the plan endorsement process 15 will seek an additional step, which in the 16 current rule of proposals called final plan 17 endorsement, which will now have a different term 18 because that applies an end to a process which I 19 don't think ends as such. 20 If they do additional planning 21 efforts, those additional benefits would be 22 available to them, and TDR, even though it's 23 going to end up being through a statutory process 24 because it has to be, may be the clearest way to 25 do that, you know, probably if there are 500 106 1 municipalities in the state that have no interest 2 in TDR that doesn't make sense for whatever. 3 The other, say, 15 municipalities 4 where TDR makes sense and they have an interest 5 in pursuing that, they are going to go through, 6 under the statute, a whole bunch of steps 7 justifying the sending area; justifying the 8 receiving area, making sure their infrastructure 9 works for the receiving area, and when they do 10 all those additional steps, they will be entitled 11 to do TDR. 12 You know, so in that sense, those 13 towns have done more for plan endorsement than 14 the other 500 towns which TDR doesn't apply, but 15 I don't view it as a distinct process or a 16 separate level. It's just TDR applies in certain 17 municipalities, doesn't apply in others and it's 18 going to be the same thing for a lot of the other 19 benefits. 20 There are a lot of towns where there 21 is no need to change the Water Quality Management 22 Plan, so they don't need to go through the 23 process that leads to that as part of plan 24 endorsement. For other towns, they do need to do 25 that and that should be incorporated through the 107 1 plan endorsement process. Again, it's just a 2 difference in what a community needs, not a 3 difference in what constitutes plan endorsement. 4 MS. ASHMAN: I understand the 5 difference between what one community needs 6 versus another one, but on the other hand, if a 7 town can come in and just qualify for water 8 management, are they endorsed? 9 MR. HARRISON: No, the initial step 10 that everyone has to do is uniform. Everyone has 11 to do at least that. Then, there are other 12 specific things that a community may be 13 interested in. You know, some are going to be 14 very select in spite of the limited towns. 15 Others, like transportation funding are going to 16 be, probably 500 towns are going to be interested 17 and they're going to do a circulation plan at 18 home and do access. 19 MS. ASHMAN: Are you basically 20 saying that the parts of the plan that they need 21 to be consistent with gives some plan endorsement 22 assuming that they don't want TDR? Let's say 23 they don't want any of the statutory things 24 because those can be written into the statute. 25 If I'm a town, and I come in and my 108 1 water plan is consistent with the State Plan, 2 therefore I don't change that, is there enough 3 planning, I think is what I'm trying to figure 4 out, is whether there's enough planning on the up 5 front side so that everybody is going to have to 6 be consistent to the degree that is appropriate 7 for them? 8 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 9 MS. ASHMAN: They can't just come in 10 and do the water quality stuff and say -- 11 MR. HARRISON: No, we're going to be 12 looking at, and make sure growth is occurring 13 where it's supposed to be occurring and they're 14 doing the infrastructure things necessary for 15 that growth to occur that planning area, you 16 know, particularly 4B and five, but also three 17 and four, that growth is being limited in looking 18 at what measures are taken to protect critical 19 resources and maybe agricultural resources, maybe 20 environmental resources, and they may be doing 21 TDR. They may be doing mandatory clustering. 22 That answer is going to vary from place to place. 23 MS. ASHMAN: Let me see if I tell 24 you what I think you said, and that is their 25 plans in general are consistent with the State 109 1 Plan, whatever standard they're going to use 2 which we don't know, but their planning in 3 general, in all the areas it applies to them, are 4 consistent with the State Plan to get plan 5 endorsement. If they want the added benefits, 6 then they have to go through some added steps. 7 MR. HARRISON: Yes. 8 MS. ASHMAN: Is that what you really 9 were saying? 10 MR. HARRISON: It sounded right. 11 MS. ASHMAN: Maybe that's what's on 12 the paper, but it was a little hard out there to 13 figure that one out. Thank you. 14 MR. TOUHEY: Your earlier point when 15 you said concerned about following what plan. 16 Could you -- 17 MS. ASHMAN: Say that again. 18 MR. TOUHEY: Could you repeat back, 19 you said something like we're unclear what plan 20 we'll be following. I want to make sure I 21 understand what you mean by that. 22 MS. ASHMAN: Alls I said was in 23 order to get endorsement, your general plan and 24 everything that applies to your municipality, 25 which may be agriculture in one place, 110 1 agriculture policy, it may be urban policies in 2 another place are judged to be consistent by some 3 standard which we haven't seen yet. You get plan 4 endorsement. 5 If you want added benefits or 6 benefits, let's not say added, benefits like 7 funding for agriculture preservation or TDR or 8 some of the other things, you must jump some 9 hurdles in order for the state agencies to be 10 ready to do that. 11 MR. TOUHEY: That's right. 12 MS. ASHMAN: If that's where we are, 13 I'm much more comfortable. I was lost. I just 14 wanted to say one last thing before I left. 15 There seems to be a confusion between what 16 cross-acceptance is and plan endorsement is. 17 Cross-acceptance is trying to reach a consensus 18 in this state which no other state tries to do on 19 what a State Plan should look like. Plan 20 endorsement is basically implementing when you 21 reach some consensus. 22 MR. TOUHEY: That's right. 23 MS. ASHMAN: Thank you. 24 MR. WILKINSON: I'm Eric Wilkinson 25 with New Jersey Future. It seems like we're 111 1 putting a lot of emphasis on plan endorsement 2 which is fantastic, but we're putting a lot of 3 eggs into the guidelines, the endorsement 4 guidelines, which we haven't seen and the public 5 hasn't seen yet, and I wanted to echo Candy to 6 say we'd really like to get our hands on those to 7 be able to evaluate them. Thanks. 8 MS. BYERS: Any response? 9 MR. ZELLNER: Yeah, I'll just say we 10 are going to be getting them out. Keep in mind, 11 we needed to get the state agency data before we 12 wanted to go through the guideline because we had 13 to see what it looked like so we made sure it was 14 incorporated; but it is going to come out now, 15 along with these data layers, very quickly. 16 MS. BYERS: Any other comments? And 17 then we've got to move quickly on. We're behind 18 schedule. 19 MR. KIRCHHOFFER: I just would like 20 some clarification since your goal is to have 21 everybody be endorsed. When and where and what 22 are the standards for setting that? Because it 23 seems to me, that's a pretty important thing. 24 We've been skirting the standards issue, and I 25 just don't know where that comes in. Are we 112 1 going to have something to review, or how is that 2 going to get pinned down? 3 MR. ZELLNER: We are going to have 4 something for review for the public, and we're 5 going to have it out very quickly now that we've 6 got the data layers which have arrived. 7 MS. BYERS: Yes, sir. 8 MR. CERRA: Mike Cerra on behalf of 9 the League of Municipalities. A general comment 10 and mechanical question. First of all, initially 11 this is still a concept, so initially, we view 12 this rather positively, this incremental process. 13 It's kind of like my reaction when reading the 14 Star Ledger this morning reading about Kurt 15 Schilling. That sounds great. Who do we have to 16 give up, but initially this is very positive. 17 One comment on benefits, TDR and 18 impact fees were mentioned. Those type of 19 benefits, which we will argue municipalities 20 already should have, we think, at the front part 21 of the process to get towns into the process. If 22 you put carrots like that at the beginning of the 23 game, you're going to get a response. 24 Mechanical question, and pardon me 25 for my ignorance, but, obviously, this is going 113 1 to require changes to the proposed regulations, 2 and I'm curious as to that process. Will these 3 be republished? And I ask because once this gets 4 out there, people are going to be calling asking 5 questions, and they're going to be calling me, so 6 I want to be able to respond appropriately. 7 MS. BYERS: Can I move to the next 8 agenda item actually? 9 MR. HARRISON: The changes that we 10 are discussing so far, I don't feel is required 11 republication. I don't think there is a 12 substantive change in what we're doing. The 13 process is still going to be basically the same. 14 We will be getting out, as Adam said, the plan 15 endorsement guidelines that will go in detail 16 describing the process which will probably be the 17 more helpful thing in the near future, and we 18 extended the comment period on the rules. 19 And that will give you a context 20 which to submit additional comments on the rules 21 as to what's going to be spelled out in the draft 22 plan endorsement guidelines, but there is not an 23 awful lot of change other than terms to make it a 24 little clearer that, you know, towns have choices 25 on how far they want to go into the process. 114 1 MR. CERRA: So factor into the 30 2 day extension, we're on the same calendar? 3 MR. TOUHEY: Yes. 4 MR. ESKILSON: Mike, are you also 5 asking about the DEP piece of that? Because that 6 will have to be published, and I think we're 7 looking for that some time this month, next 8 month, the DEP rules that are attached to this 9 process that we've all been talking about today 10 and to the map, preliminary or otherwise, I'm not 11 sure now, but that will be attached to some map, 12 and I think those will be need to be published, 13 and there is obviously the public comment period. 14 Does anyone know exactly where we are on those? 15 MR. RYAN: I just understand some 16 time later this month is what I've heard. 17 MR. FISHER: It was a good point, 18 and if someone wasn't going to bring it up, I was 19 going to. Because although there was a lot of 20 articles and press about the big map 21 disappearing, the regulations are not, so we know 22 that the department is coming out with something, 23 I don't know, or we don't know yet how they're 24 really going to relate to the State Plan and its 25 planning areas and what that structure will 115 1 ultimately look like; so that will be critical, 2 and obviously towns and counties out there are 3 going to wonder, and the regulated community, how 4 that is going to be implemented. 5 MS. BYERS: Thank you. I'd like to 6 move on then to the discussion of the pending 7 state planning rules. Is that also you, Bill? 8 MR. HARRISON: I hope not. To some 9 degree, yes, but I should have assistance. 10 MS. MORRIN: A lot of things that 11 we've talked about actually are sort of the 12 comments that have been sort of given by the 13 people that commented. We've had 14 comments so 14 far, and one being the request for an extension 15 to December 1st which is an extra 30 days. Two 16 of them have been from municipalities, seven from 17 counties. 18 One from the Pinelands, and four 19 interest groups, and I sort of gave sort of a 20 highlight of sort of top ten sort of comments, 21 not to go into too much detail and specifics. I 22 guess, the first part is the people agree with 23 putting in those requirements in one section, but 24 also are very confused about sort of, I guess, 25 the redundancy and what is considered 116 1 cross-acceptance and what is considered plan 2 endorsement. 3 Also, there is concern about public 4 participation, and I think that the State 5 Planning Commission is very clear that they want 6 the public to participate, and perhaps that's not 7 as detailed in the rules itself. There's also a 8 concern about funding for cross-acceptance for 9 the counties and the municipalities. There's 10 also the debate, and I think we debated this in 11 length today about the cross-acceptance manual 12 plan endorsement guidelines. 13 Should it be in the rules, should it 14 be part of a separate document, and a lot of the 15 rules, that is sort of a large comment. There is 16 also the question, again, of timing of the 17 benefits of plan endorsement, which I think that 18 Bill has presented in the last discussion that 19 we've had. 20 There's also, in terms of just 21 defining what we need by consistency, and that 22 might be something that is related to the 23 cross-acceptance manual, the plan endorsement 24 guidelines. What is consistency? It's not 25 defined in the State Plan, and we also don't seem 117 1 to have standards, and I thought that these 2 standards would be something that would be in the 3 cross-acceptance manual and the plan endorsement 4 guidelines. 5 There is also a concern about what 6 are the benefits for previously designated 7 centers and how do we address that question. 8 There's also a concern about the time frame for 9 endorsement. Specifically, 7.11, and the Sierra 10 Club spends a considerable amount of time 11 commenting on that, and there is one more. 12 Related to that, is the prior consideration that 13 many people believe it's unclear about what we 14 mean by is it a county going in, are we just 15 automatically going to endorse the 16 municipalities, and what if they don't agree with 17 the endorsements. 18 So it's sort of we have to adjust 19 and disconnect if possible and of course, you 20 know, State Plan policy map changes. Is it a 21 part of cross-acceptance? Is it part of plan 22 endorsement? I guess people are still confused 23 about that as well. 24 MS. BYERS: Any questions? 25 MR. TOUHEY: I guess, Adam, we're 118 1 going to take into consideration all of these 2 recommendations and recommend to the commission 3 some of the points. Just hearing some, we can 4 clarify pretty easily. Others may need some 5 attention. 6 MR. ZELLNER: We're going to go 7 through them, and we'll be sending letters back, 8 counter comments and letting people know what 9 we're doing and what's getting incorporated and 10 where we have some other concerns. 11 MR. FISHER: There are two good 12 ones. One is the previously designated centers, 13 what happens to those and how do we create 14 centers or maybe even a different process to 15 achieve plan endorsement. Do we know what we're 16 thinking on that level? 17 MS. BYERS: We do have an expiration 18 date. 19 MR. HARRISON: The rules have an 20 expiration date which I think the earliest kicks 21 in is either 2007 or 2008. We're hoping those 22 communities would designate centers. There are 23 enough other incentives for them to come in 24 through plan endorsement, and not just wait until 25 their centers have to lapse, but the rules have 119 1 always had a period of protection for them, and 2 the proposed rules continue that. 3 MR. TOUHEY: So some of them have 4 been designated, you're saying, the first fall 5 off date is 2007? 6 MR. HARRISON: 2008. 7 MR. FISHER: What about local towns 8 that don't buy into a regional petition? How are 9 we going to deal with that? Are we going to 10 require like a regional agency or a county to 11 achieve or obtain? 12 MR. HARRISON: We are not going to 13 require. The priority will be given to county 14 petitions and regional petitions just to deal 15 with work load realities. 16 MR. FISHER: But will they need to 17 obtain the buy out of all their welcome 18 municipalities? 19 MR. HARRISON: The process requires 20 them to communicate, I guess is the best word, 21 with the county and adjoining municipalities, and 22 if they are the county border, the adjoining 23 county, and to address whether their plans are 24 consistent with those of the adjoining 25 jurisdictions, so that is part of the process; so 120 1 we're not confronted with the situation where 2 town A is coming in with something on its border 3 that is incompatible with what town B from a 4 State Plan perspective is proposing on the other 5 side of the border, and one of those -- both may 6 not work. One certainly will not work. 7 MS. BYERS: I think a classic 8 example of that, Dave, will be Flemington Borough 9 which we designated as a center out in Raritan 10 Township just not long ago, so assuming Raritan 11 never comes in as a regional center, if 12 Flemington Borough, their center designation 13 expires at that point, you know, I would think 14 that we would say to both of them, you have to 15 come in together and do a regional plan 16 endorsement, and that we would not again 17 reconsider Flemington Borough in and of itself as 18 a center. 19 MR. FISHER: I would agree in 20 situations like that. I think we would have to 21 insist that there be joint applications, but I'm 22 thinking more when Bill said we need to 23 communicate and try to address their differences. 24 I don't think we want to go too far 25 down the road in endorsing a regional plan that 121 1 we know will be inconsistent with local land use 2 goals and objectives because then we'll have two 3 plans out there, so we need to be cautious as we 4 approach that one. Thanks. 5 MS. BYERS: Any other questions? 6 MR. ESKILSON: The only problem with 7 that, Dave. The regional plan may in fact put 8 something on the table that is much different 9 than are in the current documents in their 10 constituent municipalities. That is part of the 11 dilemma in producing these plans. Otherwise, 12 what you have, like Sussex County's case, is 13 simply pasting 24 master plans together and 14 calling it a regional plan. 15 How you get by that, and how do you 16 reach consensus? Because there will be areas 17 where you're asking a municipality to do 18 something different than what is in their master 19 plan and their zoning documents. That's the 20 challenge. You all know that, the State Plan in 21 dealing with those issues, but we're seeing that 22 at the county level as well. 23 The county planning agencies have 24 become the new mini State Planning Commission. 25 How do you tell somebody, particularly if they 122 1 just invested considerable dollars in updating 2 the master plan, that from a regional perspective 3 we have something different in mind. Complicate 4 that with the fact that that may be well and 5 good, you call for growth here, we don't think so 6 based on what your neighbor is doing in a 7 regional perspective. 8 But we don't have any answers to the 9 revenue questions that are implicated by our 10 decision. It is a very difficult process, and 11 there will be times when the regional plans are, 12 in fact, inconsistent with what's already been 13 approved, perhaps even what's been approved by 14 the State Planning Commission; and at this level 15 we're going to have to deal with that and sort it 16 out, figure out what that means. 17 MS. BYERS: At this point, I'd like 18 to go to the public comments on just this section 19 of the agenda which deals with the pending State 20 Plan rules. Okay. Anything else on that item 21 before we move on? The next item is discussion 22 of the calendar for the remaining centers. I'm 23 hoping that most of the centers have agreed to go 24 to plan endorsement. 25 MR. DRAKE: We did get quite a few 123 1 early back. It was probably in the neighborhood 2 of 20 something centers that were in the docket. 3 Now, we're down to about 15, and we have at least 4 a schedule as far as January, February, March, 5 and our goal is to bring these forward in the 6 venue of discussions at the PIC. Our focus from 7 November and December, and obviously into 8 January, will be to have four communities that 9 we're talking with now come in January. Three in 10 February. 11 That would leave five others for 12 March. What we did do is we sent out letters to 13 all the communities that had pending centers 14 advising them of the law change that they're 15 extended. Some of them, which we really hadn't 16 communicated extensively on, firmly suggested 17 that they withdraw and consider plan endorsement. 18 Three of them said they'll consider 19 it, but they're not going to withdraw currently, 20 so we are sort of in a matter of negotiations. 21 There are a number of centers -- 22 MS. BYERS: Three said that? 23 MR. DRAKE: Three out of the -- 24 well, there's seven that are, at least we've been 25 courting all along. Most of them have been in 124 1 Sussex, and several of those communities, there 2 is some indication that they'd be interested in 3 plan endorsement. Other similar indications, 4 they'd be interested in having their centers 5 designated at the same time they'll come into 6 plan endorsement, so there is a variety of ways 7 we can approach this. 8 But our goal is really to have the 9 end product of all the centers sort of close by 10 March, so we really don't have this discussion 11 continuing beyond March when they're talking 12 about cross-acceptance and adopting the rules of 13 plan endorsement, so it's really not cluttering 14 up our docket; and some of them, quite honestly, 15 we may bring them forward, and the recommendation 16 might be not to approve them. 17 Others might be bringing them 18 forward with an expectation that they're going to 19 have to make their best case for themselves, or 20 we're going to present the facts and there be 21 certainly an effort on their part to, obviously 22 at their own pleasure, to talk to the PIC. The 23 ones in Sussex County, we think that we'll have 24 at least a fair amount of them where they can 25 come forward. 125 1 As I said, some of them are probably 2 still interested in center designation, and as we 3 finalize all the details of plan endorsement, 4 some of them may still be willing to go to plan 5 endorsement. I think as we continue to work with 6 them for the next few weeks, we'll be able to 7 flush this county even more, but it really is 8 about 15 centers. Three of the centers, we 9 intend to send a letter advising them that we're 10 not even going to consider bringing them to the 11 PIC, and that they have the option of withdrawing 12 or we're going to recommend a denial outright. 13 The other 12, we're still 14 discussing, and we're still having finalized the 15 formal position. I think those three would 16 involve a significant amount of work on our part 17 that we really just don't see that we have the 18 ability to bring up to par to bring that forward. 19 MS. BYERS: So there is 12 centers 20 that we will have on the agenda for January, 21 February and March, and then in November and 22 December, are we going to have preliminary 23 discussions on those centers to help determine 24 whether or not we want to have those centers 25 brought before us? 126 1 That is one thing I don't want to 2 have happen is lead on any of the petitions that 3 really aren't going to cut it rather than just 4 having the staff say, well, we don't think that 5 you should go forward, but you're willing to go 6 to the PIC and plead your case. I don't think 7 that's a good scenario for anybody. I think it 8 can really waste people's time, and frankly for 9 the staff and the commission, we don't have that 10 much resource. 11 MR. TOUHEY: My concern with that 12 would be a legal concern. I don't know 13 historically what we've done and what process, 14 but I haven't been here long enough to know, and 15 so I have concern about that, and that is 16 something we should look into. 17 MS. BYERS: But at the same time, if 18 you're already denying three right now on your 19 own without having to move to the PIC, what's the 20 difference? 21 MR. ESKILSON: Because there is 22 agreement. My understanding is there is an 23 agreement to withdraw. If you don't have that, I 24 think the municipality is entitled to its day in 25 court, so to speak. Otherwise, we simply run the 127 1 clock out again like we were about to do last 2 year, and frankly, I don't think people are going 3 to stand for that again. They shouldn't have to. 4 Staff recommendations are staff recommendations. 5 We have an obligation to hear those 6 municipalities. 7 They put time and effort into this 8 whether staff agrees or not. That's one. Two, I 9 think one third of those 12 have taken huge 10 strikes based on what we did last week, and four 11 in Sussex county in their center process. 12 Whether those centers end up being incorporated 13 into the plan endorsement petition, we'll see. I 14 think some of the municipalities are just now 15 digesting some of the details that Bill has been 16 talking about, as far as incentives for plan 17 endorsement. 18 I'm hopeful that a number of them 19 will migrate to that, but I think those in 20 particular, if those municipalities sign on to 21 the evolution by ideas that were presented last 22 weekend, I think that goes a long way towards 23 this group moving on approval, frankly on those 24 municipalities, and if not, I wonder why we spent 25 the money and the time moving them along in their 128 1 design process. 2 MS. BYERS: Given that, I think it's 3 very important for us to get as much information 4 in a timely fashion as possible before the 5 centers come into the PIC in January, February, 6 March, and so if there is information that we can 7 get the most up-to-date draft petitions, any 8 staff reviews, if we can get that information 9 even as early as December, and make it available 10 to the public as well, I think we'll have a much 11 better process. 12 I don't want to get into the 13 situation where two days before it comes on the 14 agenda, we get the material. The public doesn't 15 get the material until the day before. We don't 16 want to be in that position again. 17 MR. DRAKE: We can package it 18 certainly and send everybody a complete package 19 of everything that we have. As far as the 20 public's opportunity, we can certainly make a 21 packet available, and, you know, be it in our 22 office or wherever, what we decide to be a 23 repository of that information, but, you know, 24 that is something without question we can do. 25 MR. TOUHEY: Michelle's point, and I 129 1 want to be clear on this, have we been in a 2 position where we didn't think we gave the public 3 enough time? I thought we went through this last 4 commission meeting, that there was an 5 understanding folks got information on time. I 6 want to be clear on this. This is an important 7 issue. 8 MS. BYERS: There were a couple of 9 centers six or eight months ago, where the 10 information was not available in a timely fashion 11 and with all congratulations or acknowledgment to 12 the staff, they have been better, and that 13 problem has been addressed. I just want to keep 14 it on the radar because it's easy to drop off. 15 Everybody is so busy, so I acknowledge that staff 16 has been doing that in the most recent past with 17 some of the applications. 18 We're talking about at least a week 19 in advance, having material put on the web for 20 the public, getting at least a week in advance in 21 our hands the final staff recommendations, and I 22 think we're getting there, but I want to 23 reiterate how important that is. 24 MR. TOUHEY: I agree, Michelle. You 25 want to be clear for the record, and also for the 130 1 record, Adam, you pretty much followed all the 2 meetings process. 3 MR. ZELLNER: I try. 4 MR. TOUHEY: I think the answer is 5 yes? 6 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. 7 MR. FISHER: Paul, I know this is a 8 big design up in Sussex County. Did that help, 9 you think, bring some of these issues to the 10 front? Maybe John could help us too in terms of 11 the direction of some of these towns. 12 MR. DRAKE: I believe so. It was 13 very effective. Certainly, ask John. 14 MR. ESKILSON: I think it was a 15 hugely productive day and-a-half, and it was 16 professionally stimulating. I think there was a 17 fair amount of resistance, it's fair to say, 18 coming into it on the part of the municipalities, 19 and even the county to some extent. I think the 20 design professionals were selected -- I don't 21 know where you found these guys, but they were 22 terrific. 23 They had knowledge of design, of 24 land use, of economics, of marketing. They saw 25 the big picture, and I think we moved a long way. 131 1 In fact, I think every one of the centers was 2 pretty much completely redesigned. In the case 3 of Hampton Township, designing beyond their 4 borders and took in the town of Newton, which has 5 been a sore point for as many years as that 6 petition has been pending, so I think it was the 7 most productive day and-a-half I spent, and I've 8 been doing this a long time. 9 And I thank all the staff here, Paul 10 and Carlos and Marge and Mark, and everyone that 11 participated. I think that it should be looked 12 at as a model. I think municipal officials 13 better understood our dilemma here. I think you 14 guys got a better sense of what they were up 15 against, and I think the connecting point was the 16 design professions. 17 Who knew that we really weren't 18 unique, had a national or even an international 19 perspective on this problem, so I think we came a 20 very long way. I think with that type of 21 investment, we're hard press because 22 municipalities sign onto that process to not move 23 them forward. They are, in some cases, will be 24 required to sprout a great deal of their original 25 thinking and their original planning to move 132 1 towards the design we talked about. 2 In fact, I know one developer who is 3 already making a lot of phone calls, and is upset 4 with the redesign, but I think once he gets a 5 look at it and gives it a chance, I think he will 6 see a way to make this project work in a Smart 7 Growth context, so kudos to everyone involved, 8 really timely spent. 9 MS. BYERS: Putting a request in for 10 the next PIC meeting in November, could we get a 11 list of which centers are going to be at which 12 meetings? 13 MR. DRAKE: I wasn't aware that we 14 had a PIC meeting in November. 15 MS. BYERS: Well, the December 16 meeting. That was my next question. When is the 17 next meeting? 18 MR. DRAKE: The agenda for PIC, we 19 could schedule one, but as I understand it, in 20 December, there was not originally a PIC meeting 21 scheduled. 22 MS. BYERS: If we're not having a 23 PIC meeting, can we get a list and get it up on 24 the web for the public as well, so we know what 25 centers are going to be at what meetings? 133 1 MR. DRAKE: Yes, that's certainly -- 2 we can do that. 3 MR. FISHER: The next one I have is 4 January 7th. 5 MR. DRAKE: That was an SPC meeting, 6 I believe. 7 MR. FISHER: No, 22nd is SPC. 8 January 7th is the PIC meeting. 9 MR. DRAKE: We were looking at 10 January 28th which is the Wednesday after the 11 SPC. That's been our normal process. I was 12 looking at January 28th and February 27th as 13 being the PICs. 14 MR. FISHER: I'm sure that's based 15 on an old schedule, but I guess we ought to look 16 at what we need to do in the schedule to get 17 through these. 18 MR. DRAKE: I mean, if we need to -- 19 in the past, we've done a PIC meeting, whether or 20 not we do a special work meeting or what have 21 you, so that we don't have crunch time and these 22 sort of crunch up at the last minute. Some of 23 them will clearly be the reason why we're at this 24 point. Perhaps every one of them will be, to 25 say, interesting is an understatement. 134 1 Certainly, there will be some controversy as 2 well, so without a doubt, the more we have 3 advanced knowledge of what the issues are, the 4 better off we'll all be. 5 MR. FISHER: Could I make one more 6 suggestion? I know our next commission meeting 7 is December 3rd. I would like to see, I don't 8 know how the others feel, some sort of summary 9 presentation, similar to what you guys did with 10 the maps, done for the full commission. We have 11 a number of commissioners here, but we're missing 12 quite a few from the PIC meeting, and I think it 13 would be beneficial for the entire commission and 14 members of the public to kind of see where we're 15 going with this new mapping and explanation as to 16 the data layers and how we're putting that 17 together. 18 MR. TOUHEY: I think that makes 19 sense, David. 20 MR. FISHER: Thanks. 21 MS. BYERS: Anything else on the 22 centers? With that, I'd like to go to public 23 comment. First, comments on the centers, and 24 then general public comment. 25 MR. DILLINGHAM: My name is Tim 135 1 Dillingham. I'm the executive director of the 2 American Littoral Society, which is a coastal 3 conservation preservation. I just wanted to 4 support the idea of the information, particularly 5 in Paul's characterization, that there is some 6 controversial proposals that are happening, and a 7 week is really not a lot of time, given the 8 holidays. 9 So along the lines of Dave's 10 suggestion, if there's a summary that we talked 11 about maybe at the State Planning Commission 12 meeting on the 3rd that would be about where the 13 centers stand, I guess just in terms of some 14 specifics, I'd like to ask which of the three, at 15 this point in the staff's determination, have 16 been recommended for withdrawal or denial, which 17 I would imagine is because of some fundamental 18 inconsistencies with the State Plan. 19 MR. TOUHEY: I think, Paul, you said 20 there was a mutual agreement. 21 MR. DRAKE: Yeah, well, there was 22 three. We haven't sent the letter yet that we're 23 considering coming in. I have written them down. 24 I'll get that to you. There were a number of 25 letters we sent out to communities that kind of 136 1 agreed to withdraw, come in on the plan 2 endorsement. That was probably at least ten 3 communities off the top of my head. 4 Then there were a number of 5 communities that had withdrawn way back in the 6 process that we hadn't even followed up with in 7 terms of letters and closed those files. Then 8 we're dealing with a number of files of the 9 pending centers. Then we're dealing with a 10 number of files that are pending, but there has 11 not been a whole lot of work with them, so you 12 can see how we're sort of, all these files that 13 we're managing, broke them up into different 14 categories, and we sent out a number of letters. 15 The letters we haven't sent out yet 16 are the communities that we haven't -- we feel 17 that there's significant issues that might be 18 prudent for us to send a letter, and close the 19 file. 20 MR. TOUHEY: Let me help you here, 21 Paul. Let me just be clear. We are going to 22 have an open process at these towns to come to, 23 to make their presentation regarding designated 24 centers, and go through the same process to 25 designate or not designate. Regarding the three 137 1 that you suggested would not, that's a mutual 2 agreement between the towns and the staff, if I 3 heard you correctly? 4 And if it's not, then what we said 5 is it would come through the normal process. We 6 would let the public know what was going on, and 7 we would discuss it at PIC and that would be 8 that. We're not going to supercede all of that. 9 MR. DRAKE: Right, those three. 10 There is a letter that we've drafted but haven't 11 sent which says it will be our recommendation 12 that we will not recommend approval. You have 13 the option to withdraw, or you have the option 14 for us to schedule a meeting with the Planning 15 Implementation Committee, and, essentially, make 16 your best case forward for you and that would 17 be -- 18 MR. DILLINGHAM: My question is if 19 you could name names at this point. Could you 20 tell me what three? 21 MR. DRAKE: In the context that 22 these communities haven't even been notified yet, 23 so I just assume talk to them directly. 24 MR. ESKILSON: The answer is no. 25 You're waiting until we notify the 138 1 municipalities, and hopefully that will occur in 2 short order, and then we can share that. 3 MR. DRAKE: Once the letter is sent, 4 it's public. 5 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: And it won't be 6 on the center schedule for being heard at the 7 PIC. 8 MS. BYERS: Maybe we could get a 9 list of who is going to be on the agenda for 10 January, February. 11 MR. DRAKE: I have a list. If 12 you're so interested in that, but those 13 communities have already gotten letters or know 14 what's going on. The three communities I was 15 talking about before are still working. 16 MR. ESKILSON: Could you tell us who 17 got the letters? 18 MR. DRAKE: I could give you a 19 rundown for January, February, March. Middle 20 Township, Cape May, Fairfield, Cumberland County, 21 Vineland and Sussex County, Andover in Sussex 22 County. That is tentatively for January. 23 February, tentatively. Hardyston, which is the 24 Franklin Hamburg Center, Hampton, and Frankford 25 in Branchville, and then in March we received 139 1 notice from Upper Old Bridge Township, Rockaway 2 Borough, East Brunswick and Randall. 3 MR. DILLINGHAM: Those are the ones 4 in which you are still in discussions with, and 5 which you are going to bring forward to the PIC? 6 MR. DRAKE: Yes. 7 MS. BYERS: Thank you. Anyone else 8 from the public? Any general comment on any 9 issue pertaining to the State Plan? 10 MS. ASHMAN: I have one general 11 comment and that is my disappointment in this 12 committee not dealing with the legislation and 13 getting through the legislation. 14 MR. ZELLNER: Hold tight. 15 Legislation session isn't over yet. 16 MS. ASHMAN: I know it's not over, 17 but I want you to move it. 18 MS. CALLUS: Hi. Megan Callus, New 19 Jersey Baykeeper. Actually, it's more of a 20 question than a comment. Threatened Endangered 21 Species Habitat, how is that going to be dealt 22 with in growth areas? Will the data layers trump 23 the State Plan? Will the State Plan trump the 24 data layers in terms of town centers? I'm very 25 confused. 140 1 MR. HARRISON: Where there are 2 Threatened Endangered Species in planning areas 3 one, two and designated centers, those are 4 showing up on the DEP maps as environmentally 5 sensitive. I don't think there can be a uniform 6 answer in some of those places. The habitat, you 7 know, is a reflection of what showed up on the 95 8 aerials, and that habitat may not be there 9 anymore and hence will not be protected; but, you 10 know, it is showing up environmentally sensitive 11 on the DEP map and the decision law to make on a 12 case by case basis as to how those should be 13 addressed. 14 MS. CALLUS: Just to further clarify 15 the question, in terms of the upcoming potential 16 regulations that will protect Threatened 17 Endangered Species Habitat, my understanding 18 right now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is 19 that in planning areas three, four and five, what 20 is it 4B or whatever, however it works, will have 21 conservation plans. Whereas, in planning area 22 one and two they will not. 23 MR. HARRISON: You have to ask DEP 24 what it's doing with its regulations. 25 MR. PURDIE: I can't say yet. 141 1 MS. BYERS: But isn't current 2 practice in a center designation, the DEP has 3 made it very clear that that center designation 4 does not override any regulatory rules that the 5 DEP has to protect the environment? 6 MR. PURDIE: That's right. 7 MR. HARRISON: The basic process 8 we're talking about is as towns are coming in 9 through plan endorsement, to do centers to change 10 planning area boundary. If they're threatening 11 endangered species issues, they would have to do 12 habitat management plans to show the species are 13 being protected, and that would end up 14 determining where the boundary is and whether 15 there is a CES defined within the center 16 planning area one or two. 17 MS. CALLUS: Thank you. 18 MR. PURDIE: It's just that where 19 it's located matters, as far as the regulations 20 you follow. If you are center planning area one 21 or two, it is considered, in our rule, as a 22 growth region. What we actually do there, I 23 don't want to get into now. As Dan said, 24 probably two to three weeks we'll have an idea as 25 to where that goes. 142 1 MS. BYERS: Thanks. Just to clarify 2 our upcoming meeting schedule, is that my 3 understanding then is that we have no meeting for 4 November and December, and that we will have 5 meetings January, February, March, but we still 6 aren't sure about the dates? 7 MR. HARRISON: The State Planning 8 Commission is going to concur that there is no 9 PIC meeting until January. 10 MS. BYERS: And you'll let us know 11 as soon as possible what the January date is for 12 the PIC, whether it is the 7th or the 28th? 13 MR. DRAKE: I think it's the 28th 14 myself. 15 MS. BYERS: Anything else? Motion 16 for adjournment? 17 MS. DELLA VECCHIA: So moved. 18 MR. TOUHEY: Second. 19 MS. BYERS: Thanks, everyone. 20 (Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 21 12:10 p.m.) 22 23 24 25 143 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 5 6 7 I, LAUREN BUTTERFIELD (License No. XIO2031), 8 a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 9 of the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify the 10 foregoing to be a true and accurate transcript of 11 my original stenographic notes taken at the time 12 and place hereinbefore set forth. 13 14 15 16 17 ______________________________ 18 LAUREN BUTTERFIELD, CSR, RPR 19 20 21 Dated: November 16, 2003. 22 23 24 25