BOROUGH OF RINGWOODwww.ringwoodni.net

Phone: (973) 962-7037 Fax: (973) 962-1594

Kenneth HetrickMunicipal Manager(973) 475-7101

Joanne Atlas

Mayor

Kelley A. Rohde, RMCMunicipal Clerk(973) 475-7102

William E. Marsala

Deputy Mayor

I

~a:@[EDWa:

W~i

MAY 1 2007 ~ !:i

By~1

Council MembersDonna S. Anderson

Thomas C. Mac AllenBill O'Hearn

Linda M. SchaeferWenke Taule

April 27, 2007

Ms. Eileen SwanExecutive Director

New Jersey Highlands Council100 North Road (Route 513)Chester, N. 1. 07930

Re: Highlands Council Master Plan- Municipal Recommendations

Dear Ms. Swan:

Please find enclosed a resolution of the Ringwood governing body endorsing therecommendations for amending the Highlands Master Plan as passed by the RingwoodPlanning Board.

We think you'll find these proposed amendments very constructive and well thought out.

Should you have any questions or would like further elaborations on any of these recommendedamendments, please feel free to contact me.

V lrutIi-t HetrickBorough Manager

KH:cr

Encl. Ringwood Resolution #2007-157, with 7pp. attachment

60 MARGARET KING AVENUE. RINGWOOD, NJ 07456 . FAX (973) 962-6028

Resolution Number2007-157

BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of the Borough of Ringwood herebyauthorizes the Municipal Clerk to send the recommendations of the Planning Board to the

Highlands COWlciias presented. ~ ~JOANNE ATLAS, MAYOR

I hereby certify that the above Resolutionwas adopted by the Municipal Council ofthe Borough of Ringwood at its BusinessMeeting of April 24, 2007.

CouncilMember Motion Second Aves Navs Abstain Absent

Atlas XMarsala XAnderson XMac Allen X XO'Hearn XSchaefer XTaule X X

RECOMMENDATIONSRE IDGHLANDSCOUNCIL MASTER PLAN

WHEREAS, the New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council (the"Highlands Council") requested public comment on its draft master plan entitled, "HighlandsDraft Regional Master Plan, Release for Public Comment, November 2006" (the "RMP"); and

WHEREAS, the Ringwood Planning Board (the "Planning Board") and itsprofessionals have reviewed the RMP and wish to recommend to the Ringwood BoroughCouncil (the "Borough Council") that it transmit the recommendations contained in thisResolution to the Highlands Council; and

WHEREAS, the filing deadline for such comments is presently May 11,2007;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board that the Planning Boardrecommends to the Borough Council that the following matters be transmitted:

1. Executive Summarv. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Boardrecommends:

a. That, before adoption of the RMP, all information in the RMP be revised in a clearand transparent manner so that every community can understand the full impact ofthe RMP on it. That would include, but not be limited to, release of communityspecific information as to: water deficits, factors for the overlay mapping, septicdensities and build-out analysis. (See Paragraph 2)

b. That all Planned Community/Specially Planned Areas presently designated inRingwood in the RMP shall be removed from the map because the RMPencourages development in Current Water Deficit Areas with no sewerinfrastructure. (See Paragraph 3)

c. That the Highlands Council designate the lake areas and Tier 1 WellheadProtection areas in Ringwood for special management in which, withoutencouraging growth or destruction of the character of the communities, residentsare given assistance in reducing water consumption and making sure that septicsystems are not detrimental to the lakes and drinking water. (See Paragraph 3)

d. That the RMP be clarified as to the standards for identifying areas for the 70%impervious cover redevelopment waiver. This would include, but not be limitedto, clarification as to whether lots in separate ownership can be aggregated withinredevelopment areas even if all such lots are not presently developed with 70%impervious cover. (See Paragraph 4)

e. That the RMP be clarified as to the remapping that will be permitted in the Planconformance process so that, if Ringwood wishes to encourage remapping of areasin Ringwood during that process, it will be permitted to do so. (See Paragraph 5)

f. That the RMP be made to conform to the Highlands Act to limit TDR receivingareas to the statutorily defmed "Planning Area". (See Paragraph 6)

Jb') ~

g. That there be an additional period for comment on revisions. (See Paragraph 7)

2. Lack of Easilv Accessible Information. During the course of review of the RMP theBoard and its professionals concluded that certain vital information was not presented in theRMP in a manner that is easily ascertainable or understandable. In particular:

a. The methodology used by the Highlands Council for determining the location ofits Planned Community Zone/Specially Planned Areas, relies upon the evaluationof 12 factors, with a stipulation that if an area meets 3 or more of those factors inan area containing 100 acres or more, a Planned Community Zone/SpeciallyPlanned Area will be established. Yet the maps supporting the evaluation of thefactors are contained only in the Technical Reports supporting the RMP and, infact, some are contained in only one Technical Report and others are contained inonly another. In the interests of clarity and transparency, the RMP should containa summary for each Planned Community Zone/Specially Planned Area thatspecifically designates the factors that, under the methodology of the RMP, arepresent in each such Planned Community Zone/Specially Planned Area. This willallow communities such as Ringwood to make an accurate determination, from itsown information, whether it thinks the RMP evaluation is correct.

b. The methodology used by the Highlands Council for determining NetAvailability of Water and Current Water Deficit Areas, relies on studies ofsubwatersheds, denominated as HUC 14's. There are a substantial number ofmaps of boundaries of the HUC 14's in the RMP and in the Technical Reportsand discussions of the characteristics of those HUC 14's. Yet nowhere in eitherthe RMP or the Technical Reports released to date is there a key map showingthe reference numbers of the various HUC 14's and a map showing the municipalboundaries superimposed on the HUC 14map. Thus it is impossible for anyonereading the materials to ascertain easily which HUC 14's are within theboundaries of a particular municipality. In the interests of clarity andtransparency, this should be corrected. This will allow communities such asRingwood to determine whether the assumptions and calculations by the RMP asto Net Availability and Current Water Deficiency are correct.

c. The Borough has been unable to determine from the RMP or the TechnicalReports:

i. Information about septic densities which the Executive Directorhas said would be forthcoming.

ii. Information about the Highlands Council build-out analysis.

iii. Information about whether the Highlands Council has consideredthat Ringwood has a current water allocation from the NJDEPwhich is not currently fully utilized.

iv. Information about whether the Highlands Council has consideredcontractual relationships under which, in certain circumstances,

)"di

Ringwood has the right to draw 30% of the Borough's watersupply from the Wanaque Reservoir.

3. Flaws in the Methodolo2V which result in imnroner desi2Dation of certainnronerties in Rin2Wood as a Planned Communitv/Snecial1v Planned Area.

a. Although the information is not easily accessible, the Planning Board thinksthat the RMP places portions of the Borough's lake areas in the only PlannedCommunity Zone/Specially Planned Area because of four factors: developmentintensity, population density, impervious area and availability of water. There isno public sewer service available in those areas.

b. The RMP says the following on page 47:

"Planned Community Zone - The Planned Community Zone/Specially PlannedArea consists of areas with concentrated development signifying existingcommunities. These areas tend to have less environmental constraints, and haveexisting infrastructure that may support development provided that it iscompatible with the protection and character of the Highlands environment, atlevels that are appropriate to maintain the character of established communities.

***

The purpose of the Planned Community Zone, including Specially Planned Areas,is to:

DD Identify lands appropriate for providing economic growth opportunities withan emphasis on promoting the efficient use of previously developed lands; and

DD Prioritize public investment in infrastructure in appropriate areas based on thePlanned Community Zone; and

DD Provide opportunity for TDR Receiving Areas, which serve as voluntarydevelopment and redevelopment areas that allow for increased densities inspecific sites that are not environmentally constrained and where infrastructure isavailable or feasible.

c. The RMP encourages development in the Planned Community Zone/SpeciallyPlanned Areas by:

1. allowing new land uses or the alteration of existing land use eventhough such uses might be detrimental to water quality and habitat ofHighlands Open Waters or a Riparian Area, so long as "low impactdevelopment best management practices" are used and opportunitiesare identified for restoring and enhancing previously impaired openwaters or riparian areas (Page 92)

11. allowing clearing of woody vegetation within a ForestResourceAreaso long as "low impact development best management practices" are

"3 ~ ~

used and opportunities are identified for restoration of forestresources. (Page 103)

111. allowing new land uses or modification of existing land use eventhough such uses are within a Critical Habitat Resource Area orwithin any Critical Habitat feature so long as "low impactdevelopment best management practices" are used and previouslyimpaired critical habitat is enhanced, restored or mitigated. (Page112)

iv. allocating to land uses in the Planned Community Zone /SpeciallyPlanned Area a greater percentage (20%) of ''Net Available Water"than is allowed in the Protection Zone (5%) or the Conservation Zone(10%) (Pages 58-60).

d. Although the magnitude of the Current Water Deficit in Ringwood cannot beeasily determined because of the lack of summary maps as set forth above, theentire Borough of Ringwood is in a Current Water Deficit Area. In a CurrentWater Deficit Area, the policy of the RMP is to "prevent increased consumptiveor depletive water uses... to prevent exacerbation of and help reduce or eliminatethe deficit, emphasizing techniques including, but not limited to, water use,recycling and conservation." (Page 60)

e. The entire Planned Community Zone/Specially Planned Area in Ringwoodappears to encompass an area of Ringwood that is substantially developed withsingle family dwellings, serviced only by septic systems and no public or quasipublic sewage treatment, on lots that are between 5,000 and 20,000 square feetin area in the vicinity of the Erskine Lakes, Skyline Lakes and Cupsaw Lake.

f. According to a presentation made by the Acting Executive Director of theHighlands Commission at a meeting with the Borough Council, most, if not allof the homes and lots in the proposed Planned Community Zone/SpeciallyPlanned Area are exempt from regulation under the Highlands Act andRegulations, so long as they remain single family dwellings.

g. The Planning Board therefore concludes that the methodology for determiningthe Planned Community Zone/Specially Planned Areas in the RMP is flawedand should not be applied to the lake areas in Ringwood for the followingreasons:

i. In spite of the fact that the lake areas may meet some of the criteriafor designation as a Planned Community Zone/Specially PlannedArea, they are not "lands appropriate for providing economic growthopportunities with an emphasis on promoting the efficient use ofpreviously developed lands."

11. Because Ringwood is in a Current Water Deficit Area, according tothe RMP, it is unlikely that the RMP implementation will permit

y ~ g

public investment in sewerage infrastructure, in the PlannedCommunity Zone even if Ringwood wanted to do so.

111. Because of the ability of all homeowners to modify their homeswithout being impacted by the Highlands Act and Regulations, thesecommunities are not appropriate receiving zones for a TDR Program.

IV. The very designation by the RMP of these lake areas as the onlyPlanned Community Zone/Specially Planned Area in Ringwood islikely to raise expectations of denser multi-family type dwellings thatmay make the sewerage infrastructure more feasible, increaseeconomic pressures for such development and result in thedestruction of the character of the existing communities.

h. The Planning Board is concerned that if, in the conformance process, it doesnot make changes in its land use regulations that encourage "economicgrowth opportunities" in the lake areas either the Highlands Council will notapprove those plans as consistent with the RMP or, if it does, that alandowner will challenge that action of the municipality and the municipalitywill not be eligible for the "legal shield" described in the RMP under theparagraph "Legal Representation"

4.

The Planning Board recommends that the Highlands Council designate theRingwood lake areas as a special management area in which, withoutencouraging growth or destruction of the character of the communities,residents are given assistance in reducing water consumption and makingsure that septic systems are not detrimental to the Highlands Open Waters(i.e. the lakes) in these communities.

Lack of Claritv as to the Redevelopment of Areas of RinllWood that would Oualifvfor Redevelonment under the 70% Imnervious Cover Waiver.

1.

a. The Highlands Act requires that the DEP "permitting review program"must include a provision that "may allow for a waiver of any provisionof a Highlands permitting review on a case-by-case basis forredevelopment in certain areas in the preservation area" that areidentified in the RMP as a "site at which at least 70% of the areathereof is covered with impervious surface" or that is identified in thesmart growth component of the master plan.

b. The Highlands Act [N.J.S.A. 13:20-11] requires the Council's RMP' asa mandatory provision to "identifYareas appropriate forredevelopment and set appropriate density standards forredevelopment. ...Any area identified for possible redevelopmentpursuant to this subparagraph shall be...a site at which at least 70% ofthe area thereof is covered with impervious surface."

c. Ringwoodwastherecipientof anMP3GrantfromtheHighlandsCouncilthat showedpotentialfor "redevelopment"of certainexistingareasof the communitythatwould,aftersuchredevelopment,have

? "d 15

70% impervious coverage and be in areas relatively free ofenvironmental constraints. The identified areas contained propertiesthat were, for the most part, in separate ownership, some of whichcontained more than 70% of impervious cover and some of whichwere vacant, but which, when aggregated, could be redeveloped with70% impervious cover in areas free of environmental constraints. ThatMP3 Report has not as yet been approved by the Governing Body ofthe Borough.

d. The RMP does not address the issue of whether the statute or thecurrent DEP regulations (as amended by the RMP) will permit theaggregation of properties, as suggested by the MP3 methodology, intoa "site" that has 70% impervious coverage even if the properties beingaggregated are in separate ownerships and some of which are vacant.

e. Without allowing the aggregation of properties in separate ownership,the redevelopment waiver will, in the opinion of the Planning Board,not be of much use to the Borough of Ringwood.

f. The Planning Board understands that the Highlands Council intends tomeet its statutory requirement by identifying redevelopment areas inthe pre-conformance process and thereafter in the conformanceprocess. (page 141) Therefore the Planning Board is satisfied to leaveto the conformance process, the actual designation, if any, ofredevelopment sites within Ringwood because the Planning Board hasnot yet formulated policy recommendations with respect to thatdesignation.

5. Lack of Clarity of the RMP as to remaDDinf!of Zones that can occur in theConformance Process.

a. The RMP provides at page 206:

Adjustments and revisions of the Land Use Capability Map may be made by theCouncil during the conformance process where new information is presented bythe petitioner that changes the underlvine assumotions about conditions Dresentin the municioalitv that were considered bv the Council durine the develoDment~.In other words, a municipality seeking to conform maypresent ~ information about areas or sites in their jurisdiction that haveparticular circumstances that suggest that the Highlands Council needs toreconsider the Land Use Capability designation on the Map or in the RegionalMaster Plan. One examole mi1!htbe where a lane develoDment is to be built inan environmentaUv sensitive area but is found to be exemot from the Actbecause it has eained all aDDrovalsbefore the Act. In this instance. the newinformation would reveal that in sDiteof the fact the site had sensitive features.due to the exemoted aDDrovalsand scale of the develoDment. the maDDed

resource features of the site mav reauire revision. Adjustmentsandrevisionsmade during the conformance process will help ensure that the Regional MasterPlan considers the most up-to-date information and that the Land Use Capability

'd9'

Map recognizes the current conditions within a conforming municipality.(Emphasis supplied).

b. The Planning Board's opinion is that the underlined and italicized languageis too confining and should be deleted.

c. This is important to the Planning Board for the following reasons:

1. Although it has made no policy decision in this regard, thePlanning Board may, after studies undertaken during theconformance process, decide that it wants to seek aremapping of certain areas in Ringwood to carry out theobjectives of a Planned Community Zone, ( i.e. "'providingeconomic growth opportunities with an emphasis onpromoting the efficient use of previously developed lands"and prioritizing "public investment in infrastructure inappropriate areas";

ii. The information that is provided during this process maynot be "'new" information, particularly because some of itmay have been used in the MP3 Report.

iii. In addition, the information that is provided during thisprocess may not have been considered by the HighlandsCouncil in the RMP because of the self-defining limitationson its definition of a Planned Community Zone/SpeciallyPlanned Area (i.e. the prerequisite of 100 acres for suchareas.

iv. Although it has made no policy decision in this regard, thePlanning Board may conclude that remapping is preferableto a redevelopment waiver, even if such waiver is available,in order to promote the objectives of the Borough.

6. Lack of conformitv of Master Plan to Hie:hlands Act concernine: T~e: Areas.

a. The Highlands Act [N.J.S.A. 13:20-13 (c) provides that the Council I to designateareas "within the planning area" that are appropriate "voluntary receiving zones" forthe transfer of development rights.

b. The Highlands Act [NJ.S.A. 13:20-11 (d) and (e)] provides that the RMP shall, as amandatory provision, identify potential receiving zones in the "planning area" for thetransfer of development rights.

c. The RMP Policy on "TDR voluntary Receiving Zones" is ambiguous and may becontrary to the Highlands Act, because on page 184, it says: "POLICY: PotentialTDR voluntary Receiving Zones within the Highlands Region shall include all landswith the Planning Community Zone or Specially Planned Areas identified in theRegional Master Plan or as approved by the Highlands Cooocil."

d. If the lake areas in Ringwood remain in a Planned Community Zone/SpeciallyPlanned Area, they would be eligible under the RMP (as now proposed for

'~Y

designation as voluntary Receiving Zones for TDR, which in the opinion of thePlanning Board is not only undesirable but may be contrary to the Highlands Act.

e. Accordingly, the Planning Board recommends that the foregoing policy be changed toread:

"POLICY: Potential TDR voluntary Receiving Zones within the Highlands Regionshall include all lands with the Planned Community Zone or Specially Planned Areaswithin the Planning Area as identified in the Regional Master Plan or as approved bythe Highlands Council." (New language bolded and in italics).

7. Need for an Additional Comment Period on Revisions

a. At the meeting of the Highlands Council Acting Executive Director, with theBorough Council, suggestions were made that the RMP will be amended at the end ofthe comment period to take into effect many of the points made by the public athearings and the written comments.

b. The Planning Board urges the Highlands Council to provide an additional commentperiod after those amendments have been promulgated.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Administrative Secretary of the Board is herebyauthorized and directed to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Borough Council with arequest that it be forwarded to the Highlands Council prior to May 11, 2007.

MOTION:SECONDED:

Ms. JolinMr. Speer

On roll call Atlas, Brown, Farber, Garceau, Jolin, Mac Allen, Sergi and Speer voted "aye".

Dated: April 9, 2007

~ '(; ~