Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document Prepared by State of New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council in Support of the Highlands Regional Master Plan Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Contents INTRODUCTION – CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION............................................................................................. 1 HISTORY OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION ..................................................................................................... 2 THE HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECTION AND PLANNING ACT............................................................... 3 THE HIGHLANDS REGIONAL MASTER PLAN ............................................................................................ 4 ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION – CHAPTER 2 .............................................7 WATER RESOURCES.....................................................................................................................................14 GROUND WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................................18 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS .........................................................................................................18 SEPTIC SYSTEM DENSITIES/ NITRATES ...............................................................................................19 GROUND WATER RECHARGE AREAS...................................................................................................22 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING ....................................................................................23 WATER SUPPLY UTILITIES ..........................................................................................................................23 MISCELLANEOUS .....................................................................................................................................25 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................27 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................27 AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY AND VIABILITY..............................................................................28 STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS, CONSERVATION PLANS AND WATER USE ...........................................29 MAPPING ..................................................................................................................................................29 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................30 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLANNING ...............................................................................................30 RIGHT TO FARM ......................................................................................................................................31 HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES .................................................31 SCENIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................33 TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................................................33 COMMUNITY CHARACTER ..........................................................................................................................34 LAND USE CAPABILITY MAP SERIES.........................................................................................................35 LANDOWNER FAIRNESS ..............................................................................................................................38 GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................38 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE HIGHLANDS ACT ................................................................................39 FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION ............................................................................................................40 EXEMPTIONS ...........................................................................................................................................40 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS................................................................................................41 SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT..............................................................................................41 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................43 REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMMUNITY CHARACTER – CHAPTER 3 ....................... 43 GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES – CHAPTER 4 ................................................... 47 NATURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................48 HIGHLANDS FOREST RESOURCES.........................................................................................................50 HIGHLANDS OPEN WATERS AND RIPARIAN AREAS ..........................................................................58 STEEP SLOPES ..........................................................................................................................................62 i
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
CRITICAL HABITAT .................................................................................................................................64 LAND PRESERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP .........................................................................................70 CARBONATE ROCK (KARST) TOPOGRAPHY ........................................................................................76 LAKE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................77 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER UTILITIES ...........................................................................................83 WATER RESOURCE AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................85 PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES QUANTITY ..............................................................................90 WATER QUALITY.....................................................................................................................................94 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WATER RESOURCES .................................................................96 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 104 AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY AND VIABILITY........................................................................... 107 STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS, CONSERVATION PLANS AND WATER USE ........................................ 109 IMPERVIOUS COVER ............................................................................................................................ 110 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 112 RIGHT TO FARM AND FARMLAND ASSESSMENT ACT ..................................................................... 113 HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES .............................................. 115 SCENIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 117 GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 119 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND MOBILITY .......................................................................................... 120 FUTURE LAND USE................................................................................................................................... 122 REGIONAL GUIDANCE ........................................................................................................................ 123 PROTECTION ZONE ............................................................................................................................. 124 CONSERVATION ZONE........................................................................................................................ 126 EXISTING COMMUNITY ZONE ........................................................................................................... 126 REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................ 130 SMART GROWTH .................................................................................................................................. 131 HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................... 132 LANDOWNER FAIRNESS ........................................................................................................................... 135 SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................... 136 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................. 137 LOCAL PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................ 138 PROGRAMS – CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................ 138 NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 139 FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY............................................................ 140 RESTORATION OF STREAMS AND RIPARIAN AREAS ........................................................................ 142 CRITICAL HABITAT CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 143 LAND PRESERVATION ......................................................................................................................... 144 CARBONATE ROCK (KARST) TOPOGRAPHY ..................................................................................... 144 LAKE MANAGEMENT AREA ............................................................................................................... 145 WATER RESOURCES AND UTILITIES ...................................................................................................... 148 HIGHLANDS RESTORATION: WATER DEFICITS .............................................................................. 150 THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER ........................................................................................................ 152 WATER QUALITY RESTORATION ....................................................................................................... 154 WASTEWATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ 156 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................... 158 HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES .............................................. 162 HISTORIC RESOURCE PROTECTION .................................................................................................. 162 ii
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
SCENIC RESOURCE PROTECTION ...................................................................................................... 164 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND MOBILITY .......................................................................................... 166 FUTURE LAND USE................................................................................................................................... 168 LAND USE CAPABILITY ANALYSIS APPROACH ................................................................................ 168 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 170 REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................ 174 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES .......................................................................................... 175 SMART GROWTH MANUAL.................................................................................................................. 178 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDEBOOK ..................................................................... 179 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 179 LANDOWNER EQUITY .............................................................................................................................. 180 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS............................................................................................. 182 HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK ........................................................................................ 194 DEED RESTRICTIONS ............................................................................................................................... 195 SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL ECONOMY .................................................................................................... 195 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................. 198 IMPLEMENTATION – CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................ 198 REGIONAL MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE, CONSISTENCY, COORDINATION................................ 202 RMP UPDATES AND MAP ADJUSTMENTS ......................................................................................... 203 GRANTS AND FUNDING ...................................................................................................................... 206 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COAH ............................................................................................... 208 NJDEP REGULATIONS AND COORDINATION................................................................................. 209 STATE PLAN/PLAN ENDORSEMENT ................................................................................................. 210 STATE, FEDERAL, REGIONAL AGENCY COORDINATION .............................................................. 211 PLAN CONFORMANCE GUIDELINES AND MODEL ORDINANCES ................................................. 213 HIGHLANDS PROJECT REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 221 IMPROVEMENTS OF THE REGIONAL MASTER PLAN............................................................................ 226 HIGHLANDS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS....................................................................... 227 SUPPORTING INFORMATION........................................................................................ 230 GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................................................... 231 HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECTION AND PLANNING ACT .............................................................. 231 EQUITY CONCERNS ............................................................................................................................. 236 HIGHLANDS COUNCIL......................................................................................................................... 237 PROVISIONS OF THE HIGHLANDS ACT ............................................................................................. 238 iii
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007
Comment and Response Document
Reorganization of Chapters in the Regional Master Plan
The chapter organization of the Highlands Regional Master Plan (RMP) has been modified to move
“Regional and Local Community Character” which appeared as Chapter III in the 2007 Draft RMP to
Chapter 2 and “Analysis of the Highlands Region” which appeared as Chapter II in the 2007 Draft RMP to
Chapter 3. Chapter numbers are also now in Arabic rather than Roman numerals. The changes were made
in response to public comments regarding the flow of the RMP and to present the existing conditions of the
Highlands Region, as contained in the community character description, prior to the analysis of those
conditions. Individual comments reference the chapters as contained in the 2007 Draft RMP and responses
refer to information as contained in the adopted Regional Master Plan.
INTRODUCTION – CHAPTER 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION
COMMENT: A few comments stated that this section should mention that while the Highlands Region
produces over half the drinking water for the residents of the State, this water comes from only 13% of the
land area of the State.
RESPONSE: The RMP specifies that over half of New Jersey’s residents rely on the 860,000 acre Highlands
Region for drinking water supplies. The RMP was revised to include the important point made by these
commenters that the Highlands Region, while it only includes 17 percent of the State’s land area, serves nearly
65 percent of the State’s population with clean drinking water.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that historic, cultural and scenic resources should be mentioned as
Highlands values to be protected.
RESPONSE: The RMP does address historic, cultural and scenic resources in numerous sections throughout
the RMP, including the Chapter 1 - Introduction, and the RMP advances goals, policies, objectives and
programs to protect these resources in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively.
COMMENT: Comments supported the characterization of the Highlands Region as a “significant green
belt” within the larger metropolitan area.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these supporting comments.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that there should be a discussion of climate; including precipitation,
maximum temperatures, and minimum temperatures, as typically found in environmental resource
inventories.
RESPONSE: The RMP contains an extensive array of environmental resource information in order to
respond to the mandates of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (Highlands Act). The
commenters are correct that such details, such as climate and precipitation, while they are not addressed in
the RMP, may be appropriately addressed in local plans, local environmental resource inventories, and as
factors related to low impact development and sustainable design practices.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the section lacked a discussion of “Land Use Setting.”
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments and the “Land Use Setting” subsection has been
expanded to include additional discussion about existing land use in the Highlands Region
1
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
HISTORY OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Plan should have a section about trust resources and the
public trust doctrine.
RESPONSE: The RMP does include numerous sections relating to the public trust doctrine in Chapters 1, 2
and 3. Specifically, Chapter 1 includes specific references to the public trust doctrine in Part 3 quoting from
the Highlands Act as follows: The Legislature specifically recognized that the resources of the Highlands
Region are a vital part of the public trust. It declared that the measures of the Highlands Act “should be
guided, in heart, mind, and spirit, by an abiding and generously given commitment to protecting the
incomparable water resources and natural beauty of the New Jersey Highlands so as to preserve them intact,
in trust, forever for the pleasure, enjoyment, and use of future generations” (Section 2).
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the history section could be strengthened and a more
thorough discussion of the geologic events that shaped the Region should be included.
RESPONSE: In Chapter 2, Part 2, of the RMP was expanded to include a section specifically addressing the
geological conditions of the Highlands. In addition, the Council’s technical reports address geologic
conditions of the Highlands.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the figure titled, “Areas Served Outside the Highlands
Region,” under-represents the importance of Highlands water by omitting the proportion used from the
Delaware River.
RESPONSE: The figure actually does include areas along the Delaware River that draw water from the
River. However, it is important to note that most of these areas derived less than 10 percent of their supply
from the Highlands, relative to flows from New York, Pennsylvania and other parts of New Jersey.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the figure titled, “Source Water Protection Areas and Reservoirs,”
contains two areas shown in yellow with no accompanying legend category. The same figure also does not
include the HUC 14 boundaries as part of the legend. Comments suggested that a similar map with municipal
boundaries should be included; stating that getting municipal officials to relate to the landscape as a series of
HUC 14 areas as opposed to municipal boundaries will be a major challenge during conformance. It was also
suggested that the map be updated to clarify which HUC 14s are threatened by non-Highlands development
and which areas receive water from deficit or constrained watersheds.
RESPONSE: The Council has prepared an updated figure, see Figure 1.3, which responds to many of these
comments. The two sections that appeared to be yellow were intended to be white and are outside the
mapped area, and the updated map more clearly indicates this fact. An additional map has been added to the
RMP which shows watersheds and subwatersheds, see Figure 3.1 Watersheds and Subwatersheds. For additional
flexibility in map applications and public transparency for the use of RMP data, the Council has posted a new
interactive map on the Council’s website that allows individuals to choose which data layers to display and
overlay.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the description of the 1907 Potable Water Commission
Report is excellent, but should be augmented with a discussion of other water supply plans and reservoir
projects.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments as the 1907 Potable Water Commission Report
provides an important historical perspective on the need to protect the waters in the Highlands Region.
While additional analysis could have been included, the RMP was designed to include an overview and not a
detailed analysis of prior plans and specific water supply projects.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the section describing the US Forest Service Study should
include a discussion of how the Highlands Council will interact with the federal program both now and into
future.
RESPONSE: The RMP does include a discussion on federal government coordination in Chapter 6.
2
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Implementation. The role of the federal government is crucial to the successful implementation of the RMP
including, but not limited to the Forest Legacy Program and the federal Highlands Conservation Act.
COMMENT: The National Park Service pointed out that the US Forest Service commented on the
Musconetcong River Management Plan. The National Park Service is concerned that the Planning and
Preservation Areas are split by the Musconetcong River and suggested that watershed planning indicates that
like areas should be dealt with together and the separation of the two sides of the River will make protection
of the resource more difficult.
RESPONSE: The boundaries between the Planning Area and the Preservation Area of the Highlands Region
were established by the Highlands Act. The Legislature’s delineation of the Preservation Area and Planning
Area boundary was based upon the need to identify the most important resource lands. After identifying
these lands, the Legislature used identifiable demarcations such as roads, water bodies, municipal boundaries
and certain institutional property boundaries (such as State Parks) to establish a clear boundary for the
Preservation Area. The resource assessment performed by the Highlands Council, for the development of
the RMP, examined the protections measures that are necessary for the protection of Highlands Open
Waters. As a result of this assessment, the RMP includes specific standards to provide a 300-foot buffer on
each side of Highlands Open Waters, including the Musconetcong River. In addition, a specific policy was
added to Chapter 4 to specifically address the project review needs regarding federal Wild and Scenic Rivers.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested edits to the paragraph relative to the history of the iron industry in
the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments and notes that the paragraph has been amended to
expand the RMP to be responsive to the comments.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Task Force Report should be made available by
link on the Council’s website.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The report is presently available through NJDEP’s
website on the Highlands and the Highlands Council is presently updating the Council’s website to include
the Highlands Task Force Report.
THE HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECTION AND PLANNING ACT
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the full text of the Highlands Act should be available by link on
the Council’s website.
RESPONSE: The full text of the Highlands Act is available by link on the Council’s website at:
http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/njhighlands/actmaps/act/chapter_120_laws_of_%202004.pdf
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the findings of the Highlands Act be presented in the
introduction and reference should be made to the equity issue as defined in the Act.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The issue of equity is addressed in various sections
of the RMP and specifically in the sections titled “Landowner Equity.” In addition, the Council recognizes
that issues relating to landowner equity are contained in numerous sections of the RMP. Accordingly, the
Council staff has prepared an abstract that compiled the equity provisions in the Highlands Act and the RMP.
This document will be made available on the Council’s website.
COMMENT: The New Jersey Department of Agriculture suggested language be added to describe their
“Agricultural Development in the Highlands Rules” (N.J.A.C. 2:92), adopted in May 2006, which outlines the
level of review for new agricultural impervious cover. They also suggested adding a statement that explains
that agricultural and horticultural activities within the Preservation Area are not considered “major Highlands
development,” and clarifying that current and future cropping activities are protected and may continue.
RESPONSE: A paragraph has been added to the RMP describing the treatment of agricultural and
horticultural activities under the Highlands Act. This paragraph explains that in the Preservation Area,
3
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
agricultural and horticultural use or development is not subject to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) rules. The paragraph specifically references the “Agricultural
Development in the Highlands Rules” (N.J.A.C. 2:92), as adopted by the Department of Agriculture, and
references the standards and criteria to be followed for agricultural and horticultural activities in the
Highlands Region.
THE HIGHLANDS REGIONAL MASTER PLAN
COMMENT: Several comments stated their support for the Regional Master Plan’s regional approach to
natural resource protection and recognized that in order to protect the integrity of the water supply of the
Highlands the Plan must focus on an approach that cuts across political and jurisdictional boundaries.
RESPONSE: The Council appreciates the support expressed in the comments. The development of the
RMP was specifically designed to address the mandates of the Highlands Act to create a plan for the entire
Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the National Wild & Scenic Lower Delaware River and its
accompanying Management Plan be mentioned in the RMP. It was pointed out that the Management Plan
covers all of the Highlands municipalities within Warren County bordering the Delaware River and the
Hunterdon County municipalities of Alexandria, Holland and Milford. The Lower Delaware River serves as a
regional water resource.
RESPONSE: The RPM was revised to address this matter. Specifically, the scenic resource protection
objectives in Chapter 4 include a requirement that actions that may impact the resource values of the
Musconetcong National Scenic and Recreational River and the Scenic Lower Delaware River shall require
review by the National Park Service, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program.
COMMENT: A number of comments stated that the economic impacts of the implementation of the
Highlands Act and the Regional Master Plan, as required by the Act, are missing.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act, in Section 11, requires that the RMP include a financial component
detailing the costs of implementing the RMP and the sources of revenue for covering such costs. Chapter 3,
Part 8 includes the substantive discussion of the financial component including an analysis of the Highlands
Protection Fund that was created by the Legislature through the passage of the Highlands Act. The costs of
RMP implementation at a municipal and county level will primarily be funded through the revenue provided
by the Highlands Protection Fund. To date the Legislature has appropriated extensive finding for the
implementation of the RMP. In addition, the RMP, in its Sustainable Economic Development Program in
Chapter 5, includes an economic tracking component to evaluate the condition of the regional economy.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Highlands Act requires a Resource Assessment and
determination of capacity for human development, but no build-out numbers have been provided.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that the Highlands Act mandates that the RMP include a natural
resource capacity analysis and that the requirement was ignored.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council conducted a thorough resource assessment to determine the
ecologically sustainable amount and type of human development while still maintaining the overall ecological
values of the Highlands Region. In terms of quantifying sustainable development, the RMP includes specific
zones, resource areas, and associated policies to protect the ecological integrity of Highlands resources. In
terms of sustainable use of water and wastewater utilities, the RMP similarly includes numerical thresholds in
order to protect both water quantity and water quality. The policies of the RMP were integrated in a build
out analysis, which includes a numerical projection of sustainable development in the Highlands Region, in
the Highlands Regional Build Out Analysis Technical Report. This technical report is available on the Council’s
website. In addition, the Net Water Availability and Utility Capacity results in the RMP have been modified
based on new policies and updated information. This information will be further updated using a refined
water use tracking model and water use data as it becomes available from municipalities and utilities. Future
efforts will also link water utility capacity to the net water availability of its source subwatershed. The build
4
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
out analyses have incorporated this information in their models, indicating where utility capacity or net water
availability constraints are the limiting factor in potential residential and non-residential development capacity.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council does not have enough money to support the
implementation of the Highlands Act and the RMP. There is no money in the budget to use for land
preservation, although it is required by the Act. The Plan should detail sources of revenue to cover costs of
implementation.
RESPONSE: As discussed above, the costs of RMP implementation at a municipal and county level will
primarily be funded through the revenue provided by Legislature in the Highlands Protection Fund. As
specified in Chapter 3 of the RMP, the current balance of over $21 million in the Highlands Protection Fund
is available to support the conformance activities of the 88 municipalities and seven counties stands. In
addition, the Legislature has consistently appropriated $4.4 million on an annual basis. With respect to land
preservation, the financial component in Chapter 3 of the RMP details required analysis of acquisition costs
and revenues for preservation or recreation and conservation purposes. This includes the costs associated
with the five and ten year priorities for land preservation identified in the RMP. The analysis concluded that
prior revenue under the Garden State Preservation Trust (GSPT) needed to continue for Green Acres and be
considerably increased for Farmland Preservation. The Council acknowledges the comment and continues to
work to secure a dedicated funding source to assist in implementing the RMP, specifically regarding land
acquisition. To that end, the Highlands Council continues to advocate for the reauthorization of the GSPT
and the imposition of a water user fee.
COMMENT: One comment pointed out that the Resource Assessment, as outlined in the Highlands Act, is
only meant for advisory purposes in the Planning Areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act includes numerous provisions in which the implications of the RMP are
designed to vary depending on whether the activity is in the Preservation Area or the Planning Area. The
Highlands Council makes it clear throughout the RMP that the Highlands Act mandates that municipalities
and counties with lands in the Preservation Area are required to revise local master plan and development
regulations to conform with the goals, requirements, and provisions of the RMP. This requirement in Section
14.f goes on to specify that “voluntary conformance with the regional master plan” is applicable to “those
portions of a municipality or county lying within the planning area.” Accordingly, the RMP is only advisory
with respect to municipalities and counties for lands in the Planning Area. Should municipalities and counties
voluntarily choose to conform to the RMP, the Highlands Council will review petitions for Plan
Conformance in accordance with Section 15 of the Highlands Act.
While municipal and county conformance is clearly voluntary in the Planning Area, the Highlands Act, in
Sections 38 through 82, amends numerous statutes of State agencies to specifically require coordinated action
to implement the RMP. In these sections, the Act requires consultation between the Highlands Council and
State agencies to ensure that the RMP is considered prior to State agency action in a manner consistent with
their respective statutory or regulatory mandate. The agency coordination requirements of the Highlands Act
are also set forth in Section 11 which requires that the RMP include a “coordination and consistency
component which details the ways in which local, State, and federal programs and policies may best be
coordinated to promote the goals, purposes, policies, and provisions of the regional master plan, and which
details how land, water, and structures managed by governmental or nongovernmental entities in the public
interest within the Highlands Region may be integrated into the regional master plan.”
The Highlands Council included a section on agency coordination in Chapter 6 of the RMP. In Part 1,
Subpart D, the RMP specifies that the agency coordination requirements in the Highlands Act “do not negate
Sections 14 and 15 of the Act which specify that conformance with the RMP is voluntary for the Planning
Area portions of Highlands municipalities and counties.” Accordingly, the language in Section 11.b of the
Highlands Act specifying that the “resource assessment, transportation component, and smart growth
component prepared pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall be used only for advisory purposes in the
planning area and shall have no binding or regulatory effect therein” clearly means that municipalities and
counties may voluntarily utilize the RMP for with lands in the Planning Area and that agencies use the RMP
in the Planning Area in accordance with their respective statutory and regulatory authority.
5
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that TDR receiving areas should not be identified unless they are
accompanied by the existing environmental constraints. It was also suggested that the Highlands TDR
program should follow the example of the Pinelands in deciding TDR credits. There was concern that the
title, “Landowner Fairness,” gives an unwarranted impression that there is no risk in owning property. It was
suggested that a more accurate title would be “Land Owner Equity,” because the term equity indicates risk in
owning both land and TDR credits.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has re-examined its Receiving Zone identification from the 2007 Draft
RMP focusing now on the Existing Community Zone within the Planning Area only and excluding any
environmentally constrained subzones. The analysis includes both developed and undeveloped areas both
with and without infrastructure. Through this analysis, the Highlands Council has identified approximately
12,000 acres that have some potential to serve as voluntary Receiving Zones, though many of these areas
currently have constraints regarding water availability or utility capacity. The Highlands Council has chosen
not to follow the model of the Pinelands Development Credit Program due to the significant differences in
real estate values that exist in the Highlands Region which were not as prevalent in the Pinelands when that
program was established over 25 years ago. With respect to the concern regarding the term “Landowner
Fairness”, that term has been changed in the RMP to “Landowner Equity.”
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the introduction be expanded to add a section explaining the
relationship between the NJDEP rules (N.J.A.C. 7:38) and the policies and standards found in the Plan. The
Plan does not indicate how its policies may be used by the NJDEP (i.e. how the NJDEP will use the Plan to
amend its rules and make decisions in both the Planning and Preservation Areas). It was suggested that a
side-by-side comparison of the standards related to specific resource areas should be provided. It was further
suggested that the Plan should acknowledge those activities that are exempt from the Plan because these
exemptions will require municipalities to maintain their non-Highlands plans and ordinances for development
not subject to the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act provides NJDEP with regulatory authority over major Highlands
development in the Preservation Area. The Highlands Act does not, however, include a provision that
NJDEP’s authority will no longer apply once the Regional Master Plan is adopted and instead requires a
coordinated planning and permitting process by the Council and NJDEP. The RMP has been revised to
include extensive cross-references to NJDEP Preservation Area rules in the project review section in Chapter
6. Similarly, Chapters 2 and 6 provide an overview of the agency coordination requirements of the Highlands
Act. Regarding the exemptions in the Highlands Act, the RMP has been revised to specifically address
exemptions in Chapter 4, Part 7.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a discussion about the benefits of agriculture as it relates to
culture, landscape and economy and its contribution to the character of the Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes extensive recognition of agriculture as an important part of the essential
character of the Highlands Region. The goals, policies and objectives of the RMP are aimed at preserving
agriculture as an activity into the future.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the definition of agriculture is designed to be broad and
decisions about whether a specific activity or land use is within this agriculture definition should be resolved
by informal consultation with the New Jersey Department of Agriculture or formal determination by the
State Agriculture Development Committee.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act includes a specific definition of agricultural or horticultural use or
development. The RMP incorporated this statutory definition in the RMP for use in the implementation of
the Plan. In addition, the RMP specifically references the Right to Farm Act and other mechanisms of
coordination with these agencies.
COMMENT: The Borough of Stanhope pointed out that the 5 acres listed in their municipality as in the
Preservation area is incorrect and the Highlands Act boundary line description indicates that there is no
6
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Preservation Area within the Borough.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and notes that the figures for the Borough of
Stanhope have been corrected to reflect the comment in Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 of the RMP.
ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHLANDS REGION – CHAPTER 2
COMMENT: One comment expressed the opinion that the first three chapters of the Final Draft RMP
(including Chapter 2 – Analysis of the Highlands Region) were excellent and provides an excellent resource.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges and appreciates the comment.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP should contain an objective inventory of environmental
factors present in the region. This is an essential step in the development of policy and provides a "baseline"
against which to evaluate the operation of the Plan over time. The comment noted that preparation of
Environmental Resource Inventories (ERIs) should be the basis of municipal master planning. The Council
staff has compiled vast amounts of objective environmental data that should be clearly presented in the RMP.
RESPONSE: The technical reports that serve as the basis for the RMP present the substantial environmental
data that Highlands Council has compiled and they serve as the baseline against which to evaluate the
operation of the Plan over time. The goal of Chapter 2 was to present an introduction and overview of each
of the resource assessment categories. The Plan Conformance process for municipalities includes
requirements for the development or amendment of ERIs, including use of Highlands Council data as
appropriate.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the 2007 Draft RMP does not address existing sources of
pollution, reducing inefficient water consumption, or increased water needs caused by the State’s population.
RESPONSE: This regional document does identify impaired surface waters (Figure 3.17), nitrate
concentrations in subwatersheds (Figure 3.19), and an inventory of contaminated sites (Figures 5.5 and 5.6)
throughout the Highlands Region. In addition, the RMP identifies areas of water deficit, and address the
efficient use of water and water quality restoration. The RMP is designed to use this regional information and
update it with more specific local information through Plan Conformance. Lastly, the RMP’s supporting
technical reports provide considerable additional detail and information.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Critical Habitat is defined using an updated Landscape Project
(Version 2) developed for the Highlands Region by the NJDEP. This information has not been made
available to the public or local government and therefore, has had no external public review. Because of the
lack of feedback on the quality of the information, the Landscape Project Version 2 should not be used as a
basis for defining the location of critical habitat, or as an indicator in the LANDS Model.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the most current version of the Landscape Project (now
Version 3 for the Highlands), provided from NJDEP- Endangered Nongame Species Program (ENSP),
which is now publicly available through NJDEP’s GIS webpage. All mapping is based on species occurrence
data and surrounding habitat requirements. The RMP includes the ability for modification to critical habitat
boundaries due to site habitat suitability or existing land uses, as approved by the Highlands Council in
coordination with NJDEP-ENSP.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that water supply allocation was used as an estimate of ultimate water
utility capacity. Permitted estimates should not be used to identify the actual safe yield of a water source as
they may over, or under, estimate this safe yield. The Council should continue to work with the NJDEP to
determine safe yield in order to more accurately reflect actual versus perceived water deficits.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP does focus on protecting existing safe
yields through maintenance of base flows, the protection of water quality, and agency coordination with
NJDEP’s water allocation permit process. Utility capacity, as expressed in permits, may be constrained by
water availability in a source subwatershed.
7
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Council has developed a model with very conservative inputs as
part of a precautionary approach to the establishment of septic standards. For example, the Council model
assumes a typical Highlands Region household size of four persons per household when actual figures show
typical household size at less than three persons per household. Having developed such a conservative
estimate of permissible septic systems, the Council should resist the calls for even more stringent limitations
and further septic restrictions.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council’s analysis of septic system yield is based upon conservative assumptions
in order to meet the requirements in Sections 10 and 11 of the Highlands Act. With respect to household
size, the assumptions incorporated into the RMP are appropriately based upon a demographic analysis of the
Highlands Region, included in the Council’s Highlands Regional Build Out Analysis Technical Report, showing that
household size in areas to be served by septic systems are closer to four persons per household. In addition,
the Council’s Water Resources Technical Report provides additional assumptions that were used to derive the
septic system yields for the Planning Area.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the discussion of the Highlands transportation system on page 60
references the use of a “Highlands Sub-Area model” to determine existing vehicular travel patterns and traffic
conditions in the Highlands. The results of this modeling are not included in the RMP so there is no ability
to review these in relation to RMP proposals.
RESPONSE: The Transportation System Preservation and Enhancement Technical Report presents a
discussion of the Highlands Sub-Area Transportation Model results including the model inputs and outputs.
In the Technical Report the complete Roadway Capacity Assessment report is included as Appendix A.
COMMENT: One comment noted that in its description of zoning, the RMP states that “current zoning
places more than two-thirds of non-residential floor space in areas that are inconsistent with the State
Development and Redevelopment Plan.” The comment questions this conclusion as communities in the
region have completed the third cross-acceptance of the State Plan and planning area changes have been
negotiated with the Office of Smart Growth to strengthen consistency between the State Plan and local
conditions.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and believes that the statement is accurate
based on zoning provided to the Council by the municipalities. Much of the land zoned for non-residential
use is located in areas identified in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan as inappropriate for the
extension of infrastructure needed to serve such zoning. The RMP is designed to create a process where
municipal zoning will be revised to meet both resource protection and smart growth policies.
COMMENT: One comment noted that on page 70 of the 2007 Draft RMP, it is stated that overlay zones
build on base zoning by establishing additional standards and criteria that the underlying base zoning may not
otherwise take into consideration. There have been comments made regarding anticipated changes in the
base zoning as a result of the RMP. This is an incorrect assumption that should be clarified in the RMP. It
would go a long way to assure Planning Area municipalities considering opt in if the RMP were clear in
stating that no change in underlying base zoning will be required or requested as part of opt in.
RESPONSE: The “base zoning” that the RMP is referring to is the municipal zoning, which includes a
combination of allowable uses, bulk density limits, etc. The intent of the RMP’s overlay Land Use Capability
Zones – Protection, Conservation, and Existing Community – and Sub-zones (Wildlife Management,
Environmentally Constrained and Lake Community) is apply additional restrictions on density and impacts
that the base zoning may not address. The process of Plan Conformance is to revise local master plans and
local zoning, where appropriate, to conform to the requirements of the RMP. The amount of revisions to
local plans and ordinances will entirely depend on the degree of consistency with the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the discussion of TDR under “Landowner Fairness” should provide
information regarding the anticipated timeframe for actual implementation of a TDR program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will be working to implement the TDR program as quickly as feasible
8
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
and has strengthened the framework for the TDR program in the revised RMP. In addition, the Council
adopted Resolution 2008-24 on June 26, 2008, establishing the Highlands Development Credit Bank. Lastly,
the Council approved a $1 million TDR feasibility grant program and has awarded grants to fund TDR
planning at the municipal level. Given the voluntary nature of the Highlands TDR program, it is expected
that considerable patience will be necessary until the program is fully operational.
Natural Resources
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP should clarify why steep slopes are critical areas. The
discussion should clearly distinguish between the loss of soils and critical topsoil (erosion) and the deposition
of these detached soil particles, particularly in water bodies or wetlands (sedimentation).
RESPONSE: Text was added in the Steep Slopes goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4, Part 1, Subpart c)
section that clarified why steep slopes are critical areas. This section of the RMP specifically identifies the
importance of slopes adjacent to Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas in order to protect water
quality.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP should have a stronger emphasis on stewardship of
existing forest resources through reduction of deer overabundance and invasive species. The RMP must
clearly adopt a standard of no net loss for forest, rare and endangered plants, rare, threatened and endangered
wildlife, significant natural areas, and vernal pools.
RESPONSE: Text was added in the Highlands Forest Resource goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4,
Part 1, Subpart a) that mandates implementation of programs which encourage the inclusion of appropriate
rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife and habitat protection and enhancement, and appropriate wildlife
and invasive species management techniques in Forest Management Plans or in New Jersey Forest
Stewardship Program’s Forest Stewardship Plans adopted by any federal, state, county or municipal
government entity.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that net loss must be defined by the following interdependent
variables: quantity (e.g. acreage), quality (e.g. core forest), type (e.g. scrub shrub wetland), and function (e.g.
timber rattlesnake hibernacula). There must be clarity in the hierarchy of natural resource protection - (1)
avoidance, (2) minimization, and (3) mitigation.
RESPONSE: The concept of a hierarchy of natural resource protection of avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation was added throughout the RMP (e.g., Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas, Critical Habitat,
etc.). In addition, the concept of no net loss for critical habitat is defined in Objective 1F5b (Critical Habitat
Goals, Policies, and Objectives) to include the four variables suggested by the commenters.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that there should be clear protections for rare plant species and
ecological communities located outside of Significant Natural Areas.
RESPONSE: The introduction of the Critical Habitat section was modified such that Significant Natural
Areas also include habitat for documented occurrences of threatened and endangered plant species.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the entire Section (Analysis of the Region – Part 1. Natural
Resources) be re-written to add an objective inventory of the Highlands Region. Objective resource
inventory data should be compiled and presented. This data should be made available to local and county
government in printed and electronic formats prior to the beginning of the conformance process.
RESPONSE: The Technical Reports that support the RMP contain detailed and objective resource
inventory data. While this information is generally described in the RMP, detailed information is contained in
the Technical Reports. The data has been made available to the public and may be used as the conformance
process commences.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that a separate geology subsection should be added to this section
(Analysis of the Region – Part 1. Natural Resources) and include discussion of bedrock geology, surficial
geology, depth to bedrock, unconsolidated deposits, generalized groundwater yields and natural water quality
9
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
issues, and economic mineral resources. The comment complimented the Council on including a section on
karst, although believes this should be placed within the context of the geology section.
RESPONSE: As responded to above, Chapter 2, Part 2, of the RMP was expanded to include a section
specifically addressing the geological conditions of the Highlands. In addition, the Council’s technical reports
address geologic conditions of the Highlands.
COMMENT: There was one comment that stated that Analysis of the Region – Part 1. Subpart e. Open
Space: Land Preservation and Stewardship should not only describe in more detail the amount and scheduling
of available open space funding for the region, but should also provide policy guidance as to how these funds
are to be applied by the Council to achieve conservation and stewardship objectives.
COMMENT: One comment stated that all federal programs applicable to land preservation should be
described. The Council, in consultation with counties and municipalities, should attempt to establish specific
funding allocations for Highlands land preservation funding.
COMMENT: The role of private land trusts as either “pass through” entities or holders of a property
interest (conservation easements or fee acquisition) should be included.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council expanded the analysis of historical land preservation funding by
governmental and non-governmental entities in Chapters 3 and 5 of the RMP. In addition, these chapters of
the RMP include extensive analysis regarding conservation and agricultural priorities moving forward. Lastly,
additional information on these issues is in the Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report and Financial
Analysis Technical Report.
COMMENT: There was one comment that stated that the first paragraph of Analysis of the Region – Part1
Subpart e. Open Space: Land Preservation and Stewardship – is unclear and should be rewritten.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, although no change was made to the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the term “stewardship” (in reference to land preservation) is largely
unfamiliar to most people and should be defined in the Glossary.
RESPONSE: The concept of “stewardship” is generally described in the RMP and in the Land Preservation
and Stewardship Technical Report.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the language about the critical nature of Garden State Preservation
Trust (GSPT) funding should be more forceful and the Council should continue to advocate for reauthorization.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment. RMP Objective 1H2c states that the
Council will support and implement new, innovative and alternative methods and programs of land
preservation appropriate for the Highlands Region. Reauthorization of the GSPT has been repeatedly
supported by the Highlands Council in the form of resolutions and actions.
COMMENT: A few comments stated support for the use of a “water consumption fee” as described on p.
38 of the 2007 Draft RMP, provided that the use of these funds is accompanied by a prior planning
framework to guide acquisitions to high priority water resources related lands.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has and will continue to advocate for passage of a water user fee that
would be assessed against water consumers that are outside of the Highlands Region and consume Highlands
water. Additionally, the Highlands Council continues to advocate for other potential revenue sources as set
forth in Policy 1H4. Lastly, Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the RMP include an analysis a priority policies regarding
conservation lands that should be the focus of preservation funding.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program increases development
restrictions within areas with rankings of 3, 4, or 5 because these indicate the presence of state-threatened,
state-endangered, or federally-listed threatened or endangered species. However, the RMP extends the
restrictions to areas with a ranking of 2, which is inconsistent with the NJDEP policy.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council, with the assistance of NJDEP’s Endangered and Nongame Species
10
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Program, delineated Critical Wildlife Habitat by utilizing Landscape Project Version 3 to identify areas of
habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species habitat. Specifically, the Council used Landscape Rank 2
through 5 in the Preservation Area and used Landscape Rank 2 through 5 and Highlands Rank of Critically
Significant or Significant in the Planning Area. The use of Rank 2 provides protections consistent with
NJDEP’s requirements in N.J.A.C. 7:38 in accordance with the requirements of the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment suggested a rewrite of the opening paragraph of this section. Biodiversity is
not defined in the glossary and the term should be defined and clarified in this section.
RESPONSE: The term “biodiversity” is defined directly in the text of the RMP and in the glossary of the
Ecosystem Management Technical Report.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to the Critical Wildlife Habitat section, the first
paragraph indicates that “. . . an updated Landscape Project (Version 2) was developed . . .” - should this read
Version 3? Supports the use of Version 3 data.
RESPONSE: Text was modified to reflect the use of Version 3 data, which are now publicly available
through the NJDEP website.
COMMENT: One comment requested expanded discussions of Significant Natural Areas and Vernal pools
in this chapter and to clarify their importance.
RESPONSE: Text was added to this chapter to state that Significant Natural Areas are designated based on
the presence of, and associated habitat required for the survival and propagation of, the species of concern.
Vernal pools are certified by the NJDEP and, to protect and promote the biodiversity of Vernal Pools, the
Highlands Council has determined that a terrestrial habitat protection buffer of 1,000 feet around Vernal
Pools will generally address the habitat requirements of vernal pool-breeding wildlife.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP should clarify terms used to assess forest health such as
“predominantly forested,” a “high proportion of forest cover,” “patch size,” etc.
RESPONSE: The Ecosystem Management Technical Report provides detailed descriptions of each of these
metrics. While these terms are generally described in the RMP, detailed information is contained to the
Technical Report.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that karst topography, while potentially visible at the surface, is not
strictly a surface condition as implied on p. 38 of the 2007 Draft RMP. Karst is a three dimensional
topographic condition with the potential to contain substantial sub-surface structural conditions of concern.
RESPONSE: Text was clarified in this chapter and elsewhere in the RMP and technical documents to clarify
that karst is not strictly a surface condition.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the various functions that karst features provide should be noted
in the RMP.
RESPONSE: Text was added into the carbonate rock goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4 of the RMP)
regarding the important functions that karst provides.
COMMENT: A few comments commended the Council for noting that sinking streams and sinkholes direct
surface water run-off into karst aquifers with little or no attenuation of any transported contaminants.
However, the list of potential sources (stormwater basins, septic system leaching fields and sewers) is
incomplete.
RESPONSE: Additional sources that can contribute contaminants directly to ground water through karst
features were added in this chapter and in the Carbonate Rock goals, policies and objectives section of the
RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments offered the opinion that this section should note that the nitrate dilution
model utilized elsewhere in the 2007 Draft RMP tends to allow greater septic density on the carbonate rock
11
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
areas due to the larger volumes of groundwater present as compared, for example, to the Precambrian rock
area. These densities should not be allowed.
RESPONSE: Septic system yields are based on drought recharge for an entire subwatershed, which usually
will include both carbonate and non-carbonate geology. Septic system yields are not affected by the ground
water storage volume, but by recharge rates.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that new land uses that constitute unacceptable risks in karst areas
should be defined. Remediation of current high risk land uses in karst areas should be prioritized.
RESPONSE: Two new objectives were added to the carbonate rock goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4
of the RMP) – one regarding the prohibition of new land uses that constitute unacceptable risks in karst areas
and the other regarding prioritization of remediation of current high risk land uses in karst areas.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Lake Musconetcong and its HUC 14 are classified as Low Resource
Value. Its surface water quality is categorized as impaired mostly by fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus and
temperature. Stanhope and the other towns immediately abutting the lake are all fully served by public
sanitary sewer systems, and therefore much of these problems are likely related to upstream conditions,
wildlife impacts and the history and on-going lack of a committed effort on the part of the State to support
lake management activities. Lake Musconetcong and the river downstream are classified as “Special Water.”
This appears inconsistent with classification of Lake Hopatcong and upstream portions of the river as
“Intermediate Water.”
RESPONSE: Regarding the first part of the comment (the suggested causes for the watershed being
classified as Low Resource Value), the Highlands Council acknowledges the comment’s opinion that
numerous causes may be causing low resource value subwatersheds. The RMP is designed, through Plan
Conformance, to more specifically identify pollutant sources and implement measure to improve water
quality Regarding the second part of the comment (i.e., “Special” and “Intermediate” Waters), the RMP no
longer uses these water categories and instead relies upon the surface water classifications identified by
NJDEP and the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the 2007 Draft RMP open space map does not reflect local
preservation of over 1,500 acres.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has collaborated and coordinated with all federal, State, county,
municipal, and nonprofit entities that oversee land preservation and stewardship and will continue to do so
through the Plan Conformance process. The open space mapping will be adjusted as necessary to be as
inclusive as possible through the RMP’s process for RMP Updates.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that the definition of “Habitat Quality” for the evaluation of
watershed value be modified from “the percentage of the watershed that contains habitat for species of
concern including rare, threatened, or endangered species” to the percentage of the watershed that contains
habitat for species of concern, including riparian habitat-dependent threatened or endangered species.
RESPONSE: The Evaluation of Riparian Area Integrity specifically uses “Water/Wetland Dependent
Species Habitat.” It is appropriate at the coarser watershed level (Evaluation of Watershed Value) to evaluate
all rare, threatened or endangered species, not simply those that are riparian habitat-dependent.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that on Page 22, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence of the 2007 Draft
RMP – that the 4th sentence be deleted. It was noted that sustainable forest management practices at the
stand level are not a piecemeal approach.
RESPONSE: The Council believes that a regional approach to sustainable forest management is needed that
will provide benefits not feasible through management for individual parcels.
COMMENT: One comment requested that on Page 32, Subpart d of the 2007 Draft RMP, replace the first
paragraph with: “The Highlands Council utilized NJDEP's Natural Heritage Database and parts of NJDEP’s
Endangered and Nongame Species Program Landscape Project data to identify threatened and endangered
12
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
species occurrences and habitat. Specifically, confirmed occurrences of threatened and endangered species
reported since 1992 were mapped along with a 4-mile buffer, as well as the wood turtle, bald eagle foraging,
and peregrine falcon data layers from the Landscape Project Version 2. These areas are Critical Wildlife
Habitat.”
RESPONSE: The purpose of this chapter is to present a broad overview of the resource categories. The
Ecosystem Management Technical Report that supports the RMP contains the detailed methodologies and data
presentation. While this information is generally described in this chapter of the RMP, detailed information is
contained in the Technical Reports.
COMMENT: One comment requested that on page 34 of the 2007 Draft RMP, Vernal Pools, insert after
4th sentence that two species of state-listed threatened or endangered species utilize vernal pools in the
Highlands Region to a notable extent, namely the blue-spotted salamander and the long-tailed salamander.
RESPONSE: The purpose of this chapter is to present a broad overview of the resource categories. The
Ecosystem Management Technical Report that supports the RMP contains the detailed methodologies and data
presentation.
COMMENT: One comment stated that on Page 28 of the 2007 Draft RMP, “Habitat Quality” - habitat
quality should be defined as a landscape which produces habitat for the widest possible range of wildlife
species. This requires a working landscape of privately-owned parcels with a range of management
objectives. This will lead to a biologically diverse forest age system with many age classes.
RESPONSE: The definition of “Habitat Quality” used here was for the specific purpose of conducting the
Evaluation of Watershed Value – it was not intended to be used for any broader purpose.
COMMENT: One comment stated that on Page 32, Subpart d of the 2007 Draft RMP- critical habitat is
defined as habitat for threatened and endangered species. A policy that protects primarily core forest species
without regard to early-successional species will result in the creation of additional threatened and endangered
species in the long run.
RESPONSE: The comprehensive goal of the resource assessment element of the RMP is the protection of
all natural resources of the Highlands Region and to provide protection strategies necessary to maintain and
enhance their value. It is not anticipated that implementation of the policies of the RMP will create additional
threatened and endangered species.
COMMENT: One comment noted support for the inclusion of the Lake Management Area in the 2007
Draft RMP, but questioned the use of a 10-acre surface area for mapping purposes. Numerous smaller
ponds have considerable ecologic and scenic value.
RESPONSE: The 10-acre surface area was selected because there is precedent for using that surface area
(the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin use the 10-acre threshold) and it was the Highlands Council’s
judgment that it was an appropriate scale for regional mapping purposes. Through Plan Conformance,
municipalities are permitted to apply similar policies to smaller water bodies if they choose.
COMMENT: One comment noted that this section should note the historic significance of lakes and dams
in the region, including water powered development, ice harvesting, lake community development and
recreational development. Of particular note is the Morris Canal’s use of several lakes as part of its
navigation system and as a water supply. Dams should be addressed and mapped showing their compliance
status. Aid and assistance to bring these structures into compliance (or demolished) should be an objective of
the RMP.
RESPONSE: The purpose of this chapter is to present a broad overview of the resource categories and the
mapping of dams was not included in the regional mapping. However, the RMP does feature a goal and
associated policies regarding dams (Goal 1N and Policies 1N1 and 1N2).
13
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
WATER RESOURCES
COMMENT: Several comments stated that monitoring should be encouraged and it should be ensured that
expected recharge is achieved before more development is allowed. There should be no mitigation without
testing the efficacy of mitigation.
COMMENT: Several comments recommended that the Final Draft RMP be revised to prohibit any
additional water consumption in deficit sub-watersheds until such time as the Highlands Council has
completed “. . . the development of continuing improvements in calculating water availability, including
methods of addressing all hydrologic flow regimes needed to support aquatic ecosystems . . .” and has
adequately addressed, on a regional and sub-regional basis, programs aimed at remediating deficit areas, and
fully accomplishes proposed Policy 2B4.
COMMENT: Several comments recommend banning new water-using development in any deficit watershed
until the municipalities in question have demonstrated to the Council that the measures incorporated into
their Water Management Plans are implemented. Metrics for evaluating the efficiency of those plans should
be in place. This would place the burden on municipalities and purveyors rather than on developers or
landowners and would create a standard process. It would also disassociate analysis and implementation of
the rule from individual case-by case applications.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Council is falsely increasing available water through the
conditional availability process which is changing deficit sub-watersheds into surpluses. Assigning conditional
availability is arbitrary and true water deficits should be fixed before any increase in water use is allowed.
Preparation of mitigation plans and implementation of mitigation techniques should occur prior to additional
consumptive- depletive uses.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that water deficit areas should not be off limits to development,
especially if the other resources are equally limited, making the land basically undesirable for preservation.
Water can be brought in.
COMMENT: Several comments expressed concern about development and water use in water deficit
HUC14s, exacerbating an existing critical problem and current residents will run out of water supply.
RESPONSE: The deficit mitigation policies in the RMP, including the use of conditional water availability,
are intended to be consistent with the natural resource protection and smart growth principles required by the
Highlands Act. The use of conditional water availability is one means to achieve the requirement of the
Highlands Act. The revised RMP program, Highlands Restoration: Water Deficits, has been revised to include
additional detail on how deficit mitigation will be enforced and monitored. In addition, the RMP has been
revised to reflect the amendments passed on July 17, 2008, which address requirements for mitigation prior to
water use where conditional water availability is used, and for implementation of Water Use and Conservation
Management Plans as a condition for additional water uses.
COMMENT: A few comments supported the concept of local planning initiatives and regionally-based
programs aimed at restoration of ground water supplies in deficit areas and agree that the time to initiate such
programs would be during the conformance process.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges and appreciates these comments.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that development restrictions should be imposed in areas outside the
Highlands served by Highlands water. Users outside the Highlands will make the water deficit worse, and
need conservation for all Highlands waters. One possible solution is to lower the water allocation permits of
the water companies to a level that eliminates the deficits in the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will coordinate with NJDEP to determine how the Highlands Region’s
needs and those of outside areas will affect the potential for supply development within the Highlands
Region. The Council supports the statewide need for water conservation as described in the New Jersey
Statewide Water Supply Plan and specifically included an objective in the RMP (Objective 2B5a) to
coordinate with NJDEP to “encourage water conservation, reuse, recycling, and other related measures and
mitigation for water distribution system losses both in Highlands municipalities and in municipalities supplied
with Highlands water.”
14
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments noted that deficit areas have been remapped in the 2007 RMP to surplus
areas with no scientific basis.
RESPONSE: The net water availability analysis uses the same methodology as in the 2006 RMP but with
some refinements that may have changed individual subwatershed deficit status. Specifically, these
refinements include: the manner in which a subwatershed’s ground water availability threshold was assigned;
the determination of Existing Constrained Areas; and the way that wastewater returns were adjusted may
result in a subwatershed changing from deficit to surplus, or vice versa. The assignment of conditional water
availability does not in any way change the calculation of net water availability, as shown in figure Net Water
Availability by HUC14 (Figure 3.15), which clearly shows the Current Deficit Areas.
COMMENT: A few comments questioned if minor home improvements trigger water conservation
measures. It is not clear how such measures would be implemented or paid for. It is also not clear how
conservation renovation will be triggered. End users who use the Highlands water are not going to be made
to make water conservation renovations.
RESPONSE: The RMP program The Efficient Use of Water, describes some measures that can be used for
water conservation. Through the Plan Conformance process, development review, coordination with
NJDEP, and through Water Use and Conservation Plans, these objectives can be achieved in the Highlands
Region and in areas of the State that use Highlands water.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that to further reduce deficits and water use in constrained areas, the
Council should develop Highlands-specific criteria that would warrant the designation of Water Supply
Critical Areas, since NJDEP water allocations cannot legally be reduced without declaring the source a Water
Supply Critical Area. Reduced allocation permits will provide incentives for increasing conservation and
efficiency.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the approach of “protecting existing safe yields” (p.43) should be
noted as a temporary condition of the RMP. In the case of the Highlands, the definition must include not
only the preservation of Highlands aquatic ecosystems, but also their restoration and enhancement. The
Council should re-define “safe yield” as it applies to the Highlands and include the definition in the glossary.
While “methods that provide a direct relationship between aquatic ecosystem integrity and stream flows” are
not currently available, the Council should continue to develop such an approach. The map of “Existing
Constrained Areas” should be restored to the RMP. The commenters are not convinced that “restoration of
water resources will occur through mitigation and management opportunities identified during the
conformance process and local planning initiatives.” The RMP should require no net change to reservoir safe
yields. The Council should develop specific criteria to designate water supply critical areas, allowing DEP to
reduce water allocations in those water supply critical areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will work with NJDEP and local interests to develop and implement
deficit reduction plans for areas designated in the RMP. Although the water resource policies in the RMP are
intended to protect safe yields, the safe yields are approved by the NJDEP. The Highlands Act amended
NJDEP’s statutory authority to ensure that water allocation permits will be issued in a manner that addresses
the issues and policies identified in the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the RMP needs to include future enforcement or monitoring of
mitigation efforts.
COMMENT: One comment stated that all the watersheds in Holland are in deficit, yet, the draft RMP
allows development in these water deficit areas, relying on developers to provide 125% mitigation over five
years. The commenter has seen no evidence that this mitigation can actually work, and in his/her experience;
developers are often long gone after the last house is sold.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that they remain unconvinced that “restoration of water resources
will occur through mitigation and management opportunities identified during the conformance process and
local planning initiatives.”
RESPONSE: The revised RMP program, Highlands Restoration: Water Deficits, has more detail on how deficit
15
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
mitigation will be enforced and monitored. The intent of the program is to ensure that mitigation is
implemented as required and to track changes in deficit status over time.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the terms “depletive” and “consumptive” water uses should be
defined in the text. The Council should regulate undocumented ground water withdrawal so that
consumptive and depletive uses don't increase.
RESPONSE: The terms “depletive water use” and “consumptive water use” water are defined in the RMP
glossary, and the use of these terms are described in more detail in the Water Resources Technical Report.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Net Water Availability Map should be accompanied by a
discussion of the results. This discussion should include an analysis of the actual magnitude of the particular
surplus/deficit by HUC and an explanation of the causes.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council provided an analysis of the magnitude of the surplus/deficit in the
RMP’s analysis of Net Water Availability and this issue is described in more detail in the Water Resources
Technical Report.
COMMENT: A few comments stated the belief that the low flow margin method used is unnecessarily
conservative and the water availability thresholds within individual HUC14 sub-watersheds continue to be
unnecessarily restrictive. There is no clear defensible rationale for declaring that only 5% of the Ground
Water Capacity is available for human use in the Protection Zone and 10% in the Conservation Zone.
Volume II states on page 137, “However, it should be noted that the selection of a 5% threshold is not
definitive. Because there is no regional method for directly linking flows to ecological health or change, the
selection of a specific percentage is inherently a policy decision, driven by the need to limit the potential risk
of ecosystem.” The discussion continues on by saying that reducing the threshold to 4% could be justified
based on the desire to be absolutely sure that the results will not compromise highly sensitive ecosystems. If
there is no regional method directly linking flows to ecological health how can the Technical Report say make
any definitive statement about the 4% threshold. It appears that the technical reports contradict themselves
in order to attempt to justify a Highlands Council policy decision to significantly limit growth based on an
extreme non-degradation policy. Converse to the Technical Reports statements, staff from the NJ Geological
Survey have stated that according to years of statewide study the NJGS has found that on average 25% of the
low flow margin could be available for human use and still preserve ecosystem health rather than the 5% and
10% being proposed for the protection and conservation zones in the Highlands. Because the NJGS is the
State expert on water supply analysis, the Highlands Council should embrace the research of the NJGS
instead of formulating an alternative research design to support draconian policy. The “Low Flow Margin”
method is not an “ecologically-based” approach to estimate flow rates. The Coalition recommends that the
Highlands Council recognize the inherent limitation of the Low Flow Margin of Safety methodology for
estimating flow rates needed to support the Highlands Region’s aquatic ecosystems by exercising appropriate
caution when relying upon such water availability estimates to plan for the preservation and protection of the
Highland’s water resources. The Coalition recommends, “. . . Until such time as the Council’s water
availability studies and methodologies are further enhanced to truly permit valid judgments regarding the
amount of water needed to guarantee the ecological integrity of streams, threshold percentages in excess of
10% anywhere in the Highlands Region should not be specified . . .” Recognizes that “methods that provide
a direct relationship between aquatic ecosystem integrity and stream flows are not currently available” (p.43)
but strongly urges the Council to continue developing such an approach.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the RMP should not specify water availability thresholds in excess
of 10% low flow margin anywhere. The Council should lower the currently proposed water availability
thresholds in the Existing Community Zone from 20% to 10%.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has included a complete and thorough analysis and basis for the water
availability thresholds in the Water Resources Technical Report. In addition, methods that better link base flow to
aquatic ecological integrity are a part of the Council’s ongoing Water Resource and Ecology Science Agenda
Implementation Program. The ground water availability thresholds have been determined to be protective of
ecological integrity consistent with the goals and policies associated with the Existing Community Zone. The
16
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
primary difference between the NJGS results, being used in the Statewide Water Supply Plan, and the RMP
policies is that the RMP threshold of 5% is based on a more conservative version of the Hydroecological
Integrity Program, which is allowed for in the program to protect more ecologically sensitive streams. The
Low Flow Margin method is being used by both the Highlands Council and NJDEP, with different
thresholds being used because NJDEP is working statewide at the watershed level for average conditions,
while the Highlands Council is working within the Highlands Region at the subwatershed level for the
protection of ecologically sensitive streams, based on different legislative authorities.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Water Availability Constraints by HUC14 map shows the
Liberty Township area as being in a current deficit area. The HUC14 is at deficit because of the Pequest
Trout Hatchery. What is NJDEP doing to ensure that groundwater recharge is taking place at this facility?
RESPONSE: Water Use and Conservation Plans are intended to address any confirmed deficit. This
planning process can evaluate the sources of the deficit and appropriate remedial measures.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that water conservation should be discarded as a mitigation tool for
the Pequannock Watershed because it is in too severe a deficit to be mitigated. Further, the watershed
exports most water to Newark, over which the Council has no authority to enforce mitigation measures.
RESPONSE: Surface water exports that are part of a reservoir system were not included in the water
availability analysis, as these systems have safe yields that dictate their ultimate supply. As discussed above, it
is anticipated that a variety of techniques will be used to mitigate deficits.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that West Milford is located entirely within a deficit area (at least 30%
over water capacity). While there are 10,000 wells in the municipality, there is only enough water for 7,000
wells. During summer droughts, residents need to get water from nearby ponds and streams. Residents must
sometimes share water through garden hoses.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments and concerns and looks forward to
working with West Milford on its Water Use and Conservation Management Plan. The RMP was designed
specifically to address the issues raised by the comments.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that since all three HUCs within the Greenwood Lake Watershed are
at deficit, and since several proposed major developments have not received water allocations from NJDEP,
why is the RMP advocating any new growth within this watershed until the deficits are recovered?
RESPONSE: The RMP does not advocate growth in any area of the Highlands Region. The RMP includes
a specific policy o this issue as follows: “Policy 6H7: Provisions and standards relating to regional growth
activities which increase the intensity of development shall be discretionary for conforming municipalities and
counties.” The commenters may be assuming that the Existing Community Zone advocates for new growth,
but this overlay zone does not advocate for new growth and instead is designed to show where existing
communities have already been established. Development potential in this area will be very limited due to the
resource protection requirements in the RMP as well as the NJDEP’s Preservation Area regulations.
COMMENT: Several comments criticized the Council for changing the water use percentages in Existing
Constrained Areas. The 2007 Water Resources Technical Report reports 5% of Ground Water Capacity in
Existing Constrained Areas. The current RMP reports 5% of Ground Water Capacity above existing water
uses in Existing Constrained Areas. There is no justification for this increase. Because the ECZ was not
mapped with consideration of the sensitivity of the water resources contained within, it is inappropriate to
assign a 20 percent increase in water use for Ground Water Capacity for that zone.
RESPONSE: The intent of the Existing Constrained Area designation is to limit future increases in use such
that deficits downstream are not exacerbated. Simply assigning 5% threshold to Existing Constrained Areas
can create deficits where none previously existed, leading to a false representation of the subwatershed water
availability.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the 2007 Draft RMP in Chapter II. Part 2. Subpart d. should assess
17
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
how improvements to firm capacity could augment water supply and reduce deficits, and it should determine
whether growth could be accommodated with improved infrastructure. Also, the comment requests the
provision of incentives for utilities to improve firm capacity, which may ultimately allow for receiving areas in
locations that are currently ineligible.
RESPONSE: Firm capacity was not used as a metric for utility capacity, as it can be increased with
infrastructure improvements. Water allocations and the source subwatershed’s water availability are deemed
to be the fundamental constraint on a utility’s ultimate capacity.
GROUND WATER QUALITY
COMMENT: A few comments stated that since the RMP acknowledges the inadequate data related to
ground water quality, it is necessary to include provisions in the RMP which allows for the Council to greatly
increase the number of available water quality monitoring stations throughout the region. The RMP must
contain a plan to develop base line and subsequent monitoring data for the five major aquifers mentioned on
p. 45. The inventorying, prioritization and advocacy for remediation of Classification Exception Areas, Well
restrictions Areas, Currently Known Extent Areas and Deed Notice Areas should be objectives of the RMP.
RESPONSE: The resource assessment performed by the Highlands Council to develop the RMP was based
upon the most representative data including ground water quality data. Extensive analysis of existing data was
performed with respect to ground and surface water quality in the analysis of nitrate concentrations.
Improvements to the Highlands Council understanding of ground water quality is a stated goal of the Council
in the RMP’s Water Resources and Ecosystem Science Agenda Implementation Program, to be implemented
as funding is available.
Wellhead Protection Areas
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the Wellhead Protection Area section is incomplete, technically
flawed, and it fails to adequately address the issue of providing sustainable protection to the public and public
non-community wells of the region. There is nothing offered that exceeds the current, largely ineffective
DEP Wellhead Protection Program, despite the mandates of the Act.
RESPONSE: The wellhead protection component of the RMP is a requirement of municipal Plan
Conformance and will ensure that wells are protected through local planning and ordinances. The distinction
between the requirements of the RMP and NJDEP’s wellhead protection program is that NJDEP’s program
is not implemented at a local level. The RMP provides a detailed framework for the policies of an effective
wellhead protection program and additional details of the implementing ordinances will be provided in
guidance for conforming municipalities.
COMMENT: One comment noted that two Rockaway Township municipal wells, both located along Beaver
Brook, do not appear on the Wellhead Protection Area figure.
RESPONSE: The RMP was developed using the best available information available at a regional scale. This
particular figure was based on data from NJDEP, and can be corrected through the RMP Update process.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP identifies a tiered system of wellhead protection areas.
The tiers represent a time of travel measurement for pollutants. Tiers 1, 2 and 3 indicate varying periods of
time that a theoretical pollutant will travel to a supply well. Such technology and data is difficult to attain and
nearly impossible to determine where hard rock geology and fractured shale exists. Water movement in these
areas is confined to unpredictable crack sand fissures underground. Unless site specific hydrogeologic
analysis is conducted these efforts would be best guess at best.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges that there are inherent limitations to the aquifer models
used to delineate Wellhead Protection Areas, but these models do provide for significant improvements in
wellhead protection and are supported by NJDEP. Site-specific data and models can be used to provide
more accurate wellhead protection areas, where a significant issue is perceived.
18
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments noted that Objective 2H5d speaks to the need for conforming municipalities
and counties to ensure that Wastewater Managements Plans will not negatively affect Wellhead Protection
Areas. As with any such condition where the Highlands Plan requires a municipality or county to enforce
certain conditions, it must be remembered that these tools such as the Wastewater Management Plans are
based upon State regulations and must conform to the enabling statutes. A local municipality or county entity
cannot simply require additional criteria than what is allowed or required in the enabling legislation and
subsequent rulemaking.
RESPONSE: For a municipality in the Planning Area that elects to conform, alignment of the local Master
Plan with the RMP enables the municipality to plan for wellhead protection. The Water Quality Management
Planning process is one mechanism to achieve this. NJDEP establishes minimum requirements for
Wastewater Management Plans, but such plans can address additional issues including issues relating to
consistency with the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that residents should be given assistance in reducing water consumption
and making certain that septic systems are not detrimental to drinking water.
RESPONSE: The RMP contains policies, objectives, and programs that discuss and promotes local and state
implementation to address these issues.
Septic System Densities/ Nitrates
COMMENT: Several comments noted that the RMP, as written, allows for too much overdevelopment, has
too many loopholes permitting the extension of sewers, and uses a nitrate model that does not accurately
determine how much additional pollution can be added before impacts on human health occur.
RESPONSE: The nitrate model and thresholds in the Preservation Area specifically reference NJDEP’s
Preservation Area rules for septic systems and the extension of sewers. These stringent standards are
consistent with the Preservation Area requirements of the Highlands Act. In the Planning Area, the RMP
includes very stringent standards for growth potential, consistent with the Highlands Act, in those areas
identified in the Protection Zone, the Conservation Zone, and the environmentally constrained Existing
Community Zone. In addition, the Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report documents that the RMP will
result in major reductions in development potential throughout the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that though the Final Draft RMP itself does not have the specific
targets, the Technical Report Addenda does. These targets should be in the Draft RMP document. Regarding
the septic density policy options within the Technical Report Addenda, the Council does recommend that
future development within the ECZ be attached to sewer. However, if septic systems need to be used, it is
recommended that the development meet the Water Quality Management Planning rule provisions for 2
mg/L average nitrates. This is an extremely conservative number for the ECZ zone. In order to meet these
standards, the resulting lot size within a development would have to be approximately 10 acres. Lots of this
size are inappropriate within the ECZ zone and contradict state “smart growth” land use policy.
RESPONSE: As stated in the comment, the Existing Community Zone is anticipated to be largely served by
public wastewater. The 2 mg/L nitrate standard is the new planning standard in the recently revised Water
Quality Management Planning rule (N.J.A.C. 7:15). The Highlands Council determined that a more
restrictive policy in the Existing Community Zone was not appropriate given the nature and purpose of the
Zone.
COMMENT: A few comments supported the use of nitrate dilution modeling as one factor in regulating
septic system density and protecting groundwater quality. It cautioned, however, that reliance on any single
factor exclusively is not wise planning or public policy. The discussion of nitrate found in the second
paragraph on p 50-51 should begin the discussion; clearly establishing the human health impacts of nitrate,
the ecological impacts and the use of this particular pollutant as an indicator of general groundwater quality.
The first paragraph should be placed second. The comments commended the Council for recognizing that
19
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
agricultural practices and lawn care practices, in addition to septic system effluent contribute to nitrate
concentrations in ground water. The comments supported the use of drought conditions (1961-1965) in
developing nitrate target levels but questioned whether these targets include potential sources from
agriculture and lawn care. It was stated that the presentation is unclear and appears that the highest nitrate
concentrations have been encountered in the Conservation Zone, where land use is predominantly
agricultural. It was also noted that much of this area is underlain by carbonate rock and that programs
directed at managing septic system densities have no impact on agricultural components. On p. 53 the
statement was made that “most of the region is considered unsuitable for the use of standard septic systems.”
This statement is made without any supporting presentation either in the form of maps or tabular data and
should be corrected. It was further noted that the NJDEP rules for the Preservation Area limit the
construction of septic systems to conventional systems. Does the Council have a position with regard to
alternate testing and alternative design septic systems in the Planning Area? The Council’s position should be
clarified. The Land Use Capability Septic system Density Yield Map shows the highest allowable septic
densities precisely in areas with agricultural uses, high existing nitrate concentrations and carbonate rock
geology. This is a pitfall of using the dilution approach which places the highest allowable densities on the
most prolific aquifers. Special treatment in policy and program is essential protecting these unique and
valuable water resources.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council’s nitrate dilution model is inherently conservative in that it uses
NJDEP’s rules in the Preservation Area. In the Planning Area, the Council uses the median background
concentration for the Protection and Conservation Zones, drought recharge rather than average recharge, and
assumes four people per equivalent dwelling unit in its septic yield analysis, which yield significantly lower
septic system densities than allowed through statewide regulations. The impact of agriculture on ground
water quality is expected to be addressed through encouraging conservation best management practices on
farms, and requiring the implementation of farm conservation plans where cluster development is used.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the 2007 Draft RMP states that nitrate densities in undeveloped
areas were developed using modeling since actual sampling is not available. To impose regulations and
perhaps an incorrect zone assignment based on anything but actual data is wrong. This is a serious deficiency
as most of the land in the Highlands is undeveloped, and therefore fits into this category. Many models
assume that agricultural use means such things as row crops and confined feeding lots. What adjustments
were made to the agricultural use assumptions to compensate for the fact that these operations do not exist in
high concentrations in the Highlands? What effort was made to compare actual fertilizer use to the
assumptions in the model? How deep were the wells that were actually sampled? Were the well depths in
line with the actual well depth of sources used for drinking water?
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council conducted a detailed analysis of background nitrate concentrations
which did rely on actual well data where available, as well as statistical methods to augment a regional
understanding of the Highlands. The background, or “ambient,” concentrations in the analysis are in good
agreement with other studies of the area and are scientifically defensible. The model makes no assumptions
about agriculture operations. Specific well data were examined to determine if the data provided a
representative value of water quality in its location. Although the Council is confident that the analysis
performed for the development of the RMP is sound, the RMP includes policies to promote additional
analysis of ground water quality in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that DEP has changed the rules by requiring one septic tank per 25
acres instead of one-half acre. How is the DEP requiring 25 acres per building lot when the 2 acres would be
more than sufficient?
RESPONSE: As set forth in the Highlands Act, the NJDEP is responsible for septic system densities in the
Preservation Area and the commenters are directed to the comment and response document prepared by
NJDEP for the adoption of the rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38. The septic system rules were developed based upon a
Basis and Background document that was released by NJDEP in support of these regulations.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that the Highlands Act mandated that the RMP establish septic
20
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
densities. The 2007 Draft RMP states that the Highlands Council has not yet completed its nitrate study
which will dictate septic densities.
RESPONSE: As discussed above, the Highlands Council completed a detailed nitrate analysis and septic
system yield analysis and the results of this assessment are included in the RMP and the Water Resources
Technical Report.
COMMENT: A few comments asked where are the opportunities for economic growth are when the
Highlands Septic System Yield Map will allow only 39 septic systems within 1,064 acres of the Planning Area
Protection Zone? How does the Highlands Septic System Yield Map impact brownfields redevelopment?
Redevelopment could only occur by enlarging the Ajax sewer service area and/or extending the MSA line to
Hercules, but the Regional Master Plan does not encourage these actions. Page 39 of the Technical Report
Addenda provides general examples of septic system densities for the Highlands Region. In the Protection
Zone an example is given that reflects a representative density of 26.1 acres per septic system (residential
household). Can an example be provided for a nonresidential septic system? How are septic densities legally
justified in the Planning Area when the Highlands Act provides no specific approach to septic densities (page
42 Technical Report Addenda)? “Require that new non-residential development served by public wastewater
collection and treatment systems be designed to target a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.84 for the developed part
of the site (i.e., not including wetlands, open water buffers, recreational space) to the maximum extent
feasible, as a means to maximize parking and employment efficiency and compact development (page 137and
140).” What documentation will be necessary to allow the Highlands Council to justify a lower (0.25) FAR or
will the community be forced to comply in order to extend or expand the wastewater system? Require that
new residential development served by public wastewater collection and treatment systems be at a minimum
density of l2 acres per dwelling unit for the developed part of the site (i.e., not including wetlands, open water
buffers, recreational space) to ensure cost-effective utility service (page140).
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act and the RMP specifically promote the redevelopment of brownfields site
and previously disturbed sites throughout the Highlands Region, including the Preservation Area.
Accordingly, the Highlands Act and the RMP include waiver provisions to encourage redevelopment and to
allow for limited relief from the requirements of the Highlands Act, NJDEP rules, and the RMP.
Redevelopment may occur on septic systems, on-site wastewater systems, or sewer systems, depending on
their location to existing wastewater infrastructure. Non-residential septic will be assigned a flow equivalent
of 1 equivalent dwelling unit per 300 gallon of wastewater flow per day. The densities for residential and
non-residential development on public wastewater sewer are intended to make efficient use of public
investment in infrastructure. Those densities will be achieved through the Plan Conformance process,
Highlands development review, and possible the Water Quality Management Planning process. The densities
apply only to the developed portion of the site, not to any preserved areas.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed concern regarding septic density - averaging nitrates over HUC14
subwatersheds is leaving the most highly dense areas with too high nitrate levels.
RESPONSE: The policies in the RMP will ensure that most densely populated areas will likely be connected
to public sewer systems and will not be developed using septic systems. Where septic systems are used, the
RMP includes stringent requirements to protect water quality.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the nitrate model used in the RMP has inputs that are both
scientifically wrong and not based on the law. This model does not use deep aquifer recharge as the
Highlands Act requires. More importantly, it calculates the nitrate model at a HUC 14 level when the
purpose of doing a nitrate model is to determine the minimum sustainable lot size in the most densely
populated part of the watershed. Averaging over an entire watershed, rather than looking specifically at these
most densely populated areas, increases the amount of development and, therefore, increases the level of
pollution. Open space is also included in the calculation, allowing for a 20% increase in development, which
is again not based on science, but on a game to increase development that runs contrary to the law. In the
middle of a cluster, the nitrate level is allowed to be 10 mg/L, which is the maximum limit allowed under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. This is scary because the limit is applied at the property line, rather than at the
21
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
point of contact between the septic and the groundwater, which is standard practice, and pollution will
actually be higher before being diluted as it approaches the property line.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council included septic system requirements that are consistent with the
mandates of the Highlands Act. With respect to the Preservation Area, the RMP specifically incorporates the
NJDEP’s requirements for septic systems as mandated by the Highlands Act to address deep aquifer
recharge. For the Planning Area, the Council’s nitrate dilution model is based on similar but somewhat
different assumptions than the Preservation Area standard. Preserved lands, such as open space and
farmland, were both included and excluded in the septic yields reported in the Water Resources Technical Report,
to provide an example of what differences would result. Regarding the siting of domestic wells within a
cluster, the Council will provide design guidelines intended to reduce the potential impact of septic systems
on domestic wells. The RMP does not allow the inclusion of preserved lands in the calculation of septic
system yields. Regarding clusters, all nitrate dilution models provide average concentrations, not pointspecific concentrations, and therefore the development yield of each cluster must be designed in a manner
that avoids well contamination both in the cluster and in downgradient properties. The RMP requires this at
Objective 2L2h. No septic system provides sufficient treatment to meet 10 mg/L nitrate at the point of
discharge, which is why the combination of nitrate dilution modeling with site design is a critical requirement
of the RMP.
Ground Water Recharge Areas
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the discussion of the 40% threshold should specify that this is
40% of the total recharge volume of a sub-watershed and that this is a relative, not an absolute, region-wide
definition.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges these comments and notes that the definition of ground
water recharge areas is provided generally in the RMP and in more detail within the Water Resources Technical
Report.
COMMENT: A few comments commended the Council for developing a policy definition of Prime Ground
Water Recharge Areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges and appreciates these comments.
COMMENT: One comment noted that on the Ground Water Recharge map (p 46) the ground water
recharge areas are spotty. Using soil survey maps, the commenter mapped aquifer recharge areas along Rt 46
and 80 in Morris County and found the area to be continuous and much more extensive than the area
delineated on the RMP map.
RESPONSE: The delineation of Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas is described in the Water Resources
Technical Report; and such areas do not include all recharge areas but just the most prolific in each
subwatershed.
COMMENT: With respect to the 125% recharge mitigation requirement for Prime Ground Water Recharge
Areas, several comments believed that allowing development to proceed based on a promise of recharge is
dubious at best. The 125% recharge is flawed. No monitoring procedure is specified. How do you suppose
to mitigate groundwater by 125%? Where is the enforcement mechanism? Do you have any proof that this
has successfully been done in the past? How are the measures going to be implemented? Prove that 125%
mitigation factor can be done before promoting it.
RESPONSE: The policies regarding Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas have been modified by the
Highlands Council to address these comments. The mitigation will make use of the same recharge best
management techniques as currently being used under the NJDEP Stormwater Rules. The Highlands
Council has developed case examples and determined that achieving this level of recharge should be feasible,
usually on-site but potentially including off-site actions.
COMMENT: One comment noted that a 125% increase in recharge would have to be supplied by
22
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
conservation measures in the recharge area. Because of the properties of a Precambrian rock aquifer, it
cannot be assured where the recharge areas are. Return flows could take years to replenish the source aquifer
even though the extra withdrawals would be occurring during the drought. Will the developer have to buy
watershed land in exchange for recharge land lost due to development?
RESPONSE: Achieving 125% of the predevelopment recharge is the basis for the mitigation standard
established by the Highlands Council. There are differing ways to do that, including on-site recharge, off-site
recharge, such as detention basin retro-fit, or purchasing of land and enhancing its natural recharge to offset
losses on the original project site.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the 125% recharge does not totally quantify the complete water use
of any new development.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges that the recharge mitigation requirement is not related to
water use of a development, but rather is related to potential impacts on recharge. Deficit mitigation is a
separate requirement of the RMP.
Water Quality Management Planning
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP should require strict adherence to Wastewater
Management Planning Rules, including EO109 analyses for any wastewater management plan prepared for
conforming municipalities. EO109 should include surface water pollutant load analysis, anti-degradation
review required in SWQS, water quality study, depletive/consumptive water analysis per safe yield minimum,
riparian corridor analysis.
RESPONSE: The Water Quality Management Planning Rules have been revised by NJDEP under N.J.A.C.
7:15. These new rules are applicable to all municipalities and counties in the Highlands Region regardless of
Plan Conformance. The Highlands Council has released draft review procedures that describe the basis for
what constitutes consistency with the RMP under a Wastewater Management Plan review. NJDEP will
require conformance with those regulations, which are in addition to the RMP for conforming municipalities
and for Highlands Project Reviews by the Council.
WATER SUPPLY UTILITIES
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Water Utility section heading should read “Water Supply
Utilities.” The statement “Future development within the Highlands Region at densities consistent with
smart growth principles is generally reliant on access to public community water supply systems . . .” (p.50) is
unclear and misleading. The definition of “densities consistent with Smart Growth Principles” should be
clarified with a general statement such as: “Development densities higher than those that can safely be
sustained by individual on-lot water supply and sewage disposal will depend on access to public community
water supply systems.”
The Council should identify the problems associated with the lack of a regulatory process governing the
expansion of water systems and make recommendations regarding regulatory and/or legislative changes to
assure adequate governance of water supply expansion. The lack of reliable data encountered reveals not only
the lack of spatial information but also the nearly complete lack of a regulatory process governing the
expansion of water systems.
The Land Use Capability Public Community Water Systems Map should have greater color separation (blue
tones). The quintile breaks could be more numerous revealing a great degree of information to municipal
planners during conformance discussions. The text should discuss those systems with “no capacity,” those
with the greatest capacity to support additional growth, and those in the middle ground. From a planning
standpoint, the physical condition of the delivery infrastructure is a matter of concern. A map depicting the
findings of the “firm capacity analysis” should be included; it would be of use to municipalities.
The Council should perform the critical analysis to determine how much capacity the water utility has
available for future development. The results should be displayed in spatial and tabular form.
23
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
The last paragraph of this section is incomprehensible and does not make clear what is meant by “areas for
which growth capacity would be useful” or by “equitable methods of capacity allocation.” The last two
paragraphs of the section reveal that the Council has not completed its most critical work with regard to
water supply. The statement (p.52), “The result of this analysis allows for a comparison of utility capacity
(essentially, how much capacity the water utility has available for future development) to Net Water
Availability within each sub watershed.”
RESPONSE: While the Highlands Council acknowledges the comments, no specific changes were made to
the RMP as a result of the comments. The Highlands Regional Build Out Analysis includes a comparison of
land-based build out capacity to both water availability by subwatershed and utility capacity by utility. The
RMP includes a broad regulatory framework to address water supply and water availability as suggested by the
commenter.
COMMENT: One comment noted that there is much in the water resource technical papers that conflicts
with the various water supply authority information. Everything including base flow problems, ground water
availability, and passing flow requirements appears to be in conflict. Either the Highlands Council’s
assumptions or the water supply authorities’ assumptions are wrong or invalid. It was suggested that the
water supply authorities should sign off on the Highlands Council numbers. There should be an analysis
breaking out how much water is produced by watershed land that is already publicly owned versus water that
is supplied by privately owned watershed land to put the whole thing into perspective. A huge amount of
watershed land is already protected.
RESPONSE: The RMP and all Technical Reports were made available for public comment, including by
water supply entities. Corrections may occur through the RMP Update process and the process of Plan
Conformance.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Council’s calculation of available capacity is not consistent
with the contractual and purchased capacity of each participant. The RMP does not recognize the contractual
obligations of the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority (TBSA) or other authorities and utilities. The Hercules
property was served by its own wastewater treatment facility and production wells.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments. If errors are discovered in the resource
assessment, the Highlands Council has developed procedures for correcting that information. The Council
had access to only limited information on contractual obligations, which can be addressed during the Plan
Conformance process.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the reported net water availability in the Water Resources
Technical Reports is inconsistent with the available capacity reported in the Utility Capacity Technical Report.
RESPONSE: Those analyses report two different parameters – water availability for subwatersheds, and
utility capacity based on current permits. There was no specific link between the two reports.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority (HMUA) withdraws
water and discharges wastewater within the same three HUC14s, and therefore has little depletive use. The
HMUA requested the calculation of consumptive and depletive uses for the three HUC14s. There is no
reference to site-specific hydrogeologic data. The HMUA requested that the Council consider HMUA’s site
specific information in determining net water availability. The HMUA would like to have a full
understanding of how the water availability thresholds and constraints were developed by the Highlands
Council.
RESPONSE: Depletive use is based on an individual subwatershed. No site-specific aquifer models were
used in the regional ground water capacity analysis. The Council will examine site-specific data during the
Plan Conformance process and in the development of Water Use and Conservation Management Plans,
which can be developed for multiple, related subwatersheds.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the section heading should read “Wastewater Utilities.” The three
bullet points should be expanded to describe how the Plan “focuses” on these areas. It appears that the first
24
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
bullet is met by the production of the Land Use Capability Domestic Sewerage Map, but how the other two
are met remains difficult to understand. Little information is provided in this section. The results of the
Land Use Capability Domestic Sewerage Facilities Map should be discussed with reference to system
capacities.
RESPONSE: The RMP provides a summary of the analysis performed by the Highlands Council. More
detailed information regarding these issues can be found in the Utility Capacity Technical Report.
Miscellaneous
COMMENT: One comment stated that the map on page 5 shows little water going from Warren County to
urban areas and the HUC 14 map on page 47 shows impaired water quality in the Highlands Region. Why
not consider building a desalination and purification plant to serve urban areas, as was done in Tampa,
Florida?
RESPONSE: Desalination plants, although not specifically ruled out, are a cost-prohibitive alternative to
ensuring the water quality and quantity of the Highlands Region or providing water to urban areas that
currently have sufficient reservoir supplies.
COMMENT: Several comments stated the opinion that RMP implementation should be funded with a water
user’s fee. One method of mitigation could be the purchase of watershed rights. It would be based on the
amount of land needed to support the specific new water use. The Council should establish a watershed
bank, in addition to a TDR bank, that could receive from these water users.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and the RMP supports legislation
establishing such a fee.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that it is not understandable why there is a difficulty in saving much of
the State from having no water.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Highlands Act states that the RMP shall promote water
conservation, but the only water conservation proposals are mandates for farmers and new construction in
the Highlands, both of which are insignificant. There are no recommendations included in the 2007 Draft
RMP for the water users.
RESPONSE: The RMP program The Efficient Use of Water, outlines methods for water conservation. The
Water Use and Conservation Management Plans may, where appropriate, identify water conservation
approaches for existing water lines and development to address current deficits.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that there should be an explanation early within the RMP about what
a HUC 14 is and why it is used as a planning unit.
RESPONSE: The term HUC14 Subwatershed is presented in the glossary and the value of using an
assessment at the HUC14, or sub-watershed, level is presented early on in the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment requested that the Council review the combined Two Bridges Sewerage
Authority (TBSA) and Pequannock River Basin Regional Sewerage Authority (PRBRSA) Wastewater
Management Plan (WMP) dated December 2005 and notify the TBSA whether the projections of future need
of 9.206 mgd are adequate to meet the goals of the RMP.
RESPONSE: This issue is beyond the scope of the adoption of the RMP. The Council will examine sitespecific data such as that during the Plan Conformance process and the WQMP review process.
COMMENT: One comment noted that if there is a water availability issue in the Highlands, why did Jersey
City just shut down Reservoir 3 and make it into a recreation area? Why does an ice company make blocks of
ice in summer just to dump them into private swimming pools? If water is a problem, we should build
25
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
reservoirs. There are thousands of acres of preserved lands to do so.
RESPONSE: Jersey City owns two water supply reservoirs in the Highlands, both of which are operational –
Splitrock and Boonton. The commenter may be referring to a finished water reservoir, which is part of a
water supply distribution system and does not affect water availability or safe yield. NJDEP has concluded
that there are no remaining sites in the Highlands that would be appropriate for a significant reservoir.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that targeting development in urban areas instead of rural ones does
not result in water conservation – it has opposite effect because water piped from rivers is used and
discharged elsewhere.
RESPONSE: The intent of directing growth toward already developed areas is to make use of existing
infrastructure at appropriate densities. It also has the effect of preserving natural resources. Also, urban
development tends to use less water because there is less demand for lawn irrigation per household.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP must provide assurance that agriculture's water needs will
be met and receive priority. Agriculture only uses 0.2% of the Highlands water supply (Nov.2006 draft RMP
page 20), but must be able to create ways to continue to use or expand farm water supply to adapt to
potential climate change or enhance the farm's viability. This could include new farm ponds and
impoundments if necessary, to catch and infiltrate the 40-plus inches of rainfall in the Highlands every year.
Farm operations in both the Preservation and Planning Areas, regardless of Zone, must be assured that their
water needs will be met to allow for the existing production to continue or for the ability of the operation to
change accommodating market/climate changes.
RESPONSE: While sustaining agriculture is a stated goal of the RMP, protecting water resources is also a
major goal. Within the Conservation Zone, increasing the amount of water availability specifically for
agricultural use was deemed appropriate. However, if water supplies are in deficit, then remedial measures
are necessary. That could take various forms, including farm ponds or other conservation measures.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that water availability problems can be solved by interconnecting
water companies and examining properties where large groundwater supplies may be available.
RESPONSE: Many different techniques may be available for mitigation deficits, including those cited in the
comment. The development of Water Use and Conservation Management Plans may identify various
approaches to address current deficits
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP should revert to protections in the 2006 Draft RMP
for deficit areas in mapping that recognized and addressed the relevant recharge and pollution issues.
RESPONSE: The adopted RMP includes many policies and programs addressing these issues.
COMMENT: One comment asked how should ground water and surface water allocations be restricted so
that they do not exceed what is currently allowed? A similar question was asked about the circumstances of
unregulated/undocumented water uses?
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will be coordinating with the NJDEP so that the water allocation
permitting process does not cause or contribute to exacerbating water deficits. This discussed in more detail
in the RMP programs: The Efficient Use of Water and Highlands Restoration: Water Deficits.
COMMENT: One comment noted that data related to groundwater consumption and availability was overextended and fundamental hydrologic details and information were overlooked. The over-simplification and
conservativeness brings into question the validity of the RMP’s conclusions. The dependence on only several
USGS stream gages within the Region, and the extrapolation of low-flow data over all 183 HUC 14 subwatersheds, appears to overextend the data's reliability and calls into question the validity of the methodology
used in the study.
RESPONSE: The water availability analysis is performed at the HUC14 subwatershed level. It is unrealistic
to expect that each subwatershed will have a stream gauge for flow data. The techniques that the Highlands
Council used, with the support of USGS, to determine ground water capacity are accepted statistical methods
26
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
in hydrology.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that ancient deep aquifers are being depleted. The Highlands Region
water is still fairly clean but it won’t take much to destroy it.
RESPONSE: NJDEP, through its water allocation permit program, monitors the water levels in all major
aquifers of the Highlands to ensure that they are not depleted, and has imposed limits on the use of several
aquifers.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should look to how New York City has
protected its water supply and compare that to Orange County, California which decontaminates and reuses
sewage for drinking water.
RESPONSE: The Highland Council is well aware of both of these programs.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Council should improve its estimates of water availability
and water usage through additional stream gauges.
RESPONSE: Improvements to the ground water capacity methods are goals stated in the Water Resource
and Ecology Science Agenda Implementation Program, to be implemented as funding is available.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP does not analyze the impact of Highlands water on New
Jersey’s economy; its impact to ecosystems in the State or other downstream uses.
RESPONSE: The Water Resources Technical Report does consider the ecological impact and downstream users
in its analyses. Economic impacts are discussed in the Financial Technical Report and Cash Flow Timetable. It
is also a subject of the RMP Monitoring Implementation program in Chapter VI of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment agreed with the following statement in the 2007 Draft RMP: “In the face of
the growing challenge of protecting New Jersey’s finite drinking water supply and providing for the needs of
a growing human population, the continued loss and fragmentation of the remaining lands that serve as the
source of that water supply is no longer tenable.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
General
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the opening description of agricultural resources was good, but
should be longer and include language such as allowing agricultural operations to evolve over time to adapt to
new climate and market conditions to ensure a positive agricultural business climate.
COMMENT: One comment stated a positive agricultural business climate includes allowing agricultural
development, pursuant to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA) Agricultural Development in
the Highlands Rules, necessary to keep farm operations competitive and productive.
COMMENT: One comment requested including statistics on the number of acres under farmland
assessment, number of acres of cropland harvested, number of equine operations, number of
nursery/greenhouse operations, number of farm markets and pick-your-own operations, number of organic
farm operations, and the market value of crops for the seven counties to present a more realistic picture of
the diversity of Highlands farming on different sizes of farms, but if it is not feasible to incorporate these
numbers, the text should use them to present a more realistic picture. The current description of field crop
production’s loss of acreage is a mischaracterization of the nature of Highlands agriculture.
COMMENT: One comment stated that language should be added to the opening description to state that
another key to sustainability is conformance in municipal planning and regulation to the Right to Farm Act
(N.J.S.A. 4:1C1-et seq.).
COMMENT: One comment stated that the initial discussion on agricultural resources was good, but failed
27
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
to address the root cause of agricultural land loss and the need to reduce the value of farmland for nonagricultural purposes, which is the key to preserve a land base.
RESPONSE: The opening description of agricultural resources in Chapter 3 of the Regional Master Plan
(RMP) was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions. The Sustainable Agriculture
Technical Report includes statistics on the agricultural industry and a description of the diversity of Highlands
farming. To limit the amount of material in the RMP, the technical reports serve as addenda to the RMP. A
discussion on Right to Farm has been added to the Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship
Program in Chapter 5 of the RMP.
Agricultural Sustainability and Viability
COMMENT: One comment requested the addition of a description or definition for sustainable agriculture
and sustainable agricultural practices.
RESPONSE: The RMP and the Sustainable Agriculture Technical Report includes a definition of sustainable
agriculture based on the 1990 Farm Bill and a discussion on sustainable agricultural practices. A condensed
definition of the term means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a sitespecific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food needs, enhance environmental quality
and natural resources, make efficient use of nonrenewable resources by integrating, where appropriate,
natural biological cycles and controls, sustain the economic viability of farm operations, and enhance the
quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP should address expansion of agricultural, horticultural
and recreational opportunities.
RESPONSE: The RMP Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship Program and goals, policies and
objectives were expanded to address agricultural, horticultural and agri-tourism opportunities, including the
addition of a Right to Farm program component. In addition the Sustainable Agriculture Technical Report
includes a detailed discussion on conservation and technical support programs and grant funding that allow
farmers to expand agricultural, horticultural and recreational opportunities to sustain and enhance their
agricultural operations.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council needs to coordinate with the State
Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) to identify additional land use/business opportunities for
farmers to help maintain viable farm operations such as a bed and breakfast, a product processing facility and
on-site craft artisan businesses. The SADC would not allow a bed and breakfast as an agricultural operation
on a previously preserved farm, unless it was located in the exception. A product processing plant would
only be allowed on the preserved portion with County Agriculture Development Board (CADB) and SADC
permission and there has been recent concern regarding value-added agricultural products for sale on/from
farms. If a farmer decides to start a large-scale farmers market that requires a commercial kitchen or
bathrooms for customers (under health codes) will there be a waiver for a Highlands permit? Many farmers
do not have the financial or legal resources to complete the necessary permit application. These policies
should be tweaked to meet NJDA and local health department codes and to maintain viable agricultural
operations.
RESPONSE: The Council will continue to coordinate with the NJDA and SADC in expanding agricultural
business opportunities and maintaining viable agricultural operations in the Highlands. Agricultural use and
development is not a “major Highlands development,” so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 do not apply. The
goals, policies and objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which
addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In addition the NJDA
Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands applies to all agricultural or horticultural development
in the Highlands.
28
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Stewardship Programs, Conservation Plans and Water Use
COMMENT: Several comments stressed that water needs for agriculture should receive priority in order for
the operation to be viable and there should be a provision for water usage for farmers in the Conservation
Zone or a waiver for farmers who need the Highlands Council/NJDEP allowance increase for their water
allocation permits.
RESPONSE: Policy 2B4d and the Analysis of Water Use Efficiency for Agriculture & Irrigation in Chapter 5
of the RMP address prioritizing water needs for agriculture and collaborating with the NJDA, NJDEP and
Rutgers Cooperative Extension to address water use for agriculture in the Highlands. The Council will
coordinate with these entities to sustain and enhance agricultural operations in the Highlands.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that sections on agricultural resources should acknowledge the link
between agricultural land uses and surface and ground water contamination. Water quality monitoring for
agriculturally related pollutants should be part of the agriculture strategy and monitored.
RESPONSE: Water quality related to agricultural land uses and best management practices is addressed in
the white paper on Conservation Plans and Best Management Practices, which has been added to the Sustainable
Agriculture Technical Report. The Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship Program in Chapter 5 of
the RMP addresses promoting existing Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service
Agency (FSA) cost-share programs for best management practices and establishing alternative/innovative
agriculture stewardship programs that sustain and enhance water quality. Further, where cluster development
is used to preserve agricultural lands, an NRCS Farm Conservation Plan focused on soil and water resources
must be developed and implemented.
COMMENT: One comment stated that best management practices are important, but the agricultural
industry should not be over regulated, because it will result in lost resources.
RESPONSE: The Council will coordinate with the NJDA and the NRCS to maximize existing and
alternative programs for best management practices that sustain and enhance agricultural land and the
agricultural industry in the Highlands.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council must work with the SADC on the voluntary
impervious coverage limits on preserved farms, because the SADC sees the federal Farm and Ranchland
Protection Program (FRPP) requirements as too constraining to future farmers.
RESPONSE: The Council will collaborate with the NJDA and the SADC on limiting impervious cover
through the use of federal FRPP funds and other initiatives.
Mapping
COMMENT: One comment stated that the maps for the Agricultural Resource Area (ARA) and the Forest
Resource Area overlap and land cannot be in agriculture and forest at the same time. These maps should be
reexamined for accuracy, because the mapping includes a huge number of acres in areas that are highly
developed.
RESPONSE: The ARA was spatially delineated to represent the portion of the Highlands Region with the
largest concentration of active farms. The Forest Resource Area was delineated in a similar manner, known
as “density mapping.” Many of these farms contain large areas of forested lands and in some instances the
farmland assessment includes the number of acres in tillable cropland and woodland. Therefore, it is
reasonable that some lands are in both areas.
COMMENT: One comment stated that preserved farms and Planning Incentive Grant (PIG) areas should
be delineated and reinforced by RMP policies. Existing and new PIG areas should be mapped and should
reinforce the Conservation Zone boundaries.
RESPONSE: The RMP maps and considers all preserved farmland based on the most recent data available
29
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
from the SADC. The PIG areas are local county and municipal priorities, which will be considered in
prioritizing farmland preservation acquisitions by the Council and the SADC.
Cluster Development
COMMENT: A few comments stated that clustering and deed restricting agricultural land results in changes
in agricultural uses. One comment stated the farm went from breeding horses to raising cattle and sheep and
growing hay.
RESPONSE: The RMP Cluster/Conservation Design Development Program and goals, policies and
objectives require implementation of regulations that maintain and enhance the sustainability and continued
viability of the agricultural industry and require a deed of easement to ensure existing agricultural uses remain
in perpetuity for the cluster project area preserved for agricultural purposes. The Highlands Council will
work with the NJDA and NRCS to implement cluster programs that sustain and enhance existing agricultural
uses.
COMMENT: One comment stated that clustering provisions should provide a mandatory and compatible
vegetative or open space buffer and acknowledgement of the Right to Farm Act. Local realtors should also
be informed, so they can inform potential homebuyers. To ensure clustering is successful for the homebuyer
and the farmer, education and/or incentives are necessary.
RESPONSE: The RMP Cluster/Conservation Design Development goals, policies and objectives,
specifically Objective 3A5b, require that all cluster or conservation design development proposed in an
Agricultural Resource Area be buffered appropriately with existing natural resources, such as hedgerows or
trees, or with new buffers to avoid conflicts between non-agricultural development and agricultural activities,
and to protect existing agricultural uses. The deed of easement for the preserved agricultural land and a
legally enforceable homeowners’ agreement must include Right to Farm Act provisions to make the buyer
aware they will be residing adjacent to working farms.
COMMENT: One comment stated that cluster projects should consider Community Supported Agriculture,
which would allow residents to get fresh produce and agricultural products and allow the farmer to enhance
the viability of the agricultural operation.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the 2007 Draft RMP requires a cluster provision that will not allow
a density bonus, but will provide for large contiguous areas of open space or farmland. The comment
recommended an open lands performance based provision that would allow more flexibility and use of land
rather than creating open land in perpetuity whose future agricultural or open space function may be
hindered.
RESPONSE: The RMP Cluster/Conservation Design Development Program and goals, policies, and
objectives were updated to address and incorporate Community Supported Agriculture and language on
density bonuses through the purchase of Highlands Development Credits. Land preserved through the use
of cluster requires a deed of easement that must be monitored and enforced to ensure the natural or
agricultural resources are preserved in perpetuity.
Agricultural Land Use Planning
COMMENT: One comment stated that policies and objectives that require local master plans to be modified
to include existing programs, regulations and statues such as Right to Farm, stormwater management and
Farmland Preservation are redundant and unnecessary.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act requires municipalities in the Preservation Area submit revisions of master
plans and development regulations as necessary to conform with the goals, requirements, and provisions of
the RMP. The Highlands Act also includes the legislative directive that the Highlands Act does not
compromise the New Jersey Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, but the goals, policies and objectives of the
RMP apply through the Act, which addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health
30
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
and safety. Where municipalities have already adopted such requirements, no further action is needed.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Act gives specific responsibilities to the NJDA, but
the 2007 Draft RMP excludes the NJDA.
RESPONSE: Collaboration and coordination with the NJDA is an integral part of the RMP Agricultural
Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship Program and accompanying goals, policies and objectives.
Right to Farm
COMMENT: Several comments stated the Right to Farm (RTF) Act is important to ensure farming remains
viable and requested the Council act to keep the protections afforded by the RTF Act.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address and incorporate new goals, policies and objectives (Policy
3E3 and 3E4) and a new program discussion on the Right to Farm Act (see Chapter 5).
COMMENT: One comment stated that it is questionable, based upon the Right To Farm (RTF) Act,
whether the Highlands Council has the authority to require municipalities to modify their municipal RTF
ordinances if they currently meet requirements of the RTF Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act established specific goals in the Highlands Region relating to the protection
and preservation of agriculture including the preservation of farmland; the promotion of compatible
agricultural, horticultural, recreational, and cultural uses and opportunities; and the promotion and expansion
of those opportunities and uses. The Highlands Act does include the legislative directive that the Highlands
Act does not compromise the New Jersey Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, but the goals, policies, and
objectives of the RMP apply through the Act, which addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat
to public health and safety. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, SADC and CADBs to address
municipal Right To Farm ordinances through the RMP Plan Conformance process.
COMMENT: One comment stated that although agriculture was specifically exempted in the Highlands Act,
the 2007 Draft RMP includes a number of restrictions that are in conflict with this exemption, such as 125%
recharge requirements, a ban on change of use, vagueness of the buffer requirements for agriculture,
significant changes in forest management practices that are in conflict with existing practices, the emphasis on
soils and contiguous parcel size as the basis for the Agricultural Resource Areas, and mandated use of
recycled water. Input from the Department of Agriculture, the Forestry Service and the Agricultural
Technical Advisory Committee appear to have been ignored.
RESPONSE: Agricultural use and development is not a “major Highlands Development,” therefore the
NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 do not apply. However, this is not an exemption from the entire Highlands Act.
The goals, policies and objectives of the RMP do apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which
addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In addition, RMP Policy
3D2 and 3D3 require conservation plans for farms that meet the 3% and 9% impervious cover triggers for
new agricultural or horticultural development regulated under the Highlands Act and subject to the NJDA
Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, the
NJDEP and the NRCS to sustain and enhance agricultural land, the agricultural industry and natural
resources in the Highlands Region.
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic Resources
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the inventory of historic, cultural and archaeological resources
be expanded beyond the existing register designated or eligible sites and should include survey information
gathered by municipal and county governments. One comment stated that the baseline inventory of historic
properties should be expanded to include: properties that have received a Certificate of Eligibility (COE)
from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); properties that have been deemed eligible for the Nation
31
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Register of Historic Places in SHPO approved county and regional cultural resource surveys; and properties
that have been deemed eligible for the Nation Register of Historic Places in the New Jersey Historic Bridge
Survey and New Jersey Transit Historic Railroad Bridge Survey.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Franklin Mining District be recognized as an historic site of
regional significance and the Franklin Mineral Museum and Sterling Hill Mining Museum be considered
Highlands cultural resources. It was suggested that the Council consider other interpretive or museum sites
as cultural resources.
RESPONSE: The Historic and Cultural Resource Inventory includes: all those properties within the
Highlands Region that are listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places; all properties which
have been deemed eligible for listing on the State or National Register; and all properties for which a formal
SHPO opinion has been issued. The Council will maintain and update the Inventory and will provide a
process for additional resources to be included.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the discussion of settlement history in the Highlands should
be expanded.
RESPONSE: The settlement history description as found in Chapter 1. Introduction was considered to be
adequate as an explanation of the general pattern of early development in the Highlands.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed concern that the GIS data layer of cultural resources was missing
from the 2007 Draft RMP and it should be included along with policies and programs to support those
resources.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes the GIS data layer which illustrates the Historic and Cultural Resource
Inventory that was prepared in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (see Figure 3.21
Historic Preservation).
COMMENT: One comment requested the following language [in bold print] be added in Chapter 2 of the
2007 Draft RMP in the section on Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic Resources: “The Highlands
Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resource Inventory includes buildings . . . and historic landmark
districts identified and evaluated to date, which have been identified as significant on a Regional basis by a
broadly based regional Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic subcommittee or advisory group.”
RESPONSE: Chapter 2 of the 2007 Draft RMP was intended to serve as an analysis of existing conditions in
the Highlands. Chapter 4 contains the goals, policies and objectives developed to advance the goals
enumerated in the Highlands Act. Chapter 5 contains the programs developed to support the goals, policies
and objectives. Procedures will be adopted to advance the goals, policies, objectives and programs contained
in the RMP. A draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally
Significant Scenic Resources” has been released by the Council for public comment. The draft Procedure
includes the establishment of a Highlands Scenic Design Advisory Board to review and evaluate scenic
resource nominations. A procedure for updating the Highlands Region Historic and Cultural Resources
Inventory will be developed in the future.
COMMENT: A few comments supported the recognition of the historic value of iron mines in the
Highlands and suggested they be mapped as a thematic cultural resource of regional importance. The
comments also pointed out that these features may pose hazards to development and be sources of
groundwater contamination. The existence or absence of these mines should be included on checklists as
part of the local site planning process.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes Objectives 4A2a “Evaluate the cultural and historic significance of the
concentration of abandoned mines within the Highlands Region.” Additionally the Historic, Cultural,
Scenic, Recreation, and Tourism Technical Report includes both a listing and a map of the 518 abandoned
mines in the Highlands.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP include a GIS data layer of dams in the Region along
with a relational data base.
32
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, although a map layer showing dams is not included
in the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the definition of a “SHPO opinion” was incorrectly stated in the
2007 Draft RMP.
RESPONSE: The definition, according to the NJDEP Historic Preservation Office website, is “SHPO
Opinion: This is an opinion of eligibility issued by the State Historic Preservation Officer. It is in response to
a federally funded activity that will have an effect on historic properties not listed on the National Register.”
Scenic Resources
COMMENT: A few comments recommended that the RMP include a scenic resource map of the baseline
Scenic Resources Inventory.
RESPONSE: The baseline Scenic Resource Inventory is comprised of federal, State and county open space
facilities. A listing of the 131 baseline sites is included in the Historic, Cultural, Scenic, Recreation, and
Tourism Technical Report.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the 2007 Draft RMP does not adequately address the overall issue
of scenic protection.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Scenic Resources Inventory be clearly identified as a
“baseline from which to begin to refine a list of scenic resources based on definitions and standards
developed on a regional basis by a broadly-based consensus-building entity.”
RESPONSE: The RMP establishes the goals, policies, objectives and program for addressing scenic resource
protection in the Highlands Region. The 2007 Draft RMP identifies 131 scenic resource areas which are all
publicly-owned lands and states that the inventory will serve as a baseline from which to begin to refine a list
of scenic resources. The Council has also released a draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and
Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” developed to solicit nomination of scenic
resources along with management plans to address protection of these resources into the future.
TRANSPORTATION
COMMENT: Several comments indicated that the 2007 Draft RMP should include more details regarding
transit capacity, bridge safety and design, and transportation features that support agricultural viability.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The Transportation Safety and Mobility goals,
policies, objectives and program along with the RMP Smart Growth policies and Transportation System
Preservation and Enhancement Technical Report include the framework and details for working with
agencies, counties, and municipalities regarding transportation and transit in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the 2007 Draft RMP is consistent with the NJTPA’s Regional
Transportation Plan and the Regional Capital Investment Strategy.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and looks forward to promoting and supporting a
sound and balanced transportation system for the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: Some comments suggested wording edits.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: A few comments were received indicating that the RMP should include additional details
regarding roads and congestion.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and evaluated the Highlands Region vehicular traffic
conditions as of 2002 using the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) model in the
Transportation System Preservation and Enhancement Technical Report. The Highlands Council will
33
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
continue to work with agencies, counties and municipalities to evaluate inter and intra regional transportation
conditions in support of RMP policies.
COMMENT: A few comments were received suggesting that the RMP include additional details regarding
regional airport facilities.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and modified the Transportation Safety and Mobility
goals, policies, objectives and program to reflect the seven Highlands regional aircraft facilities.
COMMENT: One comment was received indicating support for the 2007 Draft RMP’s recognition of
agriculture transportation and safety needs.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and looks forward to promoting and supporting a
sound and balanced transportation system for the Highlands Region.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the community character of the Highlands will be
threatened by the implementation of the RMP.
RESPONSE: The implementation of the RMP is intended to protect natural and water resources as well as
existing communities. The RMP encourages a balanced approach utilizing both smart growth strategies and
resource protection measures.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Region has a deficiency of rentals and smaller housing units.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The goals, policies, objectives, and program of the
RMP seek to address a full range of housing needs for the Region within the context of resource protection
needs and sustainable development patterns. See the Housing and Community Facilities goals, policies
objectives and program in the RMP for additional discussion relating to housing.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the 2007 Draft RMP contained fewer socioeconomic statistics
than previous drafts.
RESPONSE: The 2007 Draft RMP provides a summary of socio-economic conditions for the Highlands
Region. The Financial Analysis Technical Report and the Regional Land Use Conditions and Smart Design Technical
Report provide additional socio-economic analysis.
COMMENT: One comment questioned several of the conflict resolution steps taken to develop the Land
Use Capability Map and suggested text edits to the LANDS technical discussion. The comment suggested
that planned future sewer service area be included as an existing community zone indicator.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The Land Use Capability Zone Map Technical Report
provides an overview of the process to develop the Land Use Capability Zone Map and contains a discussion
relating to the selection of individual indictors. Future sewer service areas were deemed inappropriate as
existing community zone indicators, as they have not been reviewed against either NJDEP’s new Water
Quality Management Planning rules or the RMP, and nearly all Wastewater Management Plans in the
Highlands Region are more than six years old.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for the ability to develop properties in the Existing
Community Zone based upon statistics (provided in the comment) that compared the number and size of
vacant parcels in the Existing Community Zone between the 2006 and the 2007 Draft RMP. The comment
stated that the 2007 Draft RMP offered fewer developable properties in the Existing Community Zone.
RESPONSE: The 2006 Draft RMP Land Use Capability Map was developed based upon a scoring system in
which the presence of a specific number of indicators helped drive the zone in which an area was placed.
This system was significantly modified through the use of the LANDS model (used to develop the Land Use
Capability Zone Map included in the 2007 Draft RMP and the RMP) which has the capability of discerning
the quality of individual indicators rather than collective quality. A change in the number of acres assigned to
34
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
each zone is an inevitable outcome of an updated mapping approach. More detailed information for the
Land Use Capability Zone Map development can be found in the Land Use Capability Zone Map Technical
Report.
LAND USE CAPABILITY MAP SERIES
COMMENTS: Several comments requested seven types of zone changes for specific sites. Many comments
requested changes from Protection Zone to Existing Community Zone. Several comments requested
changes from Existing Community Zone to Protection Zone. Several comments requested changes from
Conservation Zone to Existing Community Zone. A few comments requested changes from Conservation
Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone or Existing Community Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone to
Existing Community Zone. One comment requested a change from Conservation Zone to Protection Zone.
One comment requested a change from Conservation Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone to Protection
Zone. A few comments requested modifying site designations, but the specifics relative to current zone
category and desired zone category were unclear. A few comments requested multiple modifications. Table
1.0 summarizes the range of requested zone modifications.
Table 1.0 – Requested Zone Modifications
Request Change From
Request Change to
Comments
Protection
Existing Community
Numerous
Existing Community
Protection
Some
Conservation
Existing Community
Several
Conservation Environmentally Constrained
Existing Community
Few
Existing Community Environmentally Constrained Existing Community
Few
Conservation
Protection
One
Conservation Environmentally Constrained
Protection
One
When requesting zone changes, most comments included information to support the claims for a LUC Zone
Map change. In general there were some supporting factors which were cited. Some comments referenced
adjacency to other developed parcels or that the LUC Zone Map is inconsistent with existing municipal
zoning or Office of Smart Growth State Planning Designations. Several comments referenced adjacency to
either existing utilities such as sewer and/or water or the Existing Community Zone. Several comments
referenced the presence of existing environmental resources, existing utilities, existing approvals issued by
administrative bodies, or pending projects with prior approvals which includes items such as preliminary and
conceptual site plans and subdivisions, master plans, and sites pending litigation. These included official
approvals from agencies such as NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Transportation or municipal
governments. Several referenced that the LUC Zone Map is inconsistent with sites previously identified by
Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) to meet a municipalities affordable housing obligations. A few
comments referenced sites as having existing development or sites proposed for utilities such as sewer and/or
water. Table 2.0 summarizes the range of issues supporting zone modifications.
Table 2.0 – Support for Zone Modification
Comments
Adjacent to Developed Parcels
Some
Existing Zoning
Some
Inconsistent with State Planning Designations
Some
Inconsistent with COAH
Several
Adjacent to Existing Utilities
Several
Adjacent to Existing Community
Several
Prior Approval (planned) includes pending litigation/master
plans/preliminary and conceptual site plans and subdivisions
Several
Prior Approval (approved)
Several
Existing Environmental Resources
Several
35
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Existing Utilities
Existing Developed
Proposed for Utilities
Several
Few
Few
RESPONSE: The Regional Master Plan addresses the requirements of the Highlands Act to provide
guidance to municipalities and counties for the implementation of resource protection and smart growth
policies during Plan Conformance. The Highlands Council recognizes that the RMP was created at a regional
scale and that new, updated or additional information available at the federal, State, county or public level
may become available. To facilitate the collection and verification of new information two programs were
developed. The RMP Updates Program (Chapter 6.1.b) is designed to facilitate and coordinate the exchange
and verification of updated, relevant factual information and focuses on existing on the ground conditions.
The Map Adjustments Program (Chapter 6.1.c) facilitates the exchange of planning information between the
Council and local government units in order to ensure a sound basis for local planning and development
review in support of the overall policies and objectives of the RMP and the Highlands Act. The Highlands
Council is committed to enhance its existing data necessary through Plan Conformance at a local scale,
however when evaluated regionally, such as the Land Use Capability Map Series, site specific Updates and/or
Adjustments may not necessarily result in changes in Zone capability designations.
COMMENT: Many comments were received that requested that the RMP Updates Program be more clearly
outlined. A few comments were received that requested that the Map Adjustments Program be more clearly
outlined. The underlying caution for both RMP Updates and Map Adjustments is that both programs have
the potential to be used to further private, local or regional political agendas rather addressing pure data
errors or gaps.
RESPONSE: The Regional Master Plan addresses the requirements of the Highlands Act to provide
guidance to municipalities and counties for the implementation of resource protection and smart growth
policies during Plan Conformance. The RMP Updates Program and the Map Adjustments Program were
split from one program to two and modified to clarify their intent and provisions. The Highlands Council is
committed to enhance its existing data necessary through Plan Conformance at a local scale and verification
of data is a key component. Both Programs include criteria for who can submit information and verification
through supporting relevant documentation. The Map Adjustments Program goes one step more and
includes demonstrations of consistency to support Adjustments.
COMMENT: Many comments expressed their concern that the RMP identifies both Existing Community
Zone and Transfer of Development Rights Receiving Areas in the Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: Regarding Existing Community Zones in the Preservation Area, in the development of the
Land Use Capability Zone Map the Council used the results of the Smart Growth analysis to identify the
nature and extent of developed lands that have limited and dispersed environmental and agricultural
resources. Areas were identified based upon existing patterns of development with particular emphasis on
areas that are currently served by existing water and wastewater infrastructure. These findings were used to
develop the Land Use Capability Map Series. The Preservation Area includes areas of compact or extensive
development, which are appropriately identified in the Existing Community Zone. Such a designation does
not infer that such area have growth potential.
Regarding the identification of Transfer of Development Rights Receiving Areas, the Highlands Act does not
prohibit completely the designation of Receiving Zones in the Preservation Area, which would undermine the
flexibility necessary to ensure a sufficient number of Receiving Zones. There are areas within the
Preservation Area that may be appropriate for more dense or intense development because there is existing
infrastructure capacity and limited or no environmental constraints. Additionally, designation of a Receiving
Zone requires Highlands Council approval, which approval determination will be conducted in light of the
goals, policies and objectives of the RMP. However, the Highlands Act specifically required that the
Highlands Council identify lands within the Planning Area as potential areas for voluntary Receiving Zones,
and the adopted RMP does so.
36
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments were received regarding the development of the Land Use Capability Map
Series. Issues varied from the lack of capacity and resource quality analysis and identified areas for
development to the inclusion of environmental resources in Zones other than Protection Zone.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the results of the Resource Assessment to identify those lands
within the Highlands Region with significant natural and ecological resources. Indicators were used to
measure the relative quality of a particular resource, such as ground water recharge, watershed condition,
open waters and riparian areas, forests, critical habitat, and slopes. Areas with significant agricultural lands
and important farmland soils were also evaluated. A determination was made as to their quality and
importance to the Highlands Region.
The Council then used the results of the Smart Growth analysis to identify the nature and extent of
developed lands that have limited and dispersed environmental and agricultural resources. Areas were
identified based upon existing patterns of development with particular emphasis on areas that are currently
served by existing water and wastewater infrastructure.
The goal of the Land Use Capability Zone Map is to address the requirements of the Highlands Act and
provide regional guidance for the implementation of the policies contained in the Regional Master Plan. The
challenge of the Land Use Capability Zone Map was to recognize the range and nature of land throughout the
Highlands Region, and assign an overlay zone that best represents the requirements of the Highlands Act and
the policies of the Plan. As anticipated, and confirmed during the mapping process, there were areas that
clearly met the criteria of an overlay zone definition, while other areas exhibited characteristics of more than
one zone. The Council agrees that certain environmental features exist in many zones – the RMP includes
specific policies for their protection regardless of the zone in which they occur, such as for Highlands Open
Water buffers.
COMMENT: Several comments addressed the technical development and representation of the Land Use
Capability Map Series. This included the irregular shapes and size of the zones, which tool to use to
determine zone designations, and the lack of a coordinate system.
RESPONSE: The Land Use Capability Zone Map Technical Report provides an introduction and overview of the
development process, data input information, and the utility of the Land Use Analysis Decision Support
(LANDS) Model for the Highlands Region. The result of the LANDS model is the Land Use Capability
Zone Map which the Council represents in multiple media and to the best of its ability remains constant. All
mapping provided by the Highlands Council on all hardcopy maps is provided in New Jersey State Plane
Coordinate System which is widely accepted by the Highlands Council and all State, county and local bodies.
COMMENT: Several comments were received requesting an area to be changed from Preservation Area to
Planning Area. One comment was received requesting a change from Planning Area to Preservation Area.
Most cited existing conditions to support the request and one comment cited boundary language from the
Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: Section 7 of the Highlands Act delineates the Preservation Area and the Planning Area.
Changes to either the Preservation or Planning Areas can only be made by amending the Highlands Act and
can only be done through the State Legislature.
In the matter of the interpretation of the Preservation Area boundary in the Act specifically along the border
between Stanhope Borough and Byram Township, the Council edited the digital boundary to clarify the
intent in the Act.
COMMENT: Several comments were received regarding cartographic elements which were used in the
development of maps.
RESPONSE: At a regional scale, cartographic conventions call for suppressing smaller size environmental
features for map legibility (i.e. A New York City Subway Map does not show all entryways into a particular
subway station). All mapping provided by the Highlands Council on all hardcopy maps is provided in New
Jersey State Plane Coordinate System which is widely accepted by the Highlands Council and all State, county
and local bodies. Cartographic elements such as interpretive language, colors and legend items, and updated
information were used when appropriate and regionally available.
37
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: Several comments were received asking the Council to consider airports as a transportation
element in the development of the Land Use Capability Zone Map.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has modified the Transportation and Mobility goals, policies,
objectives and program to reflect the seven regional aircraft facilities. While the LANDS model did utilize
transportation as a factor in the development of the overlay zones, airport transportation was not included in
that analysis.
COMMENT: A few comments made reference to the lack of identifying “no build zones” as required by the
Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: Policies in the Land Preservation and Stewardship section of Chapter 3 identify a
prioritization for land preservation targets. Prioritization is based on environmental features such as wetlands
and lakes. Policy 1H3 and 1H7 of the RMP provide methods for designation of such areas, which will occur
after more detailed consideration of the implications of exempt properties. The Highlands Council will
provide to the Green Acres Program and the State Agriculture Development Committee confidential lists of
priority parcels for fee simple or easement acquisitions. In addition, the RMP includes an analysis of Special
Environmental Zones in order to address the requirements of the Highlands Act to identify areas where
development should not occur.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that their original comments to previous draft were not
incorporated.
RESPONSE: All submitted comments for all topics were reviewed and text was amended as deemed
appropriate, and the responses to the 2006 Draft RMP are provided in a separate document. With respect
specifically to comments regarding proposed map changes, please see the response to similar comments
above.
COMMENT: One comment was received requesting additional clarification to the policies which govern
Environmental Constrained Zones.
RESPONSE: Like the three zones, the Environmentally Constrained Sub Zones have specific policies
associated with them and are addressed by feature and in many cases vary depending on Planning and
Preservation Area. For example, for wastewater management infrastructure, for the Planning Area, new,
expanded or extended public wastewater collection and treatment systems and community on-site treatment
facilities in the Protection Zone, the Conservation Zone and the Environmentally-Constrained Sub-Zones are
prohibited unless they are shown to be necessary for and are approved by the Highlands Council for one or
more of the following purposes: 1) to address a documented existing or imminent threat to public health and
safety; 2) to serve a designated Highlands Redevelopment Area; 3) to serve a cluster development that meets
all requirements of Objective 2J4b; or 4) to avoid the taking of property without just compensation.
LANDOWNER FAIRNESS
General Comments
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP must be revised to compensate property owners for
lost equity.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the RMP discusses landowner equity issues through
numerous Goals, Policies, and Objectives in the RMP, including those detailing the Highlands TDR Program,
the exemptions and waivers allowed under the Highlands Act, and the Council requests that the Legislature
adopt dedicated sources of funding.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council has failed to identify land where the
restrictions of the Highlands Act are so severe as to leave the property owner with no viable use of the land
38
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
and that should be purchased by the State.
RESPONSE: In the RMP, the Highlands Council has identified parcels of land where no development
should occur in order to protect water resources and environmentally sensitive lands. These lands are
designated as the Special Environmental Zone within the Preservation Area. However, the exemptions and
waiver afforded to property owners in the Highlands Act provide mechanisms to avoid a taking of private
property.
COMMENT: One comment contended that Highlands Region landowners should be compensated for lost
equity only based on existing property conditions and not as proposed housing development.
RESPONSE: With respect to the Highlands TDR Program, allocation of Highlands Development Credits
looks to the development potential of a parcel of land as of August 9, 2004, including considering State
environmental laws and regulations in place at that time. With respect to the potential purchase of
development rights or fee simple under the Green Acres program and the Farmland Preservation program,
the Highlands Act requires an appraisal based upon January 1, 2004 value.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there must be equal treatment between Preservation Area property
owners and Planning Area property owners where Planning Area property owners have had more time to
develop their property.
RESPONSE: The Legislature drew the distinction between the Preservation Area and Planning Area and
that only an amendment to the Highlands Act could address this concern.
COMMENT: One comment contended that the application of the Department of Environmental
Protection’s Highlands rules to the Planning Area will be unfair to property owners that have received
development approvals and have made substantial investments in their properties. The comment suggested
that "substantial investment" be considered the construction of 50% of the improvements allowed to be
constructed under local approvals.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the Highlands Act required that NJDEP adopt immediately
effective rules or lands in the Preservation Area. The Highlands Act additionally requires state agency
coordination to implement the Regional Master Plan. Accordingly, NJDEP has adopted rules that require
compliance with the stringent environmental standards of the Highlands Act to lands in the Preservation
Area and have required an examination of the policies of the Regional Master Plan for lands in the Planning
Area.
COMMENT: One comment argued that the Highlands Council must consider how it will manage vacant
farms because the Highlands Act and the RMP have rendered farming non-viable.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council does not agree that the Highlands Act or the RMP will render farming
non-viable. The Highlands Act specifically allows agricultural development to occur on lands within the
Preservation Area subject only to certain requirements as set forth in the Act. Additionally, the adopted RMP
allows clustering of development on agricultural lands in the Conservation Zone consistent within the
requirements for such development in the RMP, and has many policies encouraging sustainable agriculture
within the Highlands Region.
Constitutionality of the Highlands Act
COMMENT: A few comments argued that the Highlands Act is unconstitutional without the payment of
compensation to impacted Highlands Region landowners.
RESPONSE: The Appellate Division of Superior Court has held that the Highlands Act is constitutional in
the case OFP, LLP v. State, decided August 10, 2007. This matter is presently under review by the New
Jersey Supreme Court. Several other recent court decisions in Superior Court have also held that the
Highlands Act as enacted is constitutional.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the Landowner Equity section of the RMP include a
39
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
discussion of public trust resources and the current law of regulatory takings.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the RMP includes a discussion of the public trust doctrine
as well as the taking waiver provided by the Highlands Act. In addition, a discussion of regulatory takings is
found in the Transfer of Development Rights Technical Report.
COMMENT: One comment argued that no further exactions should be taken from property owners
without proper compensation.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that to date no State court has found that the Highlands Act
imposes exactions on landowners in the Highlands Region.
Funding for Compensation
COMMENT: Numerous comments contended that a water tax or water usage fee must be enacted that will
generate funds to be used to compensate Highlands Region landowners who have been impacted by the
Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has and will continue to advocate for passage of a water user fee that
will be assessed against water consumers that are outside of the Highlands Region and consume Highlands
water. Additionally, the Highlands Council continues to advocate for other potential revenue sources as set
forth in Policy 1H4.
COMMENT: Numerous comments argued that the Highlands Council should condition adoption of the
RMP upon the Legislature providing funding for purposes of landowner compensation.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges these comments, but states that it has a legal obligation
to adopt the RMP per the Highlands Act even in the absence of any specific funding to address landowner
equity concerns.
Exemptions
COMMENT: One comment stated that the construction of schools, churches, hospitals, and municipal
facilities must be exempt from the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the expansion of schools, churches and hospitals in
existence on August 10, 2004 are exempt from the requirements of the Highlands Act. With respect to new
schools, churches, hospitals, and municipal facilities these facilities are subject to the Highlands Act and could
only be specifically exempted by the Legislature through an amendment to the Act.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the additional costs and hassles associated with the
RMP and the Department of Environmental Protection’s Highlands rules will make it too costly and difficult
for most homeowners to make improvements in their property.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that for single family homes that were in existence on August 10,
2004, the Highlands Act exempts improvements to the dwelling, including but not limited to an addition,
garage, shed, driveway, porch, deck, patio, swimming pool, or septic system.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the statement on page 85 of the 2007 Draft RMP that tens of
thousands of acres of land could be developed as the result of four of the 17 exemptions is an exaggeration
inasmuch as the exempt property is still subject to pertinent zoning and environmental regulation which
could limit to a great extent the development of those parcels.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the clause following the statement discussed in the above
comment specifically states that “the actual potential may be constrained by existing site conditions,
ownership issues, zoning and other factors.” That said, the Highlands Council conducted a regional analysis
of those parcels that may qualify for these four exemptions based upon standards in the exemptions
themselves.
40
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Transfer of Development Rights
COMMENT: One comment contended that the discussion of TDR in the RMP is disingenuous because the
program is nowhere close to implementation and is not a high priority for the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the TDR program is not a required element of the RMP per
the Highlands Act. However, the Highlands Council recognizes the need to include program parameters in
the RMP that guides its establishment. As such, the Council had provided a significant discussion of TDR,
including the goals, policies and objectives for the program, as well as the program framework in Chapter 5.
Implementation of the program, including capitalization of the TDR Bank, is a priority as one means for
preserving properties.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Warren County Department of Land Preservation has produced
a report that documents the fact that farms in the Preservation Area have lost 80% of their pre-Highlands
Act values.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council staff has reviewed the referenced report in the context of existing
litigation.
COMMENT: One comment contended that there must be more specific incentives listed in the RMP to
motivate municipalities to voluntarily become a TDR receiving zone.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act provides a number of benefits to municipalities in the Planning Area that
conform to the Regional Master Plan and establish a Receiving Zone which provides for a minimum density
of 5 dwelling units per acre for the residential portion of the receiving zone. Planning Area municipalities that
meet these criteria may:
• charge up to $15,000 per unit impact fee for all new development within the voluntary receiving zone;
• receive up to $250,000 in an enhanced planning grant to offset the planning and other related costs of
designating and accommodating voluntary receiving zones;
• receive a grant to reimburse the reasonable costs of amending municipal development regulations to
accommodate voluntary receiving zones;
• receive legal representation by the State in actions challenging municipal decisions regarding TDR, provided
that certain pre-requisites are met; and
• receive priority status in for any State capital or infrastructure programs.
These benefits are not currently set forth in the adopted RMP, but are discussed under the overview of the
TDR Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant Program available at the Highlands Council’s website.
COMMENT: One comment contended that there will be few towns in the Highlands Region that will want
to serve as Receiving Zones due to the additional traffic and school demands that will be associated with such
development.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but notes that three towns are currently
conducting TDR Receiving Zone feasibility assessments through grant funding provided by the Highlands
Council.
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMENT: One comment questioned if tourism will be able to offset the industrial, commercial, and
other employment generating development that will be stymied by the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The RMP Sustainable Economic Development program outlines the policies regarding the
promotion of appropriate, sustainable, and environmentally compatible economic development throughout
the Highlands Region, which does include, but is not limited to tourism. RMP policy requires that
conforming municipalities develop or update an existing economic plan element that provides strategies for
achieving sustainable and appropriate economic development appropriate for the municipality and consistent
41
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
with the RMP. The economic plan element should identify any development, redevelopment and brownfield
opportunities. Economic plans should strive to maximize potential economic effects when locating future
homes, commercial and industrial facilities through development and redevelopment, and public facilities.
The program has been updated in the adopted RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the cash flow timetable include an analysis of the costs
associated with land stewardship. A comment stated that the 2007 Draft RMP does not adequately evaluate
the costs of inadequate resource protections and the benefits of adequate resource Highlands protections.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the 2007 Draft RMP should include a calculation of the
expenses in staff, operating costs, and consulting services, to complete the work specified in the RMP such as
plan conformance, transfer of development rights program, and project review.
COMMENT: Some comments stated that the Financial Component does not adequately address costs of
implementing the plan and the source and timing of those funds. A comment suggested that the RMP
should include an estimate of the cost to address the conformance requirements in the plan for each
municipality in the Highlands along with an estimate of the cost to address landowner equity concerns and
the anticipated reduction in assessed land value due to the development restrictions included in the RMP.
RESPONSE: The content of the Cash Flow Timetable was developed based upon a requirement of the
Highlands Act whereby the cost to implement the Regional Master Plan and the sources of revenue are
formally accounted for over time. The land acquisition component of the Cash Flow Timetable attempts to
quantify the amount of land that will need to be preserved and the funds that may be required through fee
simple and conservation easement purchases. It identifies sources of existing revenue which may be available
for land preservation purposes, and what shortfalls in funding, if any, will need to be secured. It also
addresses TDR capitalization requirements. The Planning Grants Timetable in the lists currently available
and projected funding resources; the Highlands Council believes this allocation will sufficiently fund Plan
Conformance activities. The Cash Flow Timetable is discussed in the Analysis of the Highlands Region
(Chapter 3), the Sustainable Economic Development Program, and is presented in its entirety in the Financial
Analysis Technical Report. The 2007 Highlands Council Annual Report provides the general operating
budget for fiscal year 2007 and 2008 and the Regional Master Plan budget for a portion of fiscal year 2008
(July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007). The Highlands Council will continue to prepare annual reports
that provide fiscal year budget information.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the RMP presents two types of recreation; resourcebased recreation or facilities based recreation, and excludes charitable, non-profit ownership or managements.
RESPONSE: The RMP’s discussion of recreation, including resource and facilities based recreation, is
intended to be applied to recreation facilities operated by both not-for-profit and commercial entities.
COMMENT: One comment urged that the RMP not be adopted until all associated costs are funded by the
State of New Jersey. Another comment expressed concern with the cost to taxpayers to the implement the
RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments and recognizes through the RMP and supporting
Council resolutions the need for additional funding to support the Highlands Region. However, the
Highlands Act requires Council adoption of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment commended the Highlands for grant funds to support planning initiatives.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and will continue to support RMP Plan
Conformance and initiatives with grant programs.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed the need for revenue sharing, such as a water fee or user fee and
encouraged the Highlands Council and State Legislature to work together to find solutions to allow economic
stability in the Region.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments and continues to work to secure a dedicated
funding source to assist in implementing the RMP. To that end, the Highlands Council persists in advocating
42
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
for the imposition of a water user fee as set forth in the RMP.
COMMENT: A comment stated that COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) quotas should not be
increased in border towns to make up for less intense development in nearby Highlands towns. Border town
should not be required to allow development of affordable housing on environmentally sensitive land in
order to meet such higher COAH quotas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but it is specific to COAH’s rules and
should be directed to COAH.
COMMENT: Some comments suggested wording edits.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the discussion regarding tax stabilization in the Analysis of the
Highlands Region is misleading and should be clarified.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the RMP Analysis section was reviewed and
revised appropriately.
COMMENT: A comment complained that the DEP and Highlands Council are not efficiently run
organizations.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has a small and efficient staff of professionals.
AIR QUALITY
COMMENT: One comment indicated that one of the two coal fired power plants in Pennsylvania has been
converted to natural gas.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the role of out of state air quality concerns. The Air Quality goals,
policies, objectives and program support the reduction of air toxics in the Highlands Region from both
stationary and mobile sources.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the 2007 Draft RMP should include more details regarding
interstate pollution concerns, remediation solutions to air quality concerns, monitor volatile organic
compounds, strengthen policies in support of non-attainment areas, incorporate an air quality baseline and
incorporate more stakeholder involvement.
RESPONSE: The Council has modified the Air Quality goals, policies, objectives and program to clarify
language regarding the Council’s role in air quality standards and to be consistent with state and federal
guidelines. Additional language was incorporated into the policies regarding consistent monitoring and the
inclusion of power plants, incinerators and landfills. Policies were also modified to include air toxics of
concern such as volatile organic compounds and methane. Language regarding the Council’s approach to
addressing air quality in development reviews was also incorporated.
REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMMUNITY CHARACTER – CHAPTER 3
Introduction
COMMENT: One comment questioned what budgetary provisions will be provided to make up for
the loss of revenue to the State due to the negative economic impact of the plan. The comment
stated that the Highlands Region is not covered in mature trees as the Region was deforested in the
20th Century. The comment stated disagreement with the statement that Highlands communities
are self sufficient because most people commute to work outside the towns they live in.
RESPONSE: The RMP provides information regarding revenue in the financial components and
cash flow timetable . The Region does contain mature trees, not to be confused with vast areas of
old growth forests, as the Region was largely deforested early in the 20th Century. The term “self43
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
sufficient” does not mean that the communities exist in isolation, but that they have a sustainable
combination of residences, community services, retail services and other essential community
functions.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the geography of this area is not clearly stated as to how
the Highlands Region is affected by the larger Region. The comment stated that transportation in
the Highlands is not described realistically because the RMP does not account for the impact of the
larger region (including New York and Pennsylvania) on daily traffic.
RESPONSE: The Introduction was modified to clarify the Region’s geology and physiographic character.
The Introduction also describes the Region’s transportation network.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the “unique” bullet items listed are not items unique to
the Highland Region. It was suggested that this section focus on the Highlands Physiographic
Region and its characteristics. Specific text edits were requested to clarify the bullet items to more
accurately reflect the unique elements of the Region
RESPONSE: The bullet list was modified to clarify the unique elements of the Highlands Region.
Physical Geography and Landscape
COMMENT: One comment stated that species of special concern are not selected according to the
formal processes required by the Federal and State threatened and endangered species statutes. The
introduction of this “state species of special concern” standard doubles the number of species to be
protected as presented in the 11/06 RMP draft at pages 27 & 28. It was requested that the
endangered species standard be returned to the earlier RMP version.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the most current version (Version 3) of the Landscape Project,
provided from NJDEP- Endangered Nongame Species Program (ENSP), which is publicly available through
NJDEP’s GIS webpage. All mapping is based on species occurrence data and surrounding habitat
requirements. The RMP includes the ability for modification to critical habitat boundaries due to site habitat
suitability or existing land uses, as approved by the Highlands Council in coordination with NJDEP-ENSP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that this section is missing a clear discussion about Highlands
geology, which is the basis for the Region’s significance.
RESPONSE: This section has been modified to clarify the significance of the Region’s geology. Further
detail may be found in the Water Resources Technical Report.
Shared Values
COMMENT: One comment suggested that some of this section might be better used in the
“Vision of the Future.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that this section be moved after current Section 4 (Water
and the Highlands Region) because half of this section is about water.
RESPONSE: The section has been moved to after the section titled Water and the Highlands Region.
The Elements of Place
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands “Critical Treasures” Areas should be
incorporated into the RMP and should be used to help define the “places” in the Region
RESPONSE: Critical natural elements of place have been added to this section.
Resource Assessment and Regional Land Use Capability
44
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment suggested replacing the 5th bullet in this section with “Natural, scenic,
recreational, and other resources of the Highlands Region.”
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges receipt of the above comment, but determined it was not
necessary for clarification of this section.
Highlands by Design: A Vision for the Future
COMMENT: A few comments stated that this section needs to be more visionary, should focus on
a vision for the Region and should enthusiastically portray the future outcome of protection and
preservation elements of the RMP, including a vision for the built environment. It was stated that
this section should first focus on water, the natural resources, and that the benefits of preservation
need to be stated enthusiastically and clearly. This section should address threats to global warming
and how adherence to the RMP will reduce the carbon footprint of the Region. Emphasis should
be placed on the five Region-wide Goals for both the Preservation and Planning Area and that the
subsequent table should be modified to do so.
RESPONSE: This section was modified to clarify the vision for the Region.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Preservation Area goals should include total
acreage of Preservation Area, preserved acreage, undeveloped acreage, developed acreage, and to use
the last developed acreage as the basis upon which planning should take place
RESPONSE: The Preservation Area goals are included in this section, as cited in the Highlands
Act, to outline part of the goals for the RMP. Details regarding the basis upon which planning
should take place are provided throughout in the RMP Goals, Policies, and Objectives.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that Future Land Use should describe the positive benefits
of preservation, protection of water supply, provision of eco-tourism, moderating climate, and
safeguarding recreational/scenic resources
RESPONSE: The positive benefits of the recommended items have been included in this section.
COMMENT: One comment stated opposition to transfer of development rights within the Region,
but supports transferring development outside the Region
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment. The Highlands Act specifically
envisions transfer of development rights within the Region and within the seven counties of the
Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Landowner Fairness subsection needs to be broadly
framed and not limited to land owner equity. It is suggested that the RMP should utilize State Plan
language regarding equity for all. This section focuses too much on TDR and does not recognize
the benefits and burdens of receiving areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has determined that the Landowner Fairness (modified to
Landowner Equity) subsection is broadly framed and the TDR Program in the RMP addresses all
elements of the Program, rather than them being addressed here, in a Vision Statement.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP’s approach to inter-regional mobility
improvement is overly restrictive and may hamper the mobility of Highlands residents, most of who
do not work in the Region. The comment stated that the movement of goods into the region
should not be restricted. The comment suggested adding language that acknowledges the need for
inter-regional transportation improvements that are balanced with environmental and water quality
needs of the Region
45
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The RMP, Chapter 4, Part 5 addresses transportation-related Goals, Policies, and
Objectives, including these issues.
Regional Elements
COMMENT: One comment stated support for the institution of a consumer fee whose funds
should be dedicated to the Highlands Region in order to encourage more responsible water usage
throughout the state.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes support for legislation to achieve a water user fee applicable to
those who use Highlands water resources.
COMMENT: One comment stated that TDR and land acquisition will require large amounts of
funding that should be provided for jointly by water users outside the Highlands Region. The
comment noted that the statement that, “there are over 20,000 parcels of land which may be eligible
for an exemption for a single-family dwelling on vacant land,” is misleading because it includes
parcels in the Planning Area and that this number will not be accurate unless all of the Planning
Area communities choose to opt-in to the RMP. This number should be corrected to reflect the
actual number in the Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: The TDR Program in the RMP, Chapter 5, addresses all elements of the Program,
rather than them being addressed here, in a Vision Statement.
COMMENT: One comment questioned the statement that, “The Regional Master Plan proposes
prioritization and acquisition of fee simple or conservation easements...” because the use of
“proposes” implies that “acquisition of interests in lands” is not a “fair compensation” entitlement
payment. The comment questioned why there is no priority to get the money to pay for such
acquisitions as outlined in the following text – “The Regional Master Plan proposes prioritization
and acquisition of fee simple or conservation easements...in those lands within the Region that have
the most significant resources.”
RESPONSE: The Landowner Equity Program in the RMP, Chapter 5, addresses compensation
elements of the Program, rather than them being addressed here, in a Vision Statement.
COMMENT: One comment suggested specific text edits to the Land Owner Fairness subsection,
including deleting the last sentence in the third paragraph.
RESPONSE: The Council reviewed all suggested text edits and incorporated those deemed
appropriate for text clarification.
Miscellaneous
COMMENT: One comment stated that the writing style of this chapter be adopted throughout the
document and that this section could be used as a first chapter in a revised format that would
present chapters IV, V and VI as the RMP with the balance of the document separated into separate
volumes of supporting materials. The inventory of information could comprise one document and
the analysis could be the second. The technical documents could also be compiled into a third
volume. This approach would relieve the readers of attempting to digest masses of information
before getting to the conformance issues and policies of the RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, although no changes were made to the
RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that transit related parking lots in the region are at capacity and
must be expanded if increased use of transit is anticipated. The comment stated that the message
46
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
taken from this section is that the Council will seek to prevent the exercise of valid exemptions. The
comment expressed that the Council, by their actions, may create de facto impediments that block
or hinder property owners from exercising their exemptions.
RESPONSE: The RMP, Chapter 4, Part 5, addresses transportation-related Goals, Policies, and
Objectives. The NJDEP, not the Highlands Council, is the agency that makes formal
determinations regarding Highlands Act exemptions in the Preservation Area. The Highlands
Council will be issuing exemption determinations in the Planning Area. Neither agency is
authorized to limit the valid exercise of a Highlands Act exemption.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the chapter is deficient in its portrayal of some of the
basic factors that make the Highlands what it is, and the values that necessitate its protection and
preservation. The comment stated that geology has made the region what it is, but there is a gaping
hole in the document describing the region’s geology. The comment further stated that water
features should appear prominently in any description of the region. The chapter needs to be
clearer, more tightly organized, less repetitive, and checked for accuracy. The “Vision for the
Future” should focus not only on the built environment and communities of place, but on the
entirety of a vision for the region.
RESPONSE: The chapter has been modified to clarify the unique elements of the Highlands
Region and has been reorganized into a tighter description of the Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Act directs the Council to identify
undeveloped areas in the Planning Area suitable for development but the RMP fails to do so and
only identifies already developed areas that will result in either no development or the use of
eminent domain to tear down homes to build high rises.
RESPONSE: The Vision Statement chapter is not meant to provide information on developable
lands in the Planning Area, but rather to outline the character of the Region and the vision for the
RMP. The RMP does meet the mandate of the Highlands Act to identify undeveloped areas in the
Planning Area.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding an analysis of household income, cost of living,
housing expenses, and related demographic information that impacts housing affordability.
RESPONSE: Information pertaining to the program for economic development is addressed in the
RMP, Chapter 5, Sustainable Economic Development.
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES – CHAPTER 4
COMMENT: One comment stated that this chapter should begin with a clear exposition of the
distinctions between Goals, Policies and Objectives as used in the 2007 Draft RMP.
RESPONSE: Goals, policies and objectives follow the general definitions used in planning and policy, where
goals are broad statements of intent, policies provide specific direction for action by the Highlands Council
and others, and objectives provide detailed milestones or expectations, often with numerical targets or dates.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should be aware that many of the concepts
underlying the RMP will be difficult for municipalities to grasp during conformance. There is a
critical need for technical assistance and data transfer. Guidance documents will be needed in many
areas and should be available at the outset of the conformance period.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has made all GIS data and all technical guidance publicly available via
its website. The Highlands Council is prepared to issue guidance documents to aid municipalities during the
47
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
conformance period.
COMMENT: One comment stated the RMP standards should be clearly written, easily understood,
and based on strict scientific standards. They must be consistently applied throughout the region.
Loosely defined standards will turn the Council into a super board of adjustment
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has revised several goals, policies and objectives in an effort at
clarification. Detailed guidance for implementation of goals, policies and objectives will be provided through
conformance guidance documents.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the 2007 Draft RMP standards should not be watered
down to suit short-term or private benefit rather than protecting water resources.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges receipt of the comment and states that the goals,
policies and objectives promote a balance of resource protection and smart growth principles.
NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the introductory paragraph of Chapter 4, Part 1.
Natural Resources should discuss European agricultural and forestry activities that shaped the
landscape prior to suburbanization.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, although no change was made to the RMP.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that net loss must be defined by the following
interdependent variables: quantity, quality, type, and function. There must be clarity in the
hierarchy of natural resource protection - (1) avoidance, (2) minimization, and (3) mitigation.
Mitigation plans must be based on demonstrated science, not a hypothetical plan that is unproven.
RESPONSE: The concept of a hierarchy of natural resource protection of avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation was originally intended but public comments indicated that more clarity was needed.
Therefore, modifications were made throughout the RMP (e.g., Highlands Open Waters and
Riparian Areas, Critical Habitat, etc.). The Critical Habitat goals, policies and objectives section
(Chapter 4, Part 1, Subpart a) was modified to include a definition of net loss that addresses the
comment. Mitigation text was clarified throughout the RMP that proposals must demonstrate
replacement and improvement of functional values.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Forest Stewardship Plans approved by a state-certified
forester should replace Woodland Management Plans prior to the purchase of any easements.
RESPONSE: New Objective 1B1e was added to the goals, policies and objectives for Highlands
Forest Resources (Chapter 4, Subpart 1) to encourage private lands management of forests for noncommodity benefits (e.g., wildlife habitat, water quality, recreation) or traditional commodities (e.g.,
timber and wood products) in accordance with the New Jersey Forest Stewardship Program’s Forest
Stewardship Plan.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that they support stronger regulations to protect natural
resources in the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Goals, Policies and Objectives in Chapter 4 were re-crafted and new goals,
policies and objectives were added in response to public comments, with the goal of strengthening
the RMP while balancing planning objectives.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there needs to be long-term ecological research, and that a
48
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) site should be established within the Preservation Area,
where a consortium of New Jersey colleges and universities can amass and distill long term records
and study the impacts of urbanization.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes a Water Resources and Ecosystem Science Agenda (Chapter 6, Part 3,
Subpart a). Implementing the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP will require programs to
guide the ongoing research agenda after its adoption. A major focus will be continued refinement,
updating and research into new methods to improve the Council’s understanding of the Highlands
Region’s resources. The Agenda lists several critical science research programs but is not intended
to preclude other long-term programs such as the one suggested by the comment. There will likely
be long-term efforts/programs whose initial development will begin after RMP adoption and in
some cases after Plan Conformance. The suggested research will be taken into consideration by
staff.
COMMENT: The 2007 Draft RMP makes no reference as to future controls to protect the forest
and water from natural challenges. What are we going to do about the gypsy moths? The Highlands
Council should turn over some grant money to the Highlands towns to fight the infestation.
RESPONSE: While the RMP, at its regional scale, does not address specific species, Objective 1B1c
addresses habitat protection and enhancement, and the application of appropriate wildlife and
invasive species management techniques in Forest Management Plans or in New Jersey Forest
Stewardship Program’s Forest Stewardship Plans adopted by any federal, state, county or municipal
government entity. Further, there is a Forest Sustainability element in the Forest Resource
Management and Sustainability Program which addresses proactive management of non-native
invasive species and the provision of municipal incentives for invasive species control.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that environmentally sensitive areas within the Existing
Community Zones must be adequately protected.
RESPONSE: The 2007 Draft RMP did create Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zones such that
large-scale environmentally sensitive areas in both the Conservation and Existing Community Zones
would be adequately protected. In addition, there are many policies and objectives that protect
environmentally sensitive resources (e.g., Highlands Open Waters and buffers, critical areas, forest
resources, steep slopes) regardless of their Land Use Capability Zone.
COMMENT: One comment raised an issue regarding Section 4.1 Natural Resources (Page 109, 1st
paragraph, 1st sentence) – there are 100,000 acres of woodland in Farmland Assessment in the
Highlands, with 75,000 of these acres in forest management plans. The comment stated that the
RMP does not include several thousand acres of private forestland that are actively managed under a
plan, but do not apply for Farmland Assessment. It also does not include publicly owned
forestlands that may or may not be managed or be under a plan. Forestry is thus a major land use in
the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has provided technical information on the forestry industry
within the Ecosystem Management Technical Report.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP should address brush hazards. Insurance
companies in New Jersey are already looking closely at the brush hazards in rural areas and are likely
to increase rates where such hazards exist.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment; however, no changes were made to the
RMP regarding this issue.
49
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment noted that the term “pre-existing” needs to be defined. It is used
many times throughout the 2007 Draft RMP.
RESPONSE: The term “pre-existing” means any lawful use of land which existed on or before
August 10, 2004, or, it refers to a condition that exists prior to development or other land use
change, depending on which context the term is used.
COMMENT: One comment requested that the following text be added before Part 1. Natural
Resources: “The goals, policies and objectives of this Chapter IV provide detailed statements of
intent and standards for managing human activities in the Highlands Region, to preserve the natural
character of its resources. Human agricultural activities are seen as very important to the viability
and sustainability of the Region and not a meaningful compromise to the natural character sought to
be preserved.”
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but no change was made to the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the 2007 Draft RMP should state that agriculture is not
regulated (other than with regards to building structures and agricultural impervious cover) by the
RMP or by the implementation or enforcement of Regional Master Plan provisions.
RESPONSE: Text was added to the introduction of Part 3, Agricultural Resources that states that
the major goals, policies and objectives for Agricultural Resources seek to meet two essential
objectives of the Highlands Act; the preservation of agricultural land and the viability of the
agricultural industry. The New Jersey Legislature declared that the agricultural lands in active
production in the Highlands Region are important resources of the State that should be preserved,
and that the agricultural industry in the Highlands Region is a vital component of the economy,
welfare, and culture of the Garden State. The Legislature also declared that the maintenance of
agricultural production and a positive agricultural business climate should be encouraged to the
maximum extent possible whenever appropriate in the Highlands Region. The goals, policies and
objectives were then modified to lay the foundation to carry out these intentions, and to provide
incentives and funding opportunities, to not only preserve agriculture, but to encourage best
management practices that enhance the resources of the Highlands Region. As stewards of the land,
many farmers already implement best management practices, and the goals, policies and objectives
seek to reward these individuals with tax credits and cost-share opportunities. However, agricultural
activities in the Highlands were not made exempt by the Highlands Act, but rather are subject to an
alternate system of regulation. The RMP specifies that agricultural activities and development will
be subject to the requirements on impervious cover limitations, with the oversight of the New Jersey
Department of Agriculture, as well as through municipal ordinances consistent with the Right to
Farm Act.
Highlands Forest Resources
Forest Management Plans
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Council should rely on existing forestry
guidance for management plan standards rather than create new standards.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will acknowledge the existing guidelines for Forest
Management Plans, will utilize appropriate and scientifically-defensible guidance and standards for
Forest Stewardship Plans, and will coordinate with New Jersey Forest Service on these issues.
COMMENT: One comment stated that in areas without prime habitat, acreage required to qualify
for a forest management plan should be reviewed, and as land gets subdivided, sustainable forestry
50
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
will depend on collective acreages owned by several people.
RESPONSE: Forest Management Plan criteria are provided by New Jersey Forest Service.
Sustainable forestry guidance is addressed in the RMP Chapter 4, Subpart a, Objective 1B1a.
RMP Chapter IV, Part 1, Subpart a
COMMENT: A few comments were received that stated this section incorrectly cited the exact text
of the forestry exemption
RESPONSE: This section of the RMP has been modified to correctly cite the Highlands Act
forestry exemption.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that this section omits many critical services provided by
forests
RESPONSE: This section of the RMP has been modified to include many critical functions
provided by forests.
Goals, Policies and Objectives
COMMENT: A few comments stated that Goal 1A should include the value of carbon
sequestration of Highlands forests
RESPONSE: The RMP references carbon sequestration generally in Chapter 4, Subpart a, and
specifically in Policy 1B1.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that a policy be inserted after Goal 1A that states, “To
preserve Highlands forests to the maximum extent to provide for carbon sequestration to combat
global warming.”
RESPONSE: The sequestration of carbon is a functional byproduct of intact forests. The RMP
provides for protection of the region’s forested resources.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested amending Policy 1A2 to include “forest ecosystem
integrity.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council determined the addition of “forest ecosystem integrity” was
appropriate in Policy 1A2.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that mitigation should only be allowed under specified
circumstances in Objective 1A2b. One comment requested the addition of “and expansion of
contiguous open space farm uses.” One comment stated that it is not clear if the text refers to all
contiguous forests in the Region or just those in the Preservation Area. One comment stated that
“pre-existing uses” must be defined.
RESPONSE: Objective 1A2b refers back to Policy 1A2, which deals with the Forest Resource Area
in the Preservation Area. The Objective specifies when a mitigation plan is necessary. A definition
for pre-existing uses is not warranted as the term is self-explanatory as the condition that exists prior
to development or other land use change.
COMMENT: A few comments requested a definition for “deforestation” in Objective 1A2c. One
comment stated this is in conflict with the Farmland Assessment Act and the Right to Farm Act.
RESPONSE: The issue of forest management is discussed in the Ecosystem Management Technical
Report.
COMMENT: A few comments opposed the extension of sewers in the Forest Resource Area to
51
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
serve cluster development without an adjacency requirement in Objective 1A2d
RESPONSE: The extension of sewers to serve cluster development is addressed in Policy 2J4,
Policy 2K3, and Policy 2I1. Adjacency is required for extensions. New systems can be approved for
cluster development in the Forest Resource Area under limited circumstances, to avoid more
fragmentation of the forests through standard subdivision of a property.
COMMENT: One comment requested that the Council review all references to funding priorities
and present a clear picture of funding priorities, as in Policy 1A3. One comment stated that there
has been no progress in providing a funding source to implement this objective that would provide
fair compensation to owners of forest land
RESPONSE: The RMP’s cash flow timetable as well as the Land Preservation Program and TDR
Program in Chapter 5 discuss preservation funding and transfer of development rights options for
landowners.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for Policy 1A4 provided funding is included for
woodland owners and suggested amending the language to “for fee simple and easement acquisition
in.” One comment requested “secondarily” be inserted before “easement acquisition.” One
comment stated that there has been no progress in providing a funding source to implement this
objective that would provide fair compensation to owners of forest land
RESPONSE: The Land Preservation Program and TDR Program in the RMP, Chapter 5 discusses
funding and transfer of development rights options for landowners. Policy 1A4 was not amended
to reflect suggested public comment as the Highlands Council determined the policy reflects the
intent of the Act as written.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that the Council provide a definition of clear cutting and
use of Forest Stewardship Plans rather than Forest Management Plans in Policy 1A5. One
comment suggested amending the policy to use “forest land-clearing” instead of “forest clearcutting.” One comment suggested “clear cutting” be changed to “all forestry activities” because
there are numerous forestry practices with other names that involve clearing of nearly all trees
RESPONSE: Forest clear-cutting is a forestry activity, which may only be exempted from the
Highlands Act if it is done in compliance with an approved Forest Management Plan. It is not
within the Highlands Council’s legal authority to substitute Plan requirements for exempted forestry
activities.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that the Council define and explain the term “sustainable
forestry” in Policy 1B1 and Objective 1B1a.
RESPONSE: Guidance for sustainable forest management shall be provided through the RMP
implementation process.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that Forest Management Plans are inadequate and suggested
a Forest Stewardship Plans be used in Objective 1B1b. One comment stated that implementation
would put undue cost burden on farm operation not recoverable through product pricing.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that Forest Management Plans are inadequate and suggested
a Forest Stewardship Plans be used in Policy 1B4.
COMMENT: A few comments urged the use of Forest Stewardship Plans rather than Forest
Management Plans in Objective 1B6a.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested amending language in Policy 1B7 to say Forest
Stewardship Plan instead of Forest Management Plan. One comment requested the Policy include
52
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
“approved by a State Forester.” A comment stated that forestry practiced under a Woodland
Management Plan or Forest Management Plan is exempt.
RESPONSE: Objective 1B1b has been modified to include reference to the New Jersey Forest
Stewardship Program. The New Jersey Forest Stewardship Program includes a cost-sharing element
to the Program. Policy 1B4 encourages forest restoration through management and stewardship
practices and does not specify any type of management plan. Forestry activities are exempted from
the Highlands Act per compliance with an approved Forest Management Plan. It is not within the
Highlands Council’s legal authority to modify this exemption.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that the Council define and explain the term “sustainable
forestry” in Objective 1B1c. A few comments requested the objective be clarified as
“Implementation of programs which require the inclusion of appropriate Threatened, Endangered
and Rare species habitat protection and enhancement, appropriate wildlife and invasive species
management techniques in all Forest Management Plans and Forest Stewardship Plans adopted by
any federal, state, county or municipal government entity.”
RESPONSE: Guidance for sustainable forest management shall be provided through the RMP
implementation process. Objective 1B1c has been modified to include reference to the Council’s
encouragement of inclusion of rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife and habitat protection and
enhancement in management/stewardship Plans.
COMMENT: One comment suggested preparation of agroforestry education/guidance materials in
Objective 1B1d. One comment stated that the market for forest products is often less than that for
crops and may reduce farm viability
RESPONSE: Objective 1B1d has not been modified as development of agroforestry guidance is
not the goal of the objective.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council adopt a definition of “very-low impact
residential development” for municipalities and applicants as referred to in Policy 1B2.
RESPONSE: The word “very” has been removed from the Policy for consistency with the use of
the term “low impact development” throughout the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the approving authority for “an approved forest
mitigation plan” be specified and requested that the conditions where mitigation would be allowed
be specific in Objective 1B2a. One comment stated that Policy 1B2 seems to limit development to
low-density residential, but Objective 1B2a allows either no new growth or development that utilizes
proper techniques to preserve forests to greatest extent possible. How will these apply? One
comment stated this is in conflict with the Farmland Assessment Act and the Right to Farm Act. A
few comments suggested deleting the word “minimal.”
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the approving authority for “an approved forest
mitigation plan” be specified and requested that the conditions where mitigation would be allowed
be specific in Objective 1B2b. One comment stated that limiting the use of forest areas to preexisting uses may constitute a taking
RESPONSE: Objective 1B2b does not limit permissible uses to pre-existing uses. Objective 1B2a
has been modified to clarify permissible uses and required mitigation. The word “minimal” has
been deleted. Approval of a forest mitigation plan will occur through the development review
process.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that the Council define and explain the term “sustainable
53
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
forestry” referred to in Policy 1B6. One comment suggested inserting the word “encourage.” A
few comments stated that the Council must not develop criteria for forestry standards when there
are existing, scientifically-sound standards in existence. The comments suggested the Council utilize
specific publications from the USDA Forest Service and other authoritative sources.
RESPONSE: Guidance for sustainable forest management shall be provided through the RMP
implementation process. The phrase “encourage conformance with” has been added to clarify the
Policy. The Highlands Council will provide guidance for sustainable forest management based on
scientifically-sound, peer-reviewed research.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council commit to providing municipalities with
forest resources and all data necessary to implement conformance process in Goal 1C.
RESPONSE: All data used in mapping of Highlands resources is available on the Highlands
Council website. In addition, the Highlands Council will be sending data and technical information
to all Highlands municipalities during the Plan Conformance process.
COMMENT: One comment suggested amending language in Objective 1C1a to say “Maintain
forest cover and shade trees. . .”
RESPONSE: The Council determined the suggested text was not needed in Objective 1C1a.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that mitigation be allowed only under specific
circumstances in Policy 1C2. A few comments requested the Policy be clarified as “To develop
technical guidelines and procedures to assist municipalities and counties in the development of
forest woodland protection and mitigation ordinances and . . . community forestry plans...” One
comment requested “based on guidelines provided by the New Jersey Forest Service.” be added to
the end of the Policy. A comment stated that the New Jersey Forest Service Community Forestry
Program has established Plan guidelines and recommend the Council utilize them.
RESPONSE: Policy 1C2 addresses the provision of guidelines and procedures for forest protection
and mitigation. The Highlands Council will review and provide guidance based on scientificallysound and peer-reviewed research.
COMMENT: One comment suggested amending language in Objective 1C2a to include a verb like
“provide” after “develop.”
RESPONSE: “Provide” has been added to Objective 1C2a.
COMMENT: One comment stated that forest management should not be conflated with shade tree
protection and tree removal in developed areas in Objective 1C2c. A few comments requested the
objective be revised to, “A model municipal forest/woodland protection ordinance that allows
active forest management with an approved Forest Stewardship Plan that requires mitigation for loss
of forest resource.” One comment requested the objective include “approved by a State Forester.”
RESPONSE: “Approved by a State Forester” was added to clarify the objective. The Council
determined that the phrase “forest/woodland” was not necessary for clarification of this objective.
COMMENT: One comment expressed confusion regarding the wording of Objective 1C2d.
RESPONSE: Objective 1C2d has been modified to add clarification.
COMMENT: A few comments requested Objective 1C2e be revised to “Technical guidelines
establishing forest clearing thresholds and mitigation requirements for inclusion in municipal
development ordinances.”
54
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: “Mitigation requirements” was added to Objective 1C2e.
COMMENT: One comment suggested amending language in Policy 1C3 to read: “To require that
conforming municipalities adopt a forest protection/tree clearing ordinance consistent with an
approved community forestry plan under the New Jersey Forest Service Community Forestry
Program as part of the municipal master plan and local development regulations.”
RESPONSE: The Council determined the suggested text was not needed in Policy 1C3.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Objective 1C3a is unnecessary. One comment requested
the objective use the phrase “municipalities in conformance with the RMP.” One comment stated
that the New Jersey Forest Service has developed a model tree cutting ordinance in cooperation with
private sector foresters.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will review the New Jersey Forest Service model tree cutting
ordinance for compatibility with the RMP. The Council has determined that Objective 1C3a is
necessary and has determined that the suggested text is not needed for clarification of the objective.
General Goals, Policies and Objectives comments
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP Preservation Area polices for the forest resource
area are to “Limit permissible uses to maintenance of pre-existing uses and restoration of impaired
forest areas; relief from strict adherence to these standards shall be permitted only upon approval of
a forest mitigation plan” and that it is more strict than the 88-acre/septic requirement in the DEP
regulations. The comment stated that the RMP Planning Area policies for the Forest Resource Area
are to “To limit . . . human development of forests to very low impact residential development . . . in
the Planning Area.” The comment stated there is no doubt that there will be development in
forested areas in the Planning Area. The comment stated that Stewardship Plans must continue to
be optional.
RESPONSE: The RMP may provide for policies that are more protective of the resources that
require mandated protection per the Highlands Act. Forest Stewardship Plans are encouraged and
guidance will be provided to develop them, but remain voluntary.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a policy, “To support state legislation requiring a
Forest Stewardship Plan instead of a Forest Management Plan in the Highlands Region.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has not included the suggested policy in the RMP but has
provided for encouragement of Forest Stewardship Plans for both public and private lands in the
Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there is no mention in the goals, policies and objectives of
the exemption in the Highlands Act for forest activities under a woodland management plan.
RESPONSE: The forestry exemption is cited in the RMP, Chapter 4, Part 1, Subpart a, and is also
included in Chapter 7.
COMMENT: One comment stated that forested areas within the Existing Community Zone will be
subject to less stringent standards than those contained within the DEP Rules
RESPONSE: NJDEP Rules pertaining to the Preservation Area are the minimum protection
regulation for resources in the Preservation Area regarding any non-exempt development that is a
major Highlands development under the Highlands Act. The RMP incorporates the NJDEP rules
by reference and shall not implement policies that are less protective than the NJDEP Rules for
permitted projects in the Preservation Area.
55
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments suggested adding the following policies and objectives:
Policy 1A6: To preserve Highlands forests to the maximum extent to ensure carbon sequestration
to combat global warming.
Policy 1B8: To support legislation requiring a Forest Stewardship Plan instead of a Forest
Management Plan in the Highlands Region.
Policy 1B8: To incorporate exemptions to the provisions of this Regional Master Plan as set forth
in Section 30a of the Highlands Act.
Objective 1B8a: Implementation of an exemption to the provisions of this Regional Master Plan of
any activity conducted in accordance with an approved woodland management plan pursuant to
section 3 of P.L.1964, c.48 (C.54: 4-23.3) and the normal harvesting of forest products in accordance
with a forest management plan approved by the State Forester.
1B9: To preserve the ecological integrity of Highlands Forests through preservation and
management that includes a reduction in deer density to a low level that allows the successful growth
of native shrubs and canopy tree seedlings, and minimizes susceptibility to invasive species
infestation.
Policy 1B10: To preserve and restore the ecological health of Highlands forested ecosystems by
maintaining an appropriate vegetative structure that meets the ecological objectives of maintaining
large tracts of contiguous forest canopy for interior forest species, providing critical habitat for rare,
threatened and endangered plants and animals, sequestering carbon, and protecting water resources
in wetlands and vernal pools and along riparian areas, ponds and lakes.
Policy 1B11: To prohibit removal of the forest shrub layer and understory, except for removal of
non-native invasive species, and to prohibit replacement of forest herbaceous layer with
turfgrass/lawn, which degrades forest functions, including surface water filtration, groundwater
recharge, natural biodiversity and wildlife habitat. (A forest lacking understory is a degraded forest.)
Policy 1B12: To encourage reforestation of forest gaps through Forest Stewardship Plans,
Community Forestry Plans, or Mitigation Plans.
Policy 1B13: To encourage reforestation of riparian areas, wetland buffers, and other hydrologically
sensitive areas.
Policy 1B14: To encourage reforestation of highly erodible soils, soils with shallow depth to
bedrock or high seasonal water tables.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the suggested new policies and has determined that they
are not required for clarification of Forest Resources goals, policies, and objectives. The Council
will consider the suggested text during development of guidance and, where appropriate,
conformance standards.
Miscellaneous
COMMENT: A few comments stated that incentives should be created for private landowners to
prepare management/stewardship plans.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses this issue in Chapter 4, Subpart a, Objective 1B1a.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that policies and regulations discriminate against early
successional or disturbance-based habitat.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses this issue in Chapter 4, Subpart a, Objective 1B1c and Policy 1B7
through inclusion of language regarding wildlife habitat protection and enhancement.
COMMENT: One comment stated that active management to keep forests healthy requires
reducing the deer herd, reducing exotic invasive species and addressing regeneration.
56
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses forest health in Policy 1B1.
COMMENT: One comment stated that forestry is a major land use within the Highlands and the
recommendations of state certified professional foresters should be heeded by the Highlands
Council
COMMENT: One comment encouraged the Council to find old growth forests in the Region and
preserve them
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should not waste time and money on
designating forest products as “green” because customers don't care and the seller won't get any
more money.
COMMENT: One comment stated oak, beech and maple mature forest cover offers greater
resource value than a cedar scrub forest.
COMMENT: One comment stated that mitigation of the water supply does not work, and that only
trees effectively recharge large quantities of water.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments, but determined that changes were not
needed to the RMP for these issues.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Landscape Project encourages movement toward a
climax forest that would lead eventually to the disappearance of the valuable oak-dominated forest
that is critical to so many species. The comment stated that this is poor policy.
RESPONSE: The Council cannot amend the Landscape Project results and does not utilize them in
delineating the Forest Resource Area or in evaluating forest integrity class.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP must make it clear that forest landowners are
entitled to the same just compensation promised in Section 6n. of the Highlands Act as are owners
of other types of land, and the RMP must enable standardization of conservation easements, tree
cutting ordinances, and requirements for forest management planning while recognizing the
statutory exemption of forestry activities
RESPONSE: The RMP recognizes conservation easements, tree cutting ordinances, and forest
management in the goals, policies, and objectives. The RMP recognizes the statutory forestry
exemption in Chapter 4, Subpart a. Any government action requiring just compensation will be
addressed in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the State of New Jersey.
COMMENT: One comment stated that clarification is needed on the issue of which plan forest
landowners must have in order to maintain farmland assessment and meet the requirements of the
Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes policies for the protection of sustainable forests and forest
resources. Issues pertaining to farmland assessment are outlined in New Jersey’s Farmland
Assessment Act.
COMMENT: One comment stated that disturbance of forested lands should follow the same
standards as those used by the New Jersey Forest Service. One comment stated that disturbance
aimed at forest regeneration will lead to a mosaic of forest types and conditions on the landscape,
and therefore habitat for the widest possible range of species.
RESPONSE: These issues will be included in the guidance for standards provided for
implementation of the Forest Resource Management and Sustainability Program, as discussed in
Chapter 5 of the RMP.
57
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that the difference between forests, forest resource areas, and
“woody vegetation” needs to be made throughout the document.
COMMENT: A comment suggested that the RMP define the term “deforestation” as, “The
removal of a forest stand where the land is put to a non-forest use.”
RESPONSE: Definitions for terms used in the RMP can be found in the Glossary and in the
Ecosystem Management Technical Report.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that deer/invasive species management is needed.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses this issue in Chapter 4, Subpart a, Objective 1B1c.
Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas
Appropriateness of Buffer Widths
COMMENT: Several comments questioned the appropriateness of the Highlands Open Waters
protection area buffers. Some believe that the 300-foot buffers are excessive and would place an
exceptional hardship on affected property owners, while others believe that the 300-foot buffer area
should be expanded. A few comments questioned the science behind the proposed buffers.
RESPONSE: The Ecosystem Management Technical Report provides a review of scientific literature that
supports the establishment of a 300-foot buffer on all Highlands Open Waters. Further, in
establishing a 300-foot buffer along Category 1 waterways in its stormwater regulations adopted in
2004, the NJDEP referenced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and numerous scientific sources that have withstood rigorous legal scrutiny.
The RMP does allow in Objective 1D4j for expansion of buffers on a case-by-case basis to protect
rare, threatened and endangered species.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed concern that establishment of the 300-foot buffers would
hinder their ability to continue to graze goats and other animals on their property.
RESPONSE: New text was added to the goals, policies and objectives to indicate that structures or
other land improvements (including agriculture and animal husbandry) that were in existence within
a Highlands Open Waters buffer in both the Planning and Preservation Areas on August 10, 2004
may remain, provided that the area of disturbance shall not be increased unless approved through
local development review or Highlands Project Review in compliance with RMP policies and
objectives. With respect to future expansion of any such activity, agricultural/horticultural use and
development is not a Major Highlands Development, so the NJDEP Rules (N.J.S.A. 7:38) do not
apply, but the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act
(N.J.S.A 4:1C-1) which addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and
safety. In addition the New Jersey Department of Agriculture Rules 2:92, Agricultural Development
in the Highlands, apply to all agricultural or horticultural development in the Preservation Area and
the Planning Area.
COMMENT: One comment noted that a Highlands Open Water 300-foot buffer contradicts
NJDEP’s regulations of 50-150 feet depending on quality of water resource.
RESPONSE: The 300-foot buffer in the Preservation Area is a legislative mandate of the Act. The
300-foot buffer established in the Planning Area is based on the best available science and is
intended to be most protective of valuable Highlands Open Waters in the Planning Area of the
Region. Further, new Objective 1D4c was added that states that proposed development within all
Highlands Open Waters buffers (Preservation and Planning Areas) must conform with the buffer
58
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:8 (Stormwater Management rules), N.J.A.C 7:13 (Flood Hazard Area
rules), and N.J.A.C. 7:7 (Freshwater Wetland rules), and with any applicable requirements of a
Regional Stormwater Plan adopted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:8 (Stormwater Management Rules).
Further, it should be noted that the recently adopted Flood Hazard Area rules establish buffers of
300, 150, and 50 feet (not simply the 50-150 feet that the comment points out).
COMMENT: One comment noted that Goal 1D and Policy 1D1 exceeds the legislative intent - by
imposing Preservation Area requirements beyond the Preservation Area and into the Planning Area.
RESPONSE: The NJDEP’s rules for the Preservation Area apply only to major Highlands
development in the Preservation Area. The RMP sets policies for all Highlands Open Waters and
the 300-buffer established in the Planning Area is based on the best available science and is intended
to be most protective of all valuable Highlands Open Waters.
COMMENT: One comment questioned if Goal 1D4 (p113 in the 2007 Draft RMP) (300-ft open
water buffer) applies to properties exempt from the Highlands Act?
RESPONSE: Exempt projects are exempt from all aspects of the Highlands Act including the
NJDEP Preservation Area rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38 and the provisions of the RMP. The Water Quality
Management Planning rules at N.J.A.C. 7:15 require that NJDEP not approve a Water Quality
Management Plan amendment and Wastewater Management Plan until it receives a consistency
determination from the Highlands Council regarding the RMP. Based on Objective 2K3a, the
Highlands Council will examine such amendments and plans against the full RMP, including open
water buffers, and will provide a consistency determination for NJDEP.
COMMENT: One comment asked why Highlands streams need a 300- protection buffer and nonHighlands streams do not. Why do Highlands wetlands need a 300 foot protection buffer and nonHighlands wetlands need only a 0-150 foot buffer? There is no scientific explanation in the RMP to
justify the distinction.
RESPONSE: Non-Highlands streams in the State that are classified as C-1 streams also received a
300-foot buffer because of their exceptional ecological significance. Highlands Open Waters, which
by definition include wetlands, are noted as being a critical public trust resource in the State that
requires the highest protection. The Ecosystem Management Technical Report includes a discussion and
basis for the 300-foot buffer requirements.
COMMENT: One comment supported the use of the 300-foot fixed distance buffer, but notes that
in some locations the riparian zone may extend beyond 300 feet primarily due to floodplain width.
The buffer requirement should be 300 feet unless the riparian zone is wider, in which case the buffer
should be defined by the riparian zone. The policy should also encourage the installation of wooded
and grassed riparian buffers in active agricultural areas
RESPONSE: The RMP has distinct policies regarding the protection of Highlands open water
buffers and of riparian areas that address the concerns of this comment.
COMMENT: One comment requested word changes to Objective 1D4h such that in addition to
the Council possibly requiring, on a case-by-case basis, an expansion of the 300-foot buffer to
protect the habitat of a water or wetlands-dependent rare, threatened, or endangered species to
achieve the protection of the species, that the Council may allow a reduction of the 300-foot buffer
based on more accurate site-specific information.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but decided not to modify Objective 1D4h
because buffers are based on more than the presence or absence of such species.
59
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Provisions for Reduction of Buffer Widths
COMMENT: One comment noted that Policy lD6b prohibits modification to Highlands Open
Water buffer requirements or Riparian Areas, except as necessary to protect public health and safety,
or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative. However, the comment
noted that all buffer regulations need to allow for the alteration of the buffer to address areas of
existing disturbance. While the Council may seek to “prohibit” modifications in the buffer of the
Protection or Conservation Zone, “avoidance and mitigation” may be more appropriate actions in
the Existing Community Zone.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the 2007 Draft RMP provides a mechanism for reduction
of the Highlands Open Waters protection area buffers and asks - is the buffer absolute or not?
COMMENT: One comment asked how the Highlands water will be protected if exceptions to the
300-foot water buffer are weakly defined.
COMMENT: One comment stated opposition to reduced buffers because there are no
requirements for maintenance of the reduced buffers to assure continued functioning.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that exemptions to the 300-foot Highlands Open Water
Buffer requirements are weaker than those recently adopted under the Stormwater Management
Rules at NJAC 7:8 – and that these exemptions must be eliminated.
COMMENT: One comment was made regarding Objective 1D4d – that there should be
clarification of exceptions to the 300-foot Highlands Open Water buffer to explicitly ban buffer
averaging.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that exemptions to the 300 foot buffer requirements should
not be permitted except where necessary for health and safety.
RESPONSE: Objective 1D4d in the 2007 Draft RMP (which has become Objective 1D4e) was
modified (addresses the Protection and Conservation Zones) and new Objective 1D4f was added
(addresses the Existing Community Zone) to state that proposed disturbances of Highlands Open
Water buffers by a non-exempt Highlands development shall only occur in previously disturbed areas,
unless a waiver is granted by the Highlands Council. The term “previously disturbed areas” does
not apply to historic or current agricultural land uses when the proposal is to shift to a nonagricultural land use. Such proposed disturbances must demonstrate full utilization of the following
performance standards in the listed order, to demonstrate the necessity of an encroachment into
Highlands Open Water buffers: 1) avoid the disturbance of Highlands Open Waters buffers; 2)
minimize impacts to Highlands Open Waters buffers; and 3) mitigate all adverse impacts to
Highlands Open Waters buffers so that there is no net loss of the functional value of the buffer.
New Objective 1D4i specifically bans the concept of buffer averaging. Further, with respect to the
recently adopted Stormwater Management Rules at NJAC 7:8 that are referenced, new Objective
1D4c was added that states that proposed development within all Highlands Open Waters buffers
must conform with the buffer requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:8 (Stormwater Management rules),
N.J.A.C 7:13 (Flood Hazard Area rules), and N.J.A.C. 7:7 (Freshwater Wetland rules), and with any
applicable requirements of a Regional Stormwater Plan adopted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:8
(Stormwater Management Rules).
Riparian Area
COMMENT: One comment noted that the term “Riparian” is well defined in common, case and
legislative law. However, without legislative approval, the RMP is seeking to modify the application
and definition of Riparian law without the express authority of the legislature with regards to how
existing land owners can use their riparian lands and rights.
RESPONSE: The term as used in the RMP is an ecological and hydrologic definition that is well known in
60
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
the scientific community.
COMMENT: One comment stated that in Objective ID2a “Wildlife passage corridors” are not
previously described in the RMP. A few of comments suggested that in Policy 1D2a, the language,
“and wildlife passage corridors” must be deleted.
RESPONSE: Wildlife passage corridors are one defining feature of Riparian Areas (along with
floodprone areas, wetlands, and hydric and alluvial soils). The purpose of this objective is to list the
defining features of Riparian Areas. A detailed description of these wildlife corridors is contained in
the Ecosystem Management Technical Report (see the section titled Identification of Riparian Areas).
COMMENT: One comment was made regarding Objective 1D6a that stated that strictly
interpreted all land uses affect water quality and, without quantification, this objective could be used
to prohibit all new land uses in the Highlands Region. This would also apply in the ECZ where
economic activity is supposed to take place.
RESPONSE: This objective has been modified and is now addressed under Policy 1D5 with
distinct objectives for the Existing Community Zone and the other two Zones. It is targeted
specifically to new land uses that would be detrimental to water quality or habitat value – not all land
uses are detrimental to water quality and habitat value.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP should recognize that cultural and scenic
resources exist in riparian areas and they should not be considered as reasons to downgrade a
riparian area.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and these resources are addressed in the
RMP.
Miscellaneous Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Area Comments
COMMENT: One comment noted that clarification is needed to explain that Objective 1D6a (i.e.,
restrict new land uses or the alteration of existing land uses that would alter or be detrimental to the
water quality and habitat value of a Highlands Open Water or Riparian Area) does not apply to
agricultural land uses. It was suggested that a paragraph similar to the one that prefaces the policies
and objectives of Subpart a, Highlands Forest Resources, that acknowledges that activities exempted
through approved woodland management plans and forest management plans, be inserted in the
introductory paragraph under Subpart b, Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas.
RESPONSE: Agricultural use and development is not a Major Highlands Development, so the
NJDEP Rules for lands in the Preservation Area in N.J.A.C. 7:38 do not apply, but the goals,
policies and objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which
addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In addition the
New Jersey Department of Agriculture Rules 2:92, Agricultural Development in the Highlands apply
to all agricultural or horticultural development in the Preservation Area and the Planning Area.
COMMENT: One comment notes that Objective 1D5d requires development to conform to
“applicable requirements for site plan approval,” but these requirements have not been identified.
The lack of defined standards here and throughout the 2007 Draft RMP creates an immediate
problem for communities that must conform and provides only uncertainty for communities
considering whether to voluntarily conform.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas goals, policies, and objectives have
been thoroughly revised and clarified to provide clearer standards. This was done throughout the
RMP. Further, the Council will be providing municipalities with a separate Conformance Standards
61
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
template for each resource and a summary Plan Conformance matrix prior to commencing the Plan
Conformance process.
COMMENT: One comment notes that with respect to Objective 1D4h (possible expansion of the
300-foot buffer to protect rare, threatened and endangered species) there are already many instances
where NJDEP’s Landscape Project mapping has been proven to be incorrect. The NJDEP must be
required to make changes and justify these at their own expense.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but notes that the comment is directed at
the NJDEP’s process – not the Council’s.
COMMENT: One comment asked who is going to do the inventory of Highlands Open Waters
and Riparian Areas and at what cost?
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council conducted an inventory of these areas in the development of
the RMP. Refinement of this inventory will be address through the Plan Conformance and Project
Review process. Objective 1D4a indicates that applications for approval through local development
review and Highlands Project Review include the identification and mapping of Highlands Open
Waters. Objective 1D5a requires that all applications for approval through local development
review and Highlands Project Review include the identification and mapping of Highlands Riparian
Areas, including those identified by the Highlands Council and by site-specific analysis. The
Highlands Council will maintain an inventory of Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas
through the Highlands Project Review process.
COMMENT: A few comments requested that a new objective be added to Policy 1D5 that
indicates that construction projects and other federal actions on the Lower Delaware River and the
Musconetcong River, both designated as National Scenic and Recreational Rivers, require National
Park Service review and comment pursuant to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
RESPONSE: The Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic Resources, Objective 4B4c,
addresses the need for review by the National Park Service, National Wild and Scenic Rivers
Program.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that “Special Waters” should also include all NJDEP lands
with the Natural Area designation.
RESPONSE: The RMP no longer uses unique water classifications (i.e., Highlands Waters, Special
Waters, Exceptional Waters, and Intermediate Waters).
COMMENT: One comment noted that letting buffers revert to a natural state will open the area up
to losing native species to invasive species.
RESPONSE: The RMP encourages activities to control invasive species. Where buffer mitigation
is required for a project, such controls can be required.
Steep Slopes
COMMENT: A few comments requested that text be added to the introduction to the Steep
Slopes Goals, Policies and Objectives to include: 1) slopes and rocky ridgelines provide specialized
habitats that are home to rare plant and animal species; 2) silting of wetlands, lakes, ponds and
streams damages and degrades wetland and aquatic habitats, especially trout streams that are found
throughout the Highlands and receive the State’s highest water quality protections; 3) steep slope
62
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
disturbance can result in the loss of habitat quality; and 4) erosion can occur in areas with mild
slopes but with extremely erosive soils.
RESPONSE: The introductory text of the Steep Slopes Goals, Policies and Objectives was
amended to address this comment.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 1E1a repeats Policy lE1 and should be
eliminated.
RESPONSE: The text in the policy and the objective were modified and are no longer repetitive.
The policy is to develop, maintain and improve the mapped inventory of steep slope areas in the
Region. The objective provides the minimum mapping area (5,000 square feet) and the different
slope classes.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 1E8 prohibits disturbance within areas that are
identified as severely constrained slopes and moderately constrained slopes. However, the NJDEP
Preservation Area rules allow linear disturbance of severely constrained slopes under certain
conditions. What is the RMP rationale for ignoring this previous distinction? Is it the intent of the
Council to prohibit all disturbance or will there be an opportunity to allow limited relief to allow
some minimum practical use?
RESPONSE: Policy 1E8 was amended. The caveat of “except for linear development in both the
Preservation and Planning Areas that meet the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:38-3.8c” was added.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy lE9 requires the use of low impact best management
development practices for land disturbance in “Constrained” and “Limited Constrained” slopes.
There are no program requirements related to steep slopes and there appears to be no difference in
how these areas are treated. Is there a reason they should be categorized differently if treatment of
these areas is identical?
RESPONSE: While the policies for Constrained and Limited Constrained Slopes are the same,
there is utility in having the distinction in slope classes, particularly for mapping/inventory purposes.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the lack of specific standards or relationship to NJDEP
standards/Highlands Act standards creates a climate of uncertainty as to conformance and
consistency requirements, not only for steep slopes, but for all other resource issues.
RESPONSE: The Steep Slopes Goals, Policies and Objectives have been revised and clarified to
provide clearer standards and direct references to NJDEP rules for the Preservation Area. This was
done throughout the RMP. Further, the Council will be providing municipalities with a separate
Conformance Standards template for each resource and a summary Plan Conformance matrix prior
to commencing the Plan Conformance process.
COMMENT: One comment pointed out that counties are required to include steep slope
protection provisions in master plans and development regulations. However, the adoption of steep
slope protection ordinances and associated low-impact development best practices may be most
appropriate at the local level when applicable to land development proposals. It would be
appropriate for steep slope protective provisions to be included in Land Preservation and
Stewardship Plans at the County and local levels.
RESPONSE: The steep slope protection provisions are applicable to county projects and to county
review of development projects where it has jurisdiction.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there are areas of steep slopes throughout the Highlands –
63
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
that is why the region has its name. The RMP seeks to change the character of existing communities
where steep slopes exist while also saying that it values the existing character of the communities.
This is a conflict.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not seek to change the existence of existing communities; it
establishes guidelines to avoid future development on steep slopes which may result in negative
impacts, such as erosion and sedimentation of water bodies.
COMMENT: One comment states support for the slope category selection but notes that all
current slope related mapping will need to be reprocessed using the LiDAR data. This should be
done before Plan adoption.
RESPONSE: The results of LiDAR mapping will be available for use in the Plan Conformance
process.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern about the lack of protection and preservation of
steep slopes in New Jersey and is specifically concerned with public access to steep slopes for rock
climbing. The RMP has no objectives for protecting steep slopes specifically for rock climbing. The
comment recommends acquisition of steep slopes.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not explicitly address this recreational need, but its identification of
critical conservation priority lands may include such areas.
Critical Habitat
Landscape Project
COMMENT: Several comments stated that utilization of Landscape Project Version 3 was
inappropriate because the mapping is inaccurate, incomplete, not scientifically-reviewed, has no
regulatory authority, and has not been publicly vetted. One comment expressed concern that
including “rare” species is inappropriate and doubles the list of species to be protected.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the most current version (Version 3) of the
Landscape Project, provided from NJDEP- Endangered Nongame Species Program (ENSP), which
is now publicly available through NJDEP’s GIS webpage. All mapping is based on species
occurrence data and surrounding habitat requirements. The RMP includes the ability for
modification to critical habitat boundaries due to site habitat suitability or existing land uses, as
approved by the Highlands Council in coordination with NJDEP-ENSP.
Vernal Pools
COMMENT: Several comments recognized the importance of vernal pools.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed support for the 1,000 foot vernal pool buffers.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in these comments.
COMMENT: A few comments questioned the scientific basis for 1,000-foot buffers around vernal
pools. One comment suggested inappropriate science had been applied in justifying 1,000-foot
buffer based on ‘habitat requirements” for vernal pools species versus the delineation of Critical
Wildlife Habitat and Significant Natural Areas being based on species/community presence. The
same comment suggested that vernal pools only receive a protection buffer when/if NJDEP
determines a concerned species exists and applies an appropriate extent buffer. One comment
suggested that vernal pool mapping is inappropriate because it takes too much land out of
production for “potential” vernal pool species habitat. One comment suggested that landowners
affected by 1,000-foot buffers receive compensation for loss of use. One comment suggested the
64
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Council investigate other methods of protecting vernal species besides 1,000-foot buffers, such as
shutting down roads during breeding season. One comment questioned how a landowner can
pursue an addition on their home if they are within 1,000 feet of a vernal pool. The comment
suggested that the method for rebutting vernal pool protection buffers be included in the RMP.
RESPONSE: Mapping of vernal pools was derived from NJDEP’s certified vernal pools. The
RMP outlines the modification of vernal pool 1,000-foot boundaries due to site species-specific
habitat requirements, habitat suitability, or existing land uses, as approved by the Highlands Council
and NJDEP-ENSP. The scientific literature basis for the 1,000 foot buffer and for modifications of
the buffer is discussed in the Ecosystem Management Technical Report.
Significant Natural Areas
COMMENT: One comment stated that lumping rare plant populations into Significant Natural
Areas makes it difficult to know if a mapped area has been designated because of rare plants or
other reasons. The comment suggested rare plant habitat be mapped as a separate GIS layer, like
Critical Wildlife Habitat, with mapping and policies tailored to its conservation goal. The comment
also suggested the RMP require rare plant surveys by expert botanists as a condition for local and
Council review of any development in areas that have rare species populations
RESPONSE: Mapping of Significant Natural Areas represents the Natural Heritage Priority Sites as
mapped by NJDEP-Natural Heritage Program (NHP) within the Highlands Region. The elements
that constitute the Significant Natural Areas are outlined in the Ecosystem Management Technical Report.
Rare plant surveys will be required for local development application approvals.
COMMENT: One comment stated that plant establishment and reproduction is dependent upon
microclimate and that landscape-scale protection is not warranted for protection of plants.
RESPONSE: Protection policies for Significant Natural Areas are specific to those delineated lands,
which are areas significant to the Highlands Region due either to the presence of rare or endangered
plant species (see Ecosystem Management Technical Report Appendix E), or unusual or exemplary natural
ecological communities within the Region.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that Significant Natural Areas should be defined and
mapped now, not later, because the definition is too broad and will cause problems in municipal
planning as the Council could decide that an application includes this type of land after significant
money has been spent under the assumption that the land is not in this category
RESPONSE: Significant Natural Areas are defined in the Ecosystem Management Technical Report and
are mapped as part of the RMP. Any additions to the RMP mapping of Significant Natural Areas
shall be identified through equivalent or better scientific information and vetted through the RMP
Update process by the Highlands Council.
RMP Chapter IV, Part 1, Subpart d
COMMENT: One comment suggested text edits to the introductory paragraph including adding
“creation of habitat” to the second sentence in paragraph; replacing “presence of species” with
“reported occurrence of threatened and endangered species,” suggested modifications to delineation
descriptions for Critical Wildlife Habitat and Significant Natural Areas; suggested text edits to
delineation descriptions for vernal pools
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but no change was made to the RMP.
Goals, Policies and Objectives
65
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments suggested language in Policy 1F1 (now Policy 1F2) be amended “to
prohibit... Significant Natural Areas, or within 1,000 foot of Vernal Pools that would cause the forest
cover within vernal pool buffers to fall below 75% except as necessary.” One comment suggested
adding clarification that includes protection for rare plants not included in Significant Natural Areas.
RESPONSE: Policy 1F1 was modified to Policy 1F2 in the RMP, but the language regarding
prohibition on disturbance to Critical Habitat was not changed. Rare plant species habitat has been
delineated by NJDEP-NHP and mapped by the Highlands Council as Significant Natural Areas,
which is one of the three criteria comprising critical habitat.
COMMENT: One comment expressed support for Policy 1F2 (now 1F3) and suggested the
Council review all priority statements and produce a schedule of priorities and that acquired
properties should include a management plan or a conservation easement with monitoring and
enforcement provisions. One comment suggested clarifying the policy to include language on
monitored easement restrictions.
RESPONSE: Policy 1F2 was modified to Policy 1F3 in the RMP and clarified to include language
regarding monitoring of easement restrictions and changes in land use.
COMMENT: One comment questioned the meaning of the word “promote” in Policy 1F3 (now
Policy 1F4) and whether this included incentive mechanisms.
RESPONSE: Policy 1F3 was modified to Policy 1F4 in the RMP. The word “promote” means the
Highlands Council will promote, or encourage, the restoration and enhancement of impaired Critical
Habitat. Guidelines for voluntary restoration and enhancement will be included in the Habitat
Conservation and Management Plan.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that any criteria included through application of Policy 1F4
(now 1F5) be species specific. One comment stated that it is impossible to gauge the impact of
critical habitat regulations without specific standards in the goals, policies, and objectives.
RESPONSE: Policy 1F4 was modified to Policy 1F5 in the RMP, and specifies that any
modification to Critical Habitat shall result in no net loss of habitat value (quantity, quality, type, and
function), which would take into account species-specific habitat requirements. Goals, policies, and
objectives do not include detailed standards. Standards shall be included in the Habitat
Conservation and Management Plan and in the Critical Habitat Conformance Standards.
COMMENT: One comment suggested prioritizing Objective 1F4a (now 1F5a) from avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation. One comment suggested that the Council’s Habitat Conservation and
Management Plan be required through Conformance and include the same requirements contained
in NJDEP’s forthcoming Critical Habitat Rules. One comment stated that “unavoidable
disturbance” should be defined.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F4a was modified to Objective 1F5a in the RMP. Objective 1F5b
includes the prioritization of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. The RMP has been reviewed
by NJDEP for consistency with their established and proposed rules. “Unavoidable disturbance” is
not used in the modified objective.
COMMENT: One comment questioned if Objective 1F4b (now 1F5c) means previously disturbed
habitat. One comment suggested that this objective include benchmarks and performance
standards.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F4b was modified to Objective 1F5c in the RMP. The RMP cannot
mandate mitigation for historically disturbed habitat, but will provide guidelines for the voluntary
66
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
restoration of historically disturbed habitat. This objective is relevant for approved disturbance to
habitat and requires no net loss of habitat value. Standards for this objective are included in the
Habitat Conservation and Management Plan and in the Critical Habitat Conformance Standards.
COMMENT: One comment questioned if “disturbance” referred to in Objective 1F4c is humaninduced or ecological.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F4b was modified to Objective 1F5d in the RMP. Historically disturbed
means any human action that resulted in the adverse modification to Critical Habitat.
COMMENT: One comment suggested Objective 1F4d (now Policy 1F5) be peer reviewed by
qualified persons. One comment suggested this objective ensure no net loss in the quantity and
value of critical habitat.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F4d was modified to Policy 1F5 in the RMP. The Highlands Council will
provide a draft guidance Habitat Conservation and Management Plan after adoption of the RMP
and will develop a Final Habitat Conservation and Management Plan in consultation with qualified
professionals during Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment suggested amending language in Policy 1F5 (now Policy 1F6) to say
“or within 750 feet of Vernal Pools.”
RESPONSE: Policy 1F5 was modified to Policy 1F6 in the RMP. The recommended change is
counter to scientifically-based application of the established Highlands Council vernal pool
protection buffer.
COMMENT: One comment suggested amending language in Objective 1F5a (now Objective 1F6a)
to “Significant Natural Areas, within Vernal Pool Protection Zones, or within Vernal Pool
Amphibian Life Zones that would cause the forest cover within that Amphibian Life Zone to
decrease below 75%, except as necessary. . . .” One comment suggested changing language to
“prohibit direct impact.”
RESPONSE: Objective 1F5a was modified to Objective 1F6a and was clarified with “prohibit
direct impacts” in keeping with the protection mandates of the Highlands Act and NJDEP’s
Preservation Area Rules.
COMMENT: One comment suggested defining “no net loss” in Objective 1F5b (now Objective
1F6c) and requiring mitigation to be species-specific. One comment stated that this objective
doesn’t provide specifics about the amount/type of mitigation required.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F5b was modified to Objective 1F6c in the RMP. No net loss is defined
in Objective 1F5b in the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment questioned if Objective 1F5c (now Objective 1F6d) is meant for
municipal conformance, and if so, how is a municipality to comply.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F5c was modified to Objective 1F6d in the RMP. The Objective is meant
for municipalities and the Highlands Council will provide guidance conformance standards for
Critical Habitat.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested deleting “In an undisturbed wetland, the existing vernal
pool-breeding wildlife require a smaller protective buffer” from Objective 1F5d (now Objective
1F6e) because a vernal pool represents a habitat opportunity, and should not be deleted on the basis
of its specific occupation, or lack thereof, at a particular point in time. The comment stated that
67
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
mitigating the second bullet item would be impossible. One comment stated that the word “or”
should be included to separate the bullets. One comment questioned the definition of the word
“feasible.” One comment stated that natural barriers do not exist in New Jersey and should be
removed from the second bullet.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F5d was modified to Objective 1F6e in the RMP. The first bullet was
clarified to specify documented and field-determined vernal pool-breeding wildlife. The word “or”
was inserted to separate the bullets. The term “natural” barriers was removed from the second
bullet.
COMMENT: One comment suggested Objective 1F5e (now Objective 1F6f) be amended to
include “NJDEP must develop an MOU with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
about sharing their data so that federal technicians can readily use this information in the
preparation of a farm conservation plan.” One comment stated that mitigating the third bullet item
would be impossible. One comment stated that natural barriers do not exist in New Jersey and
should be removed from the second bullet. One comment suggested that the first bullet should
allow for boundary modification only if land use changes are so extreme/permanent as to prevent
habitat restoration. If the habitat is restorable, then the modification should not be allowed.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F5e was modified to Objective 1F6f in the RMP. All Highlands Council
GIS data are available through the Highlands Council website. The second bullet was modified to
include language specific to site suitability and species recovery. The Highlands Council has and will
continue to coordinate with appropriate State and federal agencies.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested adding a new objective after 1F5e that states, “To fund a
scientific study to determine the distance from vernal pools occupied by the vast majority of
threatened and endangered species dependent upon them.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has reviewed numerous peer-reviewed scientific literature
sources regarding amphibian movement to/from, and utilization of vernal pools. All references are
cited in the Ecosystem Management Technical Report. The Council will continue to monitor the literature
on this issue.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested Policy 1F6 (now Policy 1F7) be amended to read, “To
prohibit...activity which would result in damage or destruction of any rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animal or plant.” One comment questioned what standards have been
established to gauge “indirect impact.”
RESPONSE: Policy 1F6 was modified to Objective 1F6b in the RMP. The language was clarified
to any activity that will jeopardize the continued existence of, or result in the likelihood of the
destruction or adverse modification of, Critical Habitat.
COMMENT: One comment suggested deleting Objective 1F6a. One comment suggested
amending Objective 1F6a to “result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat for any
threatened or endangered species of animal or plant.” One comment suggested that a proximity
standard be included to make the objective reasonable.
RESPONSE: Objective 1F6a was combined into Objective 1F6b in the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested Policy 1F7 include coordination with NJDEP. The
comment suggested “including interim sightings of rare and threatened wildlife and plants” be added
to the end of the policy.
RESPONSE: Policy 1F7 was modified to Policy 1F8 in the RMP. The policy was clarified to
68
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
include “in coordination with NJDEP.” Interim sightings of rare species are not included under this
policy.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that Policy 1F8 (now Policy 1F9) is within NJDEP’s
purview and the Council need not have this policy. One comment suggested this Policy include
coordination with NJDEP.
RESPONSE: Policy 1F8 was modified to Policy 1F9 in the RMP. The policy was clarified to
include “in coordination with NJDEP.”
COMMENT: One comment suggested text addition to Policy 1G2 “approved by the Council in
consultation with the NJDEP Endangered and Non-Game species Program and, where migratory
species are involved, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has and will continue to coordinate with appropriate State
and federal agencies.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that Policy 1G3 include text that advocated NJDEP to not
penalize landowners for promoting endangered species.
RESPONSE: There is no Policy 1G3 and this suggested text was not deemed appropriate for
inclusion in the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a policy that reads: “To assign land within Critical
Wildlife Habitats, Significant Natural Areas and within 1000 feet of Vernal Pools a high priority for
fee simple and easement acquisition and for the allocation of Highlands Transferable Development
Rights(TDR) with periodically monitored easement restrictions protecting the critical wildlife
habitat, rare plants, and ecological communities from any changes in land use or management
practices that would impact these resources.”
RESPONSE: Policy 1F2 in the RMP captures the suggested text, however all elements relating to
TDR are included in the Landowner Equity section of the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested adding a policy: “To require that all public agency
projects, including those of the Department of Transportation, Department of Community Affairs,
Council on Affordable Housing, and both public and private water and sewer infrastructure and
utilities, including gas, electric, telephone, cable, etc. are subject to the requirements of Highlands
resource management programs designed to protect, enhance and restore critical wildlife habitats,
significant natural areas and vernal pools.”
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but no change was made to the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that it is wrong of the Council to put the burden of proof on
the property owner instead of with NJDEP.
RESPONSE: Where existing information from authoritative sources indicates that critical habitat
exists, it is appropriate to require that a development applicant provide site-specific information to
rebut those findings, if appropriate.
COMMENT: A comment suggested regulation of protected species must protect farmland owners
from additional restrictions on their land.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges and incorporates the Right to Farm Act, which protects
farmers’ ability to continue farming operations, into the requirements of the RMP.
69
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A comment suggested that the Council define “rare” species as animal and plant
species listed as threatened or endangered by the State as this would properly consider the listing and
conservation of truly imperiled species
RESPONSE: The Council utilizes NJDEP’s rare, threatened, and endangered species definitions, as
defined by the Landscape Project and in NJDEP’s Preservation Area Rules consistent with the
Highlands Act.
Land Preservation and Stewardship
General
COMMENT: Several comments supported the RMP preservation and stewardship initiative but
asked to ensure that land acquisitions include fee and easement acquisitions.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments and confirms that the phrase “land
acquisition” includes both fee and easement acquisition.
COMMENT: One comment disagreed with 2007 Draft RMP Policy 1H3 and is concerned that the
policy should be limited to public purchase of land for public purposes, not private organization
purchase of land, unless that purchase is mandated to contain public access and use.
RESPONSE: Policy 1H3 is now included in Policy 1H2. The Council will act as a clearinghouse
for preservation programs, funding, and stewardship for public and private organizations. It is very
common for several funding entities, public and private, to be involved in preserving land together
and the Council will help in coordinating these efforts. Whether land has public access depends on
the funding entities involved. SADC farmland preservation does allow for limited public access,
where Green Acres requires it on open space.
COMMENT: One comment stated strong support for the land stewardship program and that the
Highlands working/living landscape needs to include forestry and farming.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses integrating forestry and farming into the working/living
landscape of the Highlands Region, specifically in the Policies and Programs of Forest and
Agriculture resources.
COMMENT: One comment stated that in the Land Preservation and Stewardship Program include
a statement that historic structures can be a significant part of open space or an agricultural
landscape.
RESPONSE: The RMP acknowledges the importance of historic resources and cross references the
Program to the Historic, Cultural, Archaeological, and Scenic Resources Program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Objectives 1H3a and 1H5e are good examples of well
written, thoughtful objectives. The 2007 Draft RMP Policies 1H8, 1H11 and 1I1 are also very good
policies.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in the comment.
Prioritization/Criteria/Inventory
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP proposes to establish a confidential process and
criteria for listing land located within a special environmental area that should be protected. How
can a public body propose a secret process and criteria for the expenditure of public funds?
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act in Sections 53 and 54 states that a list of specific parcels in the
70
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Preservation Area that should be considered for land and farmland preservation may be given to
NJDEP and SADC, respectively, and that such lists shall remain confidential. The Highlands
Council cannot contravene the expressed requirements of the Act. The process for compiling those
lists is described in the Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP requires conforming municipalities and counties
to identify and delineate existing preserved open space including easements. There is no
comprehensive inventory of such easements and the Council should develop the inventory or
provide funding for its development.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council, through the Conformance Process, intends to work
cooperatively with municipalities and counties in identifying preserved lands including easements.
The Council will also be instituting a grants program to assist municipalities and counties in
conforming to the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Policy 1H11 is to identify and designate special
environmental areas where development should not occur in order to protect water resources and
environmentally sensitive lands. The language must apply to all Highlands landowners including
forest landowners in order for the RMP to be consistent with other language quoted. It is important
to note that both the open space and farmland preservation programs have until now depended on
voluntary applications. There must be a clear process for landowners to find out whether they are on
the priority list or not and to remove their property if they desire. The Council must develop
guidelines and language for all municipalities and counties to use for these easements to insure
uniformity of requirements. Stewardship requirements must consider the cost of compliance to the
landowner and provide grants when appropriate.
RESPONSE: Policy 1H11 is now Policy 1H7. The Highlands Act in Section 12.a mandates that the
Council identify special environmental areas where development should not occur in order to
protect water resources and environmentally sensitive lands in the Preservation Area; the RMP has
called these areas Special Environmental Zone (SEZ). These parcels were chosen based on
important environmental indicators; therefore, the process for removal from the list would be
through plan amendments. The Council will prepare and deliver documents to appropriate land
preservation/acquisition agencies identifying parcels in a SEZ. The Highlands Development Credit
Program will also be used as a means of preserving land in a SEZ. The methodology for
determining a SEZ is detailed in the Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report and applies to all
lands with the exception of farmland. All preservation programs in the Highlands Region require
willing sellers. The RMP anticipates the continued need for willing sellers and establishes a Program
for the Council to develop an outreach program to identify willing sellers. The Highlands Council is
preparing language for Highlands conservation easements and anticipates grant programs to aid in
stewardship efforts.
COMMENT: One comment disagreed with Objective 1H11d and e. When attempting to purchase
private land, there should be no confidential process and criteria for identifying land that is the
target of acquisition. All of the criteria and documents identifying such areas should be made
available to the public as a routine matter.
RESPONSE: Objectives 1H11d and e is now Objective 1H7d. The Council has identified areas
where development should not occur in order to protect water resources and environmentally
sensitive lands in the Preservation Area which the RMP has called Special Environmental Zone
(SEZ). The Council will prepare and deliver documents to appropriate land
preservation/acquisition agencies identifying parcels in a SEZ. This list is not confidential and the
71
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
methodology for determining a SEZ is detailed in the Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report
and applies to all lands with the exception of farmland. All preservation programs in the Highlands
Region require willing sellers. The RMP anticipates the continued need for willing sellers and
established a Program for the Council to develop an outreach program to identify willing sellers.
COMMENT: One comment suggested the Council utilize the watershed protection model
developed under water management so that critical watershed protection lands are preserved under
an acquisition program.
RESPONSE: Protection of critical water protection lands was paramount in developing the RMP
and the Conservation Priority Areas identified in the RMP and will be utilized in acquisition
programs. The indicators used in developing the Conservation Priority Areas are described in the
Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report.
Maps
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the Highlands Open Space map does not show any
forest in the land preservation section.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Preserved Lands figure, formerly called the Highlands Open Space
figure, in the RMP shows preserved lands by ownership. The Highlands Forest Resource Area
figure in the Highlands Forest Resources section indicates the forested areas in the Region. The
Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report states that currently there are approximately 174,000
preserved acres of forest in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that it is unclear why the map depicts such a small amount of
conservation priority lands. The amount of High Conservation Priority land on the map appears to
be almost non-existent. The mapped areas appear to diverge strongly from the stated indicators of
water and ecological resource values, which include “quantity and quality of regional resources such
as: watershed conditions, open waters, riparian areas, prime ground water recharge areas, forests,
critical habitat and steep slopes.” and does not appear to reflect the 32 values that were used to
delineate the Conservation Zone in the original 2006 Draft RMP. The map does not appear to
accurately depict the critical ecological, water resource and forest values of the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Land Preservation and Stewardship Technical Report outlines the 33 indicators used in
determining the Conservation Priority Areas and the methodology used to create the maps. All of
the regional resources were captured and analyzed. Additionally, 239,694 of conservation lands (not
including preserved farmland) are currently preserved in the Highlands Region. The total acreage of
the Conservation Priority parcels is approximately 91,882 acres.
Funding/Equity
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP should support legislation to extend the dual
appraisal methodology for lands in the Highlands Region beyond the June 30, 2009 expiration date
for the life of the Act.
RESPONSE: The RMP Policy 1H6 supports legislation to extend the dual appraisal methodology
to a minimum of five years beyond adoption of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there is a need for innovative partnerships such as the
Watershed Preservation Partnership, which would help with acquisition and ongoing stewardship.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. Policy1H2 and its objectives call for the
coordination of preservation and stewardship efforts in the Highlands Region including
municipalities, counties, and land trusts.
72
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that requiring development approvals to include conservation or
land stewardship easements in order to preserve open space is blackmail on the municipalities and
no property owner should turn their property over without just compensation.
RESPONSE: NJDEP is requiring conservation restrictions where there is an exemption that has
land disturbance and impervious cover thresholds, such as Exemption 2 in Section 28 of the
Highlands Act. The only way to ensure that those thresholds are not exceeded in the future is by
placing the parcel under a conservation restriction. Otherwise, a future property owner would never
be on notice about the thresholds under which an exemption was granted to a previous owner.
Additionally, land preservation programs in the Highlands Region require willing sellers and the
Highlands Act requires that the dual appraisal methodology be utilized by Green Acres and the
SADC in determining the value of an easement or fee purchase. Policy 1H6 also supports legislation
to extend this provision beyond it June 30, 2009 expiration to a minimum of 5 years beyond
adoption of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP promises fair compensation via dedicated funding
sources but it has been the lowest priority.
RESPONSE: RMP Policy 1H4 acknowledges the importance of dedicated sources of funding for
the Highlands Region. This policy sets forth six different funding mechanisms the Council will
advocate, including the reauthorization of the Garden State Preservation Trust and the extension of
the dual appraisal methodology. The various resolutions passed by the Council during its existence
make clear that such funding is a high and ongoing priority for the Council.
COMMENT: One comment stated that 2007 Policy 1H5 should state that a dedicated funding
source is needed for acquisition as well as stewardship.
RESPONSE: The 2007 Draft PMP Policy 1H5 is now RMP Policy 1H4 and includes stewardship
language.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 1H10 should include non-profit organizations on
the interagency working group coordinating open space activities.
RESPONSE: The 2007 Draft RMP Policy 1H10 working group focuses on government agencies.
RMP Objective 1H2 focuses on coordinating efforts among government agencies, non-profits and
private citizens.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the proposed Forest Preservation Easement Program
should operate only through the Green Acres Program and require a Forest Stewardship Plan.
RESPONSE: The details of the Forest Preservation Easement Program have yet to be determined.
The Highlands Council will coordinate with NJDEP and SADC in the creation and coordination of
the program.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that funding for preservation and stewardship must still be
resolved. There is an urgent need for a stable dedicated source of funds. Many comments
supported a Highlands water user fee dedicated to funding open space preservation, stewardship and
equity relief.
RESPONSE: The RMP Policies and Program support a water user fee and other methods of
funding the implementation of the RMP. See Policies 1H4, 1H5, and 1 H6. The Land Preservation
and Stewardship Program includes advocating for the establishment of dedicated sources of funding
for land preservation and stewardship in the Highlands Region.
73
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council condition adoption of the RMP on the
Legislature providing a viable funding source for land and easement acquisition in the Highlands
Region.
RESPONSE: RMP Policy 1H4 states that the Council will advocate for the establishment of a
dedicated source of funding for land preservation and stewardship that includes but is not limited to
a water user fee and the reauthorization of the Garden State Preservation Trust Fund. The Council
believes with an adopted RMP in place the Legislature will have even greater cause to pursue
developing funding sources.
COMMENT: One comment suggested encouraging municipalities currently lacking open
space/historic/farmland preservation trust funds to establish such programs as part of Plan
Conformance.
RESPONSE: RMP Policy 1H5 encourages municipalities and counties to establish and fund local
open space acquisition and stewardship programs or expand existing programs.
COMMENT: One comment stated the need for the establishment of alternative/new land
preservation programs. Neither Green Acres nor Farmland Preservation capture certain important
resources and steps need to be taken to fill these gaps, in land preservation in the Highlands.
RESPONSE: RMP Objective 1H2c anticipates that the Council will support and implement new,
innovative and alternative methods and programs of land preservation that are deemed appropriate
for the Highlands Region. The Council acknowledged that there was an unmet need for preserving
working forests and RMP Policy 1J1 recommends the creation of a Forest Preservation Easement
Program.
Forestry
COMMENT: One comment stated there should be a shift away from purchasing forests and
setting them aside for active forest management.
RESPONSE: RMP Policy 1J1 supports the creation of a Forest Preservation Easement Program so
that forested lands can remain in private ownership and actively managed.
COMMENT: One comment objects to the use of the word “preservation” in the 2007 Draft RMP
Policy 1J1 and Objective 1J1a in the context of a working forest conservation easement.
RESPONSE: The Society of American Foresters position on conservation easements states
“conservation easements are often an effective tool for maintaining working forests, preserving
environmental values, and protecting communities from excessive development pressure.” The use
of “preservation” in the RMP is in reference to the environmental values of a forest.
COMMENT: One comment suggested replacing Policy 1J1 with, “Promote the creation of a
working forest Conservation easement program for the Highlands Region.”
RESPONSE: Policy 1J1 includes the language “to promote the creation of a forest preservation
easement program.”
COMMENT: One comment suggested replacing Land Preservation “Issue Overview,” 1st
paragraph, 2nd sentence with “Managing the land to create and maintain the largest diversity of
habitat is necessary to preserve. . .” One page 185, 1st paragraph, replace with “For long term
sustainability of the forest resource in the Highlands there must be forest canopy manipulation,
regeneration (including oak regeneration), proactive management of deer populations, non-native
74
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
invasive species and reductions in the rate of forest fragmentation. Currently, two policy gaps exist
that could positively impact forest sustainability in the Highlands Region, as well as statewide. First,
qualifying income derived from forest products should be allowed to average for at least three years
under the Farmland Assessment program. Secondly, a Land Stewardship Assessment Act, similar
to, but not replacing any aspect of, the Farmland Assessment Act could be used as an incentive
program for the management of white-tailed deer, exotic, invasive species, and other threats to
environmental quality.”
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment regarding the suggested new policies and
has determined that they are not required for clarification of Land Preservation and Stewardship
Goals, Policies, and Objectives. The Highlands Council will consider the suggested text during
development of plan conformance standards.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested reiterating the introduction of Subpart a Forest
Resources in the introduction of Land Preservation Program Issue Overview or modifying the
overview.
RESPONSE: The Land Preservation and Stewardship Program addresses preservation in the
Highlands Region holistically and duplicating or detailing Forest Resource language here would not
change the Land Preservation Program. The Highlands Council acknowledges receipt of the
suggested new language and has determined that they are not required for clarification of Land
Preservation and Stewardship Goals, Policies, and Objectives or Program. The Highlands Council
will consider the suggested text during development of plan conformance standards.
Miscellaneous
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 1H6b proposes coordination with NJDEP
regarding the review of applications for Green Acres diversions for consistency with the RMP.
There should be some mechanism in place to allow diversions that are inconsistent with the RMP
under provisions related to the advancement of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Currently any diversion from Green Acres requires Statehouse Commission approval. Instead of an
application being submitted to two different entities, the Highlands Council should submit its
assessment and recommendations to the Statehouse Commission.
RESPONSE: RMP Objective 1H3c states that the Highlands Council will coordinate with the
NJDEP and review applications for Green Acres diversions for consistency with the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding the following policies and objectives:
1. Add Policy: To promote an interconnected system of publicly and privately preserved lands and
farms to achieve and maintain multiple benefits (farming, watershed protection, biodiversity, wildlife
habitat and recreation).
2. Add Policy: To recognize and work with land trusts in the development of land preservation
strategies for the highlands, both as a potential partner in land preservation, and as an effective
steward of preserved lands, both land preserved in fee and through conservation easements.
3. Add Policy: To support local open space and recreation planning and preservation that
incorporates regional objectives.
4. Add Objective: To employ gap analysis for various resource types to identify lands that need to
be preserved, such as riparian systems, wildlife corridors, contiguous forest blocks.
5. Add Objective: To support provisions for preserving key connector lands, even though they may
individually be of lower quality.
6. Add Policy: Set Stewardship Goals in the RMP, including priority goals of the Highlands Act,
including protection of habitat for flora and fauna, ecological viability, and ecosystems, species and
75
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
communities protection.
7. Add Policy: Encourage the use of specific indicators for stewardship to measure and monitor
resource changes, including:
a. Monitoring of forest regeneration of trees and shrubs deer browse intensity to measure forest
ecosystem health;
b. Monitoring aquatic invertebrates and trout production capacity to measure water quality;
c. Monitoring interior forest breeding birds through point counts and other survey techniques to
measure integrity of interior forest habitat;
d. Monitoring invasive species impact to determine ecosystem health.
8. Add Policy: Develop plan, including funding requirements, to ensure long-term responsible
stewardship of critical Highlands resources, including TDR sending area parcels.
RESPONSE: The Council believes that most of the comments are addressed by the RMP and the
Highlands Council will consider the suggested text, including the stewardship goals, during
development of plan conformance standards.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding the phrase, “Forest Legacy, Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and federal Farm Bill conservation programs” at the end of Objective 1H3c.
RESPONSE: Due to the amount of material in the RMP, the Land Preservation and Stewardship
Technical Report is an addendum to the RMP and is not meant to be duplicative. The Technical
Report includes an overview and analysis of funding sources, including those mentioned in the
comment.
COMMENT: One comment would like to add “new” after “existing” to Policy 1H6.
RESPONSE: The 2007 Draft RMP Policy 1H6 is now included in RMP Objective 1H2a and
includes new and existing preservation and stewardship programs.
Carbonate Rock (Karst) Topography
COMMENT: One comment requested that language be inserted stating that the New Jersey
Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Service must assist the
Highlands Council in preparing a methodology to address karst areas on farms in a way that will
guide municipalities as they work to protect the public health and safety, as karst areas have the
potential to be hazardous.
COMMENT: One comment stated that agricultural best management practices specific to karst
conditions should be applied to all preserved farmland in carbonate rock areas. The Council should
develop educational materials for homeowners and landowner and farm operators about karst and
develop an outreach program to farm operators to encourage karst specific best management
practices
RESPONSE: Although the language in the RMP has not been changed, the Council will coordinate
as necessary with the appropriate agencies throughout the State. Agricultural use and development
are not addressed in the same manner as other development proposals consistent with the Right to
Farm Act. The Highlands Council will develop a technical guidance manual for use by municipalities
and counties that have land areas that are within or drain to the Carbonate Rock Area.
COMMENT: One comment commended the Council for recognizing the importance of carbonate
rock geology.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in the comment.
76
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments noted that new land uses that constitute unacceptable risks in karst
areas should be defined. Remediation of current high risk land uses in karst areas uses should be
prioritized.
RESPONSE: Two new objectives were added to the carbonate rock GPOs (Chapter 4) – one
regarding new land uses that constitute unacceptable risks in karst areas shall be prohibited and the
other regarding prioritization of remediation of current high risk land uses in karst areas.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that karst topography, while potentially visible at the surface,
is not strictly a surface condition as implied on p. 38. To the contrary, karst is a three dimensional
topographic condition with the potential to contain substantial sub-surface structural conditions of
concern.
RESPONSE: Text was clarified in this chapter and elsewhere in the document that karst is not
strictly a surface condition.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the various functions that karst features provide should
be noted in the RMP.
RESPONSE: Text was added into the carbonate rock goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4 of
the RMP) regarding the important functions that karst provides.
COMMENT: A few comments commended the Council for noting that sinking streams and
sinkholes direct surface water run-off into karst aquifers with little or no attenuation of any
transported contaminants. However, the list of potential sources (stormwater basins, septic system
leaching fields and sewers) is incomplete.
RESPONSE: Additional sources that can contribute contaminants directly to ground water through
karst features were added in this chapter and in the carbonate rock GPOs section.
COMMENT: A few comments offered the opinion that this section should note that the nitrate
dilution model utilized elsewhere in the RMP tends to allow greater septic density on the carbonate
rock areas due to the larger volumes of groundwater present as compared, for example, to the
Precambrian rock area. These densities should not be allowed.
RESPONSE: Nitrate dilution models do incorporate differences in available recharge by
subwatershed, which may or may not include significant carbonate rock areas.
Lake Management
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP defines lakes issues well. Goal 1L (Protection of
Highlands Region Lakes from the Impacts of Present and Future Development) is a laudable goal.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in the comment.
COMMENT: Several comments stated objection to sewering around lake communities. One
comment stated objection because roads are narrow, neighborhoods are rocky, and the expense
would be extreme; believes that failing septic systems can be dealt with on a site-specific basis. A
few comments noted that many lake areas that are already over-developed are threatened by sewers
and continued development.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that Objective 1L2a requires that landowners replace failing
septic systems in the Shoreland Protection Tier with “upgraded treatment.” Does this mean a new
septic, a specific type of septic, or another form of treatment entirely? Clarification is needed.
77
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP seeks to have the small lot septic systems in lake
communities upgraded. However, it does not specify as to what standard the upgrade needs to meet
nor does it specify what constitutes a small lot. As many small houses on small lots in lake
communities provide affordable housing, this policy of upgrades may reduce the availability of
affordable housing in specific areas because the existing homeowners have no access to additional
credit to pay for the upgrade.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP should estimate the cost of replacing failing septic
systems and determine the source of the funding. Replacing a failing septic system with a newer
system will not necessarily improve the situation. Education on properly maintaining existing
systems would get better results.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been clarified to address failing septic systems in the Lake Community
Sub-Zone. A new objective was added that requires that septic systems and cesspools on small lots
in close proximity to lakes, be replaced with upgraded individual treatment systems, communal
septic systems, or community based wastewater systems wherever feasible and cost-effective, with
the selection of replacement technology to ensure minimal secondary environmental impacts,
maximum environmental benefit, and financial viability. The appropriate management technique
will be determined through local development review and Highlands Project Review on a site
specific basis.
A new element has been added to the Lakes Management Program where the existing density of
septic systems within a Lake Community Sub-Zone is known or strongly suspected to be a
significant contributor of lake pollutants, community wastewater treatments shall service parcels of
lands within the Lake Community Sub-Zone wherever feasible in order to eliminate pollution of
lakes by discharges from septic systems. Community-based systems should not provide for
additional land development capacity except for exempt lots within the existing lake community that
are not environmentally constrained, or for areas that are otherwise permitted to have wastewater
service. The systems must be designed to minimize secondary environmental impacts, including
potential reductions in net water availability. The upgraded systems must meet the standards stated
within the Wastewater System Maintenance Program.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the Highlands Council’s lake management review will
consider the protection of visual and scenic resources “...in the scenic resources tier include
requirements for vegetative screening of buildings, building height limitations, and limits on tree and
understory removal for reasons other than public health and safety or as the minimum necessary to
make reasonable use of the designated building envelope for the parcel proposed for development
(page 123).” The standards to which this review will be conducted should be provided. Subjectivity
by the reviewer should be minimized.
RESPONSE: The standards by which reviews will be conducted are provided in the RMP’s Lake
Management Area Program. The use of these standards during project reviews will minimize
reviewer subjectivity.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Lake Community Sub-Zone consists of patterns of
community development that are within the Existing Community Zone and within 1,000 feet of a
lake. A future management area is planned that will encompass the full lake watershed (page 81).
The township needs to see the management area plan prior to RMP adoption in order to provide
comments. This plan is critical to the community as the Highlands Council must recognize tourism,
summer homes, promote upgrading of substandard housing stock, etc.
RESPONSE: A future management area is planned, encompassing the full lake watershed, for
protection of lake water quality. The Council will be utilizing LiDAR data to delineate the entire
78
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
land area draining to the lake; this information will be made available to municipalities. Plans for
such areas will be developed through the Plan Conformance process and directly involve the
affected municipality.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP must recognize that there are different kinds of
lake areas, each requiring individual treatment. A broad identification of lakes is between developed
and undeveloped. A one size fits all approach to lake regulation is not appropriate.
RESPONSE: New text was added in the Issues Overview and Program Summary sections of the
Lake Management Program noting the distinction between developed lakes in the Lake Community
Sub-Zone and the undeveloped lakes in the Protection and Conservation Zones and the need for
distinct standards. Those standards that are unique to the developed lakes in the Existing
Community Zone (i.e., Lake Community Sub-Zone) were identified.
COMMENT: One comment noted that increased recreational opportunities should be a goal of the
RMP. Currently, members of private lake communities enjoy many recreation opportunities. The
RMP, through its policies and objectives along with the need for project reviews, will limit these
same communities in the future with regards to continuing the maintenance, reconstruction and
upgrades to such facilities and thereby will reduce resident recreational opportunities.
RESPONSE: The Council will be coordinating with lake associations and these kinds of concerns
will be addressed. It is not a goal of the Council to limit recreational enjoyment of lakes, but rather
to address resource protection requirements while encouraging recreational activities.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the 2007 Draft RMP adds the Lake Community SubZone designation because of the public outcry about lakes being in the Existing Community Zone
(ECZ). However, its underlying policies do not address the problems in the ECZ (i.e., encouraging
growth in environmentally sensitive lands). There are few standards associated with this new subzone. Need to include septic management ordinance in this sub-zone. Need model ordinance
regarding limitations on limits of disturbance, FARs, building height for tear-downs and
redevelopment. Programs for point/nonpoint pollution rely too heavily on constructed
management measures to improve water quality. Need ordinance prohibiting lawn fertilizers and
recreating vegetated waterfront buffers. Create program for municipal clean out of storm drains and
catch basins. Ban dumping into storm drains. Shoreland Protection Tier needs more specifics,
standards, model ordinance. Some of the Scenic Resources Tier programs are onerous and not
significant to improving water quality. Not likely that the RMP can prohibit tree clearing, but rather
it can limit it. Property owners are more willing to provide waterfront vegetated buffer that doesn’t
impede views of lakes like standing trees will. Cannot enforce outdoor lighting standards and should
be removed from RMP. Include lake communities when developing programs for Lake and Dam
Management. Landscaping and yard maintenance portion should be included in the Water Quality
Management Tier, including ordinances and standards.
RESPONSE: The RMP’s Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Program for the Lake Community SubZone have been clarified and reorganized. Model ordinances will be provided to municipalities with
land areas in the Lake Community Sub-Zone.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there are no references to in-lake management issues. The
four tier system should include a 5th tier, the lake itself. Since many of the Highlands lakes are in
private ownership, grants should be extended for in-lake requirements to encourage participation.
RESPONSE: A lake management handbook will be developed using authoritative sources to
address in-lake management issues. In addition, grants will be extended to encourage participation.
79
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments complained that the Council did not reach out to the various lake
communities for input on the RMP. The lack of contact and data implies that the Lake
Management portion of the RMP was developed in a vacuum and as an academic exercise.
RESPONSE: On-going coordination with lake associations will be undertaken, as appropriate, for
lake management issues.
COMMENT: With regards to existing private lake communities, a few comments expressed
concern that the riparian restorations and buffers will be economically disastrous for those
communities when coupled with the need to maintain their dams, roads and bridges.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will coordinate with individual lake communities and
municipalities regarding on-going lake maintenance and restoration efforts.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP states that the Council values the character of
existing lake communities, yet the RMP features new policies and objectives that will change these
desired characteristics.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not seek to change the character of lake communities. The Lake
Management goals, policies, objectives and program are intended to protect the lakes and their
surrounding areas from future degradation.
COMMENT: One comment noted that while much of the land along the Ravine Lake shoreline is
wooded and not developed, the Matheny School property abuts the lake. Peapack-Gladstone
Borough previously requested a special “exclusion” or exemption of a portion of the School’s
property for further development. The Borough requested that should a portion of this area be
located within 1,000 feet of the lake, restrictions should be limited in order to permit the necessary
improvements to the School’s property.
RESPONSE: The Council will be discussing specific issues, such as these, with municipalities
during Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: Comments from the Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority (RVRSA)
recognized and supported the need to regulate development immediately around bodies of water.
Two water bodies are of particular concern, the Jersey City Boonton Reservoir and the Washington
Forge Pond in Wharton. Both of these water bodies are on the run of the Rockaway River. Of
primary concern is the following statement in the plan, “A future management area is planned,
encompassing the full lake watershed, for protection of the lake water quality.” The existing
RVRSA sewer service area is within the Jersey City Boonton Reservoir “lake watershed.” The
RVRSA requested that the Highlands Council carefully develop the future management
requirements for the lake watersheds and consider the existing communities, existing sewer service
area, the town of Dover designation as a Regional Center and the designation of the Existing
Community Zone for much of the Jersey City Boonton Reservoir “lake watershed.” Overly
restrictive requirements must be avoided in the Existing Community Zone. The majority of the
RVRSA Sewer Service Area is designated as PA-1 and PA-2 in the NJ State Development and
Redevelopment Plan and thus is recommended for development and redevelopment.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, and notes that these issues will be
considered during coordination with NJDEP regarding Water Quality Management Plan and
Wastewater Management Plan amendments, and with municipalities through the Plan Conformance
process.
80
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the RMP states that in general, existing lake
communities are overdeveloped, damaged and poorly managed, while also being fully built out, with
limited potential for major land use changes and predating environmental protections. This is an
overly broad statement that does not reflect specific lake conditions or a municipality’s efforts to
protect and promote lake quality.
RESPONSE: The Council included this as a general statement about many historically developed
lakes in the Lake Community Sub-Zone.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that regulations make it difficult to maintain lakes -- dredging
projects and bulkhead repair are already difficult.
RESPONSE: A new objective has been added with respect to the Lake Community Sub-Zone to
allow and encourage the control and removal of algae and non-native invasive aquatic weeds that
cause nuisance for lake users. The Highlands Council will be coordinating with the NJDEP
regarding necessary dredging activities.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for the future of a neighborhood due to the RMP
lake management policies.
RESPONSE: RMP lake management policies and objectives are intended to protect natural
resources and enhance and restore the quality of lake environments. Policies 1M1 through 1M6
address the protection of the unique character of Highlands lake communities.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the objectives and policies of the RMP are inapplicable to a
substantial amount of potential development. The development of vacant lots for a single- family
dwelling will be exempt if the landowner meets the criteria of N.J.S.A 13:20-29 (1) and (2).
Reconstruction and additions to existing structures may also be exempt under N.J.S.A. 13:20-28 (4)
and (5). As a result, the lake management policies and objectives may have little practical
application.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that many existing lots in around lakes will be exempt as
long as the proposed development remains within the exemptions allowed by the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment suggested text changes such that the scenic resources tier should
include historic and cultural resources, which frequently comprise an important part of the scenic
resource of the NJ Highlands. The comment noted that the scenic/historic/cultural tier will be
viewed from many locations, both on the lake itself (boaters, swimmers, windsurfers, fishers) as well
as from houses and roads on the opposite shore and slopes. The tier should therefore not be
limited to what is seen from the opposite shore. A few comments indicated that the tier should not
be limited to a maximum of 1,000 feet in depth, as on a lake surrounded by high, sloping hills,
development beyond 1,000 feet could have severe impacts.
RESPONSE: New text was added to the introduction of the goals, policies, and objectives section
regarding the Council’s goal to protect the cultural and historic resources often associated with lake
communities. No change was made with respect to the 1,000 feet distance for the scenic resource
tier. However, municipalities may, under the Highlands Act, make use of more stringent standards
with justification.
COMMENT: A few comment noted that if private lakes are determined to be subject to the scenic
resource tier, who will be responsible for determining the size and layout described? In reference to
the Lake Watershed Tier, what is the availability of the LiDAR data, and are there other alternatives
mapping options, such as hydrology maps?
81
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: Private lake associations, in coordination with the Highlands Council, will determine
the size and layout of the scenic resource tier. When ready for release, LiDAR data will be made
publicly available.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested minor word changes to several Lake Management
policies and objectives.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council considered each of the comments and made minor word
changes as deemed appropriate.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Policy 1L2a, presumptions are being made
regarding direct and approximate impacts to the lakes without an analysis of those impacts having
been undertaken in private lakes. This section makes an unsubstantiated presumption that the
elements listed have a negative impact on the lake ecosystem and water quality
RESPONSE: The activities discussed in Policy 1L2a (hardscaping of shoreline, removing natural
shoreline vegetation, increasing impervious cover, etc.) are known to harm lake quality. The
standards discussed in Policy 1L2a are commonly utilized water quality protection standards.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 1L2b does not identify the term “continuous
pollutants.”
RESPONSE: Continuous pollutants are those that are an on-going source of pollution versus an
intermittent pollutant such as a discrete spill. Nitrates contributed from septic systems are an
example of continuous pollutants.
COMMENT: One comment noted that in Policy 1L3, there is a statement that standards regarding
the scenic resources tier be implemented for privately held lakes “to the extent feasible under law,
recognizing the existence of previously approved lake community development plans,” is
inconsistent with a previous statement in Chapter IV, which states that the scenic resource tier
applies to all lakes with public access; for privately-held lakes managed by a single lake association,
the tier requirements are voluntary.
RESPONSE: It is noted that scenic resource standards may not be mandated for many privatelyheld lake communities that have long-standing development approvals and existing land uses, and
the Council must recognize the existence of previously approved lake community development
plans.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Policy 1L4, the policy appears to state that
conforming municipalities only need to develop and adopt lake restoration plans for lakes that have
been identified as “water quality impaired.” It should be clarified whether the remaining
requirements of this policy are only for those lakes determined as water quality impaired or for all
lakes. The term “water quality impaired” should be defined.
RESPONSE: Conforming municipalities are required to develop and adopt lake restoration plans
for each of the municipality’s developed lakes that have been identified as water quality impaired.
Water quality impaired means all water bodies that have a TMDL or are identified in the NJDEP
2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Impaired List.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Policy 1M1, this means that for issues of
lake character and aesthetics, private lake communities maintain their autonomy regarding by-laws,
changes, and regulations.
RESPONSE: The policy (1M1) is geared specifically towards public lakes and is not applicable to
82
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
private lake communities.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Policy 1M4, is unclear - what is meant by
“shoreline uses” and “shoreline activities” in the context of this section?
RESPONSE: Shoreline uses and activities include land uses and activities that occur within the high
water mark of the shoreline.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Policy IN1, the maintenance and operation
of dams currently falls under the NJDEP Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control. This is an
example of the Highlands RMP’s failure to appropriately distinguish between what development
activities will fall under the compliance requirements of the Highlands Council and what
development activities will remain the authority of other NJDEP departments. Furthermore, while
it may be an appropriate policy to develop financing and administrative mechanisms for the
operation of public lakes, it is completely inappropriate to mandate financing and administrative
mechanisms for private lakes.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges that the maintenance and operation of dams
falls under the NJDEP Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control. The policy is intended to benefit
the continued functioning of lakes – both private and public lakes – it does not include any
regulatory mandate.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Policy 1N2, the maintenance repair or
decommissioning of dams in New Jersey is already an area that is under the control of the NJ DEP
Dam Safety section. There is no assessment of “appropriate habitats” that have been destroyed or
damaged in reference to lake drainage. Decommissioning of dams may be an appropriate goal in
some circumstances and is a policy consideration for the NJDEP.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges that the maintenance, repair, or
decommissioning of dams in New Jersey falls under the NJDEP Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood
Control. To ensure assessment of habitat damages due to lake drainage and no mechanism for
habitat restoration when a lake is drained, the Council established this policy in the RMP. It is a
mechanism for important habitat restoration when dams are breached or removed.
WATER RESOURCES AND WATER UTILITIES
COMMENT: A few comments noted that it is unclear if there is anything in the RMP that protects
water more than the existing stormwater and wetland regulations. It stated that there is nothing in
the RMP to restore water quality or quantity. The majority of the community zones are located right
on the banks of rivers and lakes with even more growth recommended there.
RESPONSE: The RMP contains numerous goals, policies, and objectives relating to water quality
and water quantity protection. The presence of an Existing Community Zone does not necessarily
imply that growth is recommended – many such areas are essentially at their capacity other than
redevelopment potential.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the regulations should be strengthened.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments; however, the Council concluded that the
RMP is protective of Highlands resources.
COMMENT: One comment noted that while public community water suppliers 2002-2004 data
83
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
was assessed to estimate demand, it is likely higher in 2008 so one must assume less additional
capacity is available to expand service especially since net capacity was estimated from both
Highlands and non-Highlands areas served.
RESPONSE: Continual updating of the data sources from water utilities is a stated objective of the
Regional Master Plan and will occur through Plan Conformance. Some purveyors are reporting
lower demands as water conservation and loss reduction techniques are implemented, while others
have higher demands.
COMMENT: One comment noted that of Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority’s (HMUA’s)
reported allocated water capacity of 27.575 MGM, 14.54 MGM is committed to approved but not
constructed projects. Of the reported 0.71 MGD of available wastewater capacity, 0.44 MGD is
committed to approve but not constructed projects. These values should be considered in any
build-out models. In the 2007 Draft RMP there is no discussion of the Highlands build-out analysis,
as there was in the 2006 Draft RMP. The 2007 Draft RMP does not provide a basis for HMUA to
update its water and wastewater projections in the wastewater management plan. Future estimates
of population and water demand are not included in the 2007 Draft RMP. Has the Highlands
Council prepared population projections for the Region? Some areas within maps of existing areas
served are within the HMUA water and sewer service areas. HMUA requests identification of any
public health and safety areas in its approved future sewer service areas where extension of sewer
service would be anticipated.
RESPONSE: A Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report has been prepared and released in
support of the Regional Master Plan. The utility capacity estimates used were the best data available
at the time the capacity analysis was performed. They will continue to be updated as additional
information is gathered during the Plan Conformance process.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Rockaway Valley Sewerage Authority (RVRSA) has met
all of NJPDES effluent limit requirements and has documented that there is adequate capacity to
meet future needs of approximately 14 MGD as developed in the Wastewater Management Plan
(updated February 1, 2006). The RVSA would like to meet with the staff of the Highlands Council
to discuss Available Wastewater Capacity.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and anticipates that this issue will be addressed
during the Plan Conformance process in cooperation with the affected municipalities. Utility capacity is not
the only potential constraint, as water availability must be addressed concurrently.
COMMENT: Several comments suggest the removal of provisions for extension of sewers/package plants
in Preservation Area, which contradicts Act. Comments noted the need to clarify that extension of sewers
into Preservation Area is prohibited. Extension of sewers or expansion of public infrastructure into or within
the Preservation Area for any development (including clusters or redevelopment areas) must be clearly
prohibited, except for clearly defined public health or safety reasons specifically referenced in the Act. The
comments stated that public water and sewer service should not be allowed to expand into the Protection or
Conservation Zone either in the Planning or Preservation Areas.
RESPONSE: Utility capacity is a critical element in determining development potential. The policies and
objectives of Policies 2I1 and 2I2 in the RMP have clarified that the extension of any Preservation Area
infrastructure is permitted only where allowed for by the Highlands Act, which includes exempt development
and Highlands Act waivers (e.g., redevelopment areas, public health and safety, and the avoidance of a
taking). Policies 2K3 discussed the criteria for Protection Zone or Conservation Zone public wastewater
system extension, which are limited to waivers, exempt development and cluster development that meets
RMP requirements.
84
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP does not define what a failing septic system means and
is therefore overly broad
RESPONSE: The RMP Program Water and Wastewater Utilities discusses in greater detail when failing septic
systems would constitute a public health exception.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 2K3 puts no limits on additional growth especially when
combined with Objectives 2K3c and 2K3f. Allowing for these systems to be built when not adjacent to
existing areas served and to serve cluster development encourages new growth in areas currently
undeveloped.
RESPONSE: Policy 2K3 in the RMP has been clarified to indicate where public wastewater infrastructure
can be extended, and the requirements for cluster development utilizing either community-based on-site
treatment or septic systems. They are intended to permit development consistent with the intent of the
Highlands Act.
COMMENT: A few comments asked how Sole Source Aquifers will be protected to meet the Safe Drinking
Water Act. How will a process that meets federal and state laws be established to assure clean and plentiful
water now and in the future?
RESPONSE: The RMP does not contain specific provisions regarding Sole Source Aquifers, which
essentially cover the entire Highlands Region (see the Water Resources Technical Report). The RMP’s goals,
policies, and objectives are intended to be protective of the region’s water resources. The Highlands Council
intends to coordinate with utilities, municipalities, and the NJDEP to achieve these objectives.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the replacement of failed septic systems with sewers is not the
right incentive structure, since sewers will serve to promote and expand even more growth outwards in
aggregated fashion, expanding the sewered areas, instead of redirecting growth inward.
RESPONSE: Under the RMP’s Chapter 4 goals, policies, and objectives, and Chapter 5 Water and
Wastewater Utilities program, failing septic systems are not automatically connected to public sewer. The
Water and Wastewater Utilities program discusses in greater detail when failing septic systems would
constitute a public health exception.
Water Resource Availability
COMMENT: One comment noted that there is a contradiction between goals and policies – Goal
2C’s mention that the selected water availability methodology cannot be relied upon to protect
stream ecology, Goal 2B’s commitment to protecting, restoring, and enhancing stream ecology,
Policy 2B4’s commitment to eliminating current deficit areas, and Policy 2B5’s stated intention to
conditionally permit additional water to be withdrawn from subwatersheds that are currently in
deficit. The comment suggested that implementation of proposed Policy 2B5 and its related
objectives 2B5a and 2B5b would be premature absent first fulfilling Goal 2C and Policy 2B4. The
comment recommended that implementation of proposed Policy 2B5 and its related objectives 2B5a
and 2B5b be postponed until such time as the Highlands Council accomplishes Goal 2C and Policy
2B4.
RESPONSE: The RMP and Water Resources Technical Report include a water availability analysis,
based on a significant research effort by the Highlands Council. The methods are based on
scientific research showing that changes in stream base flows can cause ecological changes, but are
not directly based on the measurement of those ecological changes, which is a long-term research
challenge that exceeded available time and resources. However, the methods are considered
conservative and therefore protective. The provision of granting conditional water availability under
the mitigation program is intended to reduce deficits. The Council intends to continue refinement,
updating and research into water availability methods, including the potential for methods that more
85
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
directly related to instream ecological water needs.
COMMENT: One comment requested that the Council modify policies 2K3f and 2k4c to permit
package treatment plants only outside NJDEP approved Future Sanitary Sewer Service Areas and
areas provided for in Service Agreements. Small onsite treatment facilities have a poor record of
operation and maintenance in New Jersey.
RESPONSE: The use of community on-site wastewater treatment facilities (package plants) is not
anticipated in Existing Community Zones, but rather in the Protection or Conservation Zone where
development is not within or immediately adjacent to an existing wastewater infrastructure. While
historic use of such systems has included numerous failures, more recent systems use much
improved technology and monitoring systems and have a much stronger record. The RMP includes
provisions to ensure that the owners of such facilities are capable of long-term operation and
maintenance.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Objective 2B1d and 2J5a, to restrict
available water use for receiving zones, is inappropriate. Available water should be prioritized for
projects that yield the greatest benefit to the community and should be a local decision.
RESPONSE: This policy has been revised in the RMP as Policies 2B4 and 2J4 to clarify the intent.
COMMENT: One comment asked if the Council intends to demand retrofitting of existing
facilities in order to use stormwater runoff for non-potable purposes. Will toilets be required to be
fitted to use storm water? The comment stated that the objective is too vague.
RESPONSE: The objective refers to recreational and non-agricultural irrigation and outdoor uses,
such as fountains. The objective would be applied for new uses that meet those criteria. The RMP
program, Efficient Use of Water, contains additional detail for water conservation. . In general, the
retrofit of existing residential and commercial buildings to use non-potable water is not costeffective unless total renovation will allow for installing non-potable water piping.
COMMENT: One comment asked why should private enterprises be forced to deal with reductions
in their existing water allocation permits in favor of the water companies when both went through a
rigorous NJDEP approval process and both have based their planning for the future on the amount
of water allocated, whether it is used or not. Why should the water companies be allowed to
withdraw their full allocation and private enterprises be forbidden, especially when the water
companies are making a profit on it that never gets back into the economy?
RESPONSE: This objective has been revised to Objective 2B6b. Those uses that meet the policies
and objectives of the RMP are not intended to have water allocations reduced in favor of water
utilities. Water Use and Conservation Management Plans will be used to determine how deficits
should be addressed.
COMMENT: One comment suggested specific text changes for Objectives 2B10e and 2B10g.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council incorporated text edits where they were deemed appropriate.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the New Jersey Farm Bureau is concerned that the RMP
does not address agricultural development in Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas with the New
Jersey Department of Agriculture Agricultural Development rule with its triggers for increased
impervious surfaces. Farm Conservation Plans and Natural Resource Management Systems plans
are able to address farmland within a Prime Ground Water Recharge Area. These plans can increase
the potential recharge of clean water by careful design of new impervious surfaces. New Jersey
86
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Farm Bureau would like to see the following language added: Policy 2D6 “Where agricultural
purposes are involved, increased impervious surfaces of greater than 3% but less than 9% of the
agricultural lands requires the approval of a Farm Conservation Plan from the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service and increased impervious surfaces of 9% or greater requires the
approval of a Resource Management System Plan from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service.”
RESPONSE: In the Preservation Area, agricultural use and development is not a “major Highlands
development,” so the NJDEP rules in N.J.A.C. 7:38 are not applicable. The goals, policies and
objectives of the RMP apply to agricultural use and development through the Right to Farm Act,
N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and
safety. In addition, RMP Policy 3D2 and 3D3 require conservation plans for farms that meet the
3% and 9% impervious cover triggers for new agricultural or horticultural development regulated
under the Highlands Act and subject to the NJDA Rules at N.J.A.C. 2:92 Agricultural Development
in the Highlands. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, the NJDEP and the NRCS to
sustain and enhance agricultural land, the agricultural industry and natural resources in the Highlands
Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated that with respect to Objective 2Ba - Chart -Ground Water
Availability Thresholds - it is not clear what the relationship is between water “priority for
agriculture” and the “thresholds” outlined in this policy. The Conservation Zone has two
thresholds: Standard: 10%; Environmentally Constrained Area: 5%. It is unclear about what that
will mean for most of the Conservation Zone landowners who are mapped in the Environmentally
Constrained Conservation Zone. The New Jersey Farm Bureau would like to see the following
language added; Objective 2B3b: “The remaining Net Water Availability shall be available...and for
agricultural uses in the Conservation Zone and Protection Zone.”
RESPONSE: There is no separate ground water availability threshold in Environmentally
Constrained subzones. The thresholds in the Conservation Zone are 10% for agricultural uses and
5% for other uses. The prioritization of net water availability has been addressed with new
Objective 2B4d.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Objective 2B4a, this must not include
agricultural use of ground and surface waters that are supposed to receive priority for available
water. When agricultural water use is meant to be included it must be clarified for the thorough
understanding of the municipalities.
RESPONSE: The prioritization of net water availability regarding agricultural uses has been
addressed with new Objective 2B4d.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 285b must be clarified to say that it does not
apply to agricultural use and that agricultural use does not require mitigation. Policy 2B8 appears to
limit water to agriculture in the Protection Zone where over 12,000 acres of active farmland are
supposed to have “priority.” Water must be a priority for agriculture Region-wide.
RESPONSE: The net water availability analysis and subsequent standards regarding use of water
apply to all uses, including agriculture through Plan Conformance, project review and local review
under the Highlands Council purview. Prioritization for agriculture use in the Conservation Zone is
addressed in Policy 2B4. Water Use and Conservation Management Plans may include provisions
whereby municipalities encourage agricultural conservation measures that are consistent with State
laws and regulations.
87
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments noted that for the purpose of establishing a starting point for an
analysis of water availability, the HUC14 subwatershed is an appropriate choice. However, to use it
as the final measure of watershed condition and water availability ignores the complex interaction of
regional weather and hydrologic effects on individual sub-watersheds.
RESPONSE: Although the net water availability analysis is performed at the subwatershed
(HUC14) level, the RMP’s program Highlands Restoration: Water Deficits indicates that Water Use
and Conservation Plans may address this potential where sufficient evidence is presented.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that any thresholds established for ground water availability
need to be translated into specific gallons available on a municipal basis if build-out is conducted
and are needed to provide information to municipalities responsible for or considering
conformance. On page 61 of the 2006 Draft RMP, it was a stated policy to establish municipal
growth thresholds based on limitations in Net Water Availability. In the 2007 Draft RMP, water
availability is given on a HUC 14 basis only and municipal growth thresholds are not mentioned.
Municipally based growth thresholds must be established prior to the adoption of the RMP if
substantive understanding of the RMP impacts is to be assessed by municipal and county
government.
RESPONSE: Net Water Availability results were reported at a HUC14 subwatershed level. They
will continue to be analyzed using a refined water use tracking model that will enable the results to
be portioned to the specific utilities and municipalities. The specific allocations will be subject to the
provisions of the new Policies 2B4 and 2J4. This program is discussed further in the RMP (Chapter
6, Part 3, Subpart a., Water and Wastewater Tracking).
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP should include specific figures related to the total
net water availability (surplus in MGD) in the Highlands Region, with a clear identification of how
much water is used by those outside the region. Availability should be translated into a number of
allowable housing units and/or square feet of commercial development. This is needed to meet the
Act’s (N.J.S.A.13:20-l1.a.1.a) mandate to determine the “amount and type of human development
and activity which the ecosystem of the Highlands Region can sustain” referenced at the beginning
of this section. Defining 5%, 10%, and 20% thresholds for capacity does not meet this intent and
does not provide the guidance needed by communities that must comply or are considering opting
in to the Plan.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and has prepared the Highlands
Regional Build Out Technical Report in support of the comment. The report was released in June 2008
via the Council’s website and the report supports RMP policies and Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objectives 2B4b, 2B5a and 2B5b allow the withdrawal of
small amounts of groundwater capacity from areas defined by the Council as water deficit areas
conditioned upon implementation of 125% mitigation. Without commenting on the applicability of
the water withdrawal thresholds or the validity of defining water deficit areas based on the
Highlands criteria, the comment supported the provision that allows some withdrawal of
groundwater in these areas conditioned on meeting prescribed mitigation goals. Conditioning
development on a 125% mitigation factor will result in increases in water recharge in these areas,
improving groundwater supplies, whereas a ban on any withdrawal would only maintain the status
quo, i.e. a permanent deficit. Also, a policy which does not allow water to be conditionally
withdrawn would result in a de facto taking of property in many instances.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the support for the RMP policies in this
comment.
88
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: Several comments noted that the RMP has failed to identify an accurate assessment
of safe yield in the region, relying instead on permit allocations and firm capacity.
RESPONSE: Safe yields for Highland are reported in the Water Resources Technical Report, Vol. II.
These safe yields are nearly all based on modeling performed, which are then included within water
allocation permits. Firm capacity is a separate concept and was not used in the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Council should define the meaning of “no significant
safe yield reduction” cited in objectives 2B8e and 2B9f in reference to water allocation permits and
ensure that this does not have a negative impact during times of drought. Since ground water
capacity includes a calculation to represent safe yields for reservoirs, ecological integrity will suffer
when the original safe yield volume is employed.
RESPONSE: Safe yields are approved and monitored by the NJDEP. NJDEP has required that
purveyors in the region update their safe yield estimates, and has received several updated models
(e.g., New Jersey Water Supply Authority, North Jersey District Water Supply Commission). The
ground water availability analysis, while not specifically incorporating safe yields from surface water
reservoirs, is intended to preserve base flows upon which those surface water systems rely.
COMMENT: One comment noted that in Chapter IV, Part 2, Subpart a, actual water use estimates
applied to the Low Flow Margin method are likely to be conservative because they rely on drought
recharge derived from the 2002 LULC data, the 2003 DEP permit data, and estimates for the
well/septic components. Therefore net availability is likely to be less than the RMP concedes.
There should be better accounting for domestic use on individual well systems and other uses (less
than 50,000 or 100,000 gpd in preservation and planning areas respectively) included in calculations
of consumptive and depletive uses as the water resources technical report shows the domestic use
was estimated based on a number of factors that do not result in the final usage being a conservative
estimate. While public community water suppliers 2002-2004 data were assessed to estimate
demand, it is likely higher in 2008 so we must assume less additional capacity is available to expand
service especially since net capacity was estimated from both the Highlands and non-Highlands area
served. Further evaluate whether wastewater returning to a HUC 14 from which it originated
actually augments the ground water capacity. If not, the model applied will not yield accurate net
availability. Ultimately, improved calculations will ensure that the net availability estimates are more
accurate. Uses should be mitigated at more than 125% since deficits are not likely to be reduced
25% due to assumptions in the effectiveness of mitigation techniques as well as assumptions in the
actual deficit volume. While the commitment to mitigate is supposedly ensured by requiring an
ordinance or resolution to that effect as well as bonding the funds needed to complete the
mitigation, such programs must be implemented prior to issuing conditional net availability to
ensure the deficit is not exacerbated during the one to five years in which the mitigation is to be
implemented. This change will make the program consistent with the policy to allow no
exacerbation of current deficits, etc. To ensure mitigation measures have fully accounted for
increased use, the Council should set evaluation standards and methods for monitoring the efficacy
of mitigation activities prior to plan implementation. Policies and objectives site several uses as
“highest priority.” The Council must create an absolute priority listing for the uses of remaining net
availability. Project review ensures net available water is used for Smart Growth and reduces
engineered solutions for recharge. How does smart growth play in to the list of “highest priorities?”
RESPONSE: These remarks, regarding updating net water availability estimates, are consistent with
the policies of the RMP. These efforts will continue through water data updates, continued research
into availability methods, and through Plan Conformance. The RMP’s program requiring 125%
89
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
mitigation (Highlands Restoration: Water Deficits) has been modified to address varying mitigation
amounts (up to 200%), proof of how the mitigation will be achieved, and implementation of the
mitigation prior to initiation of the water use. The policies regarding prioritization of water
availability and water utility capacity have been revised (RMP Policies 2B4 and 2J4) to be consistent
with the RMP’s smart growth policies.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that if public community water systems can use up to the full
net available water volume, then individual wells and non-public uses will exceed the net available
supply and exacerbate deficits which is inconsistent with RMP policy.
RESPONSE: Through Plan Conformance, local development review, Highlands Project Review,
and interagency coordination, the Highlands Council will review all projected water use against water
availability. Through Plan Conformance, build out analyses at the local level will provide
information on needs that are and are not from public community water systems. Individual
domestic well usage, while not likely to be directly approved by the Council, can be planned using
the RMP’s build out and smart growth principles during conformance. Finally the Water Use and
Conservation Plans will be utilized to achieve all these objectives.
Protection of Water Resources Quantity
COMMENT: Numerous comments stated that the Highlands Council must protect water resources
for the safety of the public.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments support for the intent of the
Highlands Act and the RMP
COMMENT: Numerous comments stated that lands critical to preserving water quality and
quantity should be in the Protection Zone. Preserve critical lands- wetlands, streams, river corridors,
flood plains, and well-head protection areas.
RESPONSE: Lands critical to preserving water quality and quantity are placed in the Protection
Zone or receive resource protection standards in the RMP regardless of LUC Zone.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that legislative leaders declared the water tax on Highlands
users of Highlands water dead on arrival before the plan was published. So why does it remain in
the plan?
COMMENT: Several comments stated support for implementation of a water user fee that would
have a dedicated fund to compensate landowners. This fund should also be used for “watershed
aid” to those municipalities containing watershed lands.
RESPONSE: The Council remains committed to encouraging that the State of New Jersey and
other entities ensure adequate funding is available to compensate landowners and protect the water
supply. The water use fee legislation is still before the Legislature.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Policy 2D5a prohibits the creation of impervious surfaces
and other surfaces that significantly impede recharge. The use of the adverb “significantly” and
similar adverbs (e.g., substantially) is lacking throughout this document, even though such language
is necessary to address even minor changes in treatment of a resource. For example, Objective
2D5b allows for modifications of groundwater recharge requirements that “will not impair or reduce
ground water recharge quality or volumes.” The anticipation of modifications with absolutely zero
change in this instance is unreasonable. This would be more reasonably phrased as “will not
substantially impair...” Anticipating or allowing modification or variations in the rules but requiring
90
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
no alteration in expectations whatsoever is unrealistic.
RESPONSE: The language regarding prime ground water recharge areas is now under Policy 2D4
and has been rewritten and reorganized to provide a clearer and more specific standard. The intent
is to minimize to the extent possible the potential impact caused by the alteration of natural recharge
patterns, recharge volumes and water quality within Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas. To
achieve this, the objectives limit the circumstances under which such areas can be disturbed, require
low impact development practices where disturbance is necessary, limit total disturbance to no more
than 15% of the Prime Ground Water Recharge Area on the property, and require mitigation of
125% of the pre-construction recharge from the disturbed area. Objective 2D3g also requires that
land uses not have the potential to degrade water quality.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Policy 2D5b seeks to prohibit the creation of impervious
cover in prime groundwater recharge areas. This issue of impervious cover is addressed again in
Policy 2D6b and other areas in the RMP such as Policy 3A14 with regard to voluntary agricultural
restrictions and at Policy 6N2b with regard to stormwater management. The restriction of
impervious cover to 3% is a major limiting standard imposed by the Highlands Act on the
Preservation Area. The RMP does not address this standard or indicate whether similar standards
will be proposed in the Planning Area. As the current Preservation Area standard is extraordinarily
restrictive, any intent to include a similar standard post plan adoption should be identified for the
edification of Planning Area communities.
RESPONSE: Agricultural use and development is not a “Major Highlands Development,” so the
NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 do not apply, but the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP apply
through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which addresses agricultural practices that pose a
direct threat to public health and safety. In addition, RMP Policy 3D2 and 3D3 require conservation
plans for farms that meet the 3% and 9% impervious cover triggers for new agricultural or
horticultural development regulated under the Highlands Act and subject to the NJDA Rules 2:92
Agricultural Development in the Highlands. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, the
NJDEP and the NRCS to sustain and enhance agricultural land, the agricultural industry and natural
resources in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment noted the RMP proposes to identify land use categories that should
not be allowed within Prime Ground Water Resource Areas. The Highlands Act specifically
requires the RMP to identify uses that are to be regulated or prohibited. A promise to do so at some
future date does not fulfill this mandate.
RESPONSE: Similar to the protection of well head protection areas, the protection of prime
ground water recharge areas requires that land uses with a significant potential for ground water
contamination are not located within such areas. The RMP provides a general description of such
land uses. Specific listings are inappropriate in a regional plan, but will be provided within detailed
plan conformance and Highlands Project Review guidelines. In this manner, the listings can be
modified as new land uses are identified, or perhaps as new technologies allow for land uses on the
list to be removed.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Policy 2El supports the development of regional
stormwater plans. The Highlands Council identifies development of these plans as part of the
county conformance process. Has the Highlands Council identified funding sources for this
extraordinarily expensive and time consuming project?
RESPONSE: Regional stormwater plans are encouraged but not required of counties for
conformance.
91
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments stated that grass should not be considered an impervious surface.
This would open up areas to development far more than what was intended by the Act.
RESPONSE: The Council’s proposed Impervious Surface Determination was proposed as part of
the Highlands Redevelopment Area procedures. The procedures were released for public comment
in January 2008. The approach focused on compacted soils, not grass, consistent with the definition
of impervious surfaces in the Highlands Act. The procedures were released again in June 2008 for
further public comment, and do not include the estimation of compacted soils.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Council should recognize constituents that are
outside of the Region. Urban communities are very concerned.
COMMENT: Water conservation practices must be made mandatory in all towns using Highlands
water from sources other than private wells
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council does not have authority to mandate restrictions outside the
Highlands Region and will work with NJDEP to address these issues.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed concern that the RMP is throwing the problem of water
back to municipalities instead of dealing with it regionally. Water problems cannot be fixed on a
local basis - it needs to be dealt with regionally with regional water management plans. The RMP
needs to have a vision to accomplish this goal.
RESPONSE: Water Use and Conservation Plans will be developed in the context of the water use
and water availability of each subwatershed that supplies a municipality. The source and ultimate
use of water are linked on a regional basis and municipalities are permitted to create joint or regional
Water Use and Conservation Plans. The Highlands Council will encourage such cooperative efforts.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that Newark depends on Highlands water; and there is
concern that development in the Highlands Region could impact Newark’s water supply.
RESPONSE: The potential for development in the Pequannock River watershed is very limited due
to the inclusion of most of the area in the Preservation Area, subject to NJDEP’s Preservation Area
Rules and the requirements of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Goal 12C, why is measurement of available
water still a goal and not a reality after four years? Why are harsh restrictions being implemented if
we still do not know how much water we have?
RESPONSE: The method of determining net water availability is discussed in the RMP and the
Water Resources Technical Report. The RMP intends to incorporate updated and refined data as they
become available, under this goal.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that if areas contain farmland (or preserved farmland), and
the farm operator is precluded from standard farming practices, then there must be compensation
paid for any loss of use. New Jersey Farm Bureau would like to see the following language added:
“The Highlands Council will collaborate with NJDEP, the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Rutgers Cooperative Extension and county Soil Conservation Districts, and the New Jersey
Department of Agriculture . . .” “Funding for this research must be included in the stewardship
budget as part of the Cash Flow Analysis.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council modified text as deemed appropriate to address this issue.
COMMENT: One comment stated that considering the importance of prime groundwater recharge
92
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
areas and the inability to replace them, it is strongly recommended that the RMP prohibit increased
impervious surfaces in these locations throughout the Highlands, not just in the Protection Zone.
RESPONSE: The majority of Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas is contained within the
Protection Zone and was one of the factors used in defining the Protection Zone. Most of the
remaining Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas are located within the Environmentally Constrained
Sub-zones of the Conservation Zone and the Existing Community Zone. The Council has goals,
policies and objectives to regulate and manage Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas throughout the
Highlands region, specifically Goal 2D, Maintenance Of Hydrologic Integrity Through The
Protection Of Ground Water Recharge.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Council needs to define “significant safe yield
reduction.” The comment stated that ecological integrity suffers when the full safe yield volume is
employed. Since NJDEP water allocations cannot legally be reduced without declaring the source a
Water Supply Critical Area, the Council should develop criteria that would warrant this designation
and increase reductions in deficit or constrained areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment. Safe yields are approved and
monitored by the NJDEP. A major purpose of the RMP is to protect the safe yields of reservoir
systems by limiting upstream use of ground waters, which has the added benefit of protecting
aquatic ecosystems. The comment apparently is focused on the concern that reservoir releases to
protect downstream ecosystems may be compromised during droughts when safe yields are
intensively utilized. The regulation of passing flows rests with NJDEP. Through interagency
coordination, the Council intends to ensure that the safe yields are protected and that additional
consideration is given to the ecological impacts of passing flows.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the language of Objective 2B4b is extremely vague
regarding how applicants will meet this mitigation requirement. It is unlikely that the Council and
NJDEP will actually enforce this provision rigorously on a case-by-case applicant-by applicant basis.
RESPONSE: The program discussing water deficit mitigation in Chapter 5 has been modified to
better define these requirements. Additional technical guidance will also be provided by the
Highlands Council.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP needs wellhead protection policies and source
water protection policies.
RESPONSE: The RMP contains wellhead protection policies that are mandatory for conforming
municipalities.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Council needs to expand its database by installing
new monitoring stations throughout the region.
RESPONSE: Creating a monitoring network for ground water levels and surface water flows is a
future item for research that the Council intends to work with the NJDEP and US Geological
Survey as funding is available.
COMMENT: One comment noted that developing land residentially does not alter water quantity
absorbed into the ground or collected in reservoirs. According to the Technical Review Manual by
the USDA Soil Conservation Service, a half acre or larger residential lot absorbs as much or more
water than fallow land because lawn areas absorb as much or more water better than wooded areas.
This efficiency would make up the difference for the impervious surface area on a developed home
site.
93
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: Many factors contribute to the amount of runoff from a particular site. The effect of
increasing amounts of impervious surfaces on water availability has been established in the U.S.
Forest Service studies of the Highlands.
COMMENT: One comment noted that in the 2006 Draft RMP, capacity was based on the natural
environment and its ability to sustain water. In the 2007 Draft RMP, capacity is based on utility
capacity, which is a non-scientific number since most of the capacity for both water and sewer were
done prior to any environmental analyses being done. There is no analysis of how much water
supply is needed in the rest of the state from the Highlands Region for future growth. Instead, the
water analysis is about how much water is available for development in the Highlands only, without
looking at water quality and quantity for the future of New Jersey.
RESPONSE: The RMP is supported by the Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report, which
addresses build out limitations based on a combination of available land, water availability and utility
capacity. Future growth outside the Highlands is being evaluated in the New Jersey Statewide Water
Supply Plan.
Water Quality
COMMENT: A few comments noted that as more water is removed, less water is available and the
quality is reduced.
RESPONSE: The comment is correct if pollutant loadings stay the same, which is one reason for
the conservative estimates of ground water availability.
COMMENT: One comment expressed anger that the RMP as written removes protection for water
quality including allowing gas stations nears wells and reservoirs.
RESPONSE: A primary goal of the Highlands Act and the RMP is to protect water quality and
quantity. The RMP includes requirements at Objective 2D3g and Policy 2H2 that Prime Ground
Water Recharge Areas and wellhead protection areas be protected from land uses that may discharge
harmful pollutants. Reservoirs are generally protected from such nearby land uses through buffers
owned by the water purveyor. NJDEP rules regarding gasoline stations apply in addition to the
RMP, and municipalities can regulate land uses through zoning and development regulations.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 2G5c lists agricultural best management
practices to help assure water quality but there may be no BMPs for some practices.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The Council recognizes that there are not
BMP or alternative methods for some agricultural practices, and will work with the New Jersey
Department of Agriculture as appropriate where significant issues are identified with any agricultural
practices that lack BMPs.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should look to how New York City
has protected its water supply and compare that to Orange County, California which decontaminates
and reuses sewage for drinking water.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and is well aware of both programs.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Council should reduce loadings of phosphorus,
nitrogen, and total suspended solids.
RESPONSE: These issues are addressed in the Water Resources Technical Report.
94
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments noted that contaminated ground water needs to be cleaned up and
not left in the ground.
RESPONSE: Remedial activities for ground water contamination are a responsibility of NJDEP
under a variety of State laws. The Highlands Act addresses the need for NJDEP to consider the
RMP in addressing site remediation.
COMMENT: One comment noted that there is no proven threat to water quality from pollution.
Most problems were from large commercial properties that just disposed of waste as they pleased
from 1930s to 1950s.
RESPONSE: Water quality is proven to be threatened by pollution. Pollutants enter waterbodies
from point sources such as a wastewater discharge and nonpoint sources such as stormwater runoff,
fertilizer application, and other sources daily.
COMMENT: One comment noted that under the section dealing with enhancement of water
quality, specifically Policy 2G6 and its associated objectives, the RMP calls for Municipal and County
governments to develop regulations as to development standards. Such regulations should not be
handled haphazardly and will vary from community to community. These features are overarching
and do not stop at municipal boundaries. Such regulations must come from the NJDEP and only
after a thorough evaluation based upon scientific data.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act calls for the Highlands Council to develop such standards and the
Council intends to coordinate with this issue with NJDEP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that natural water quality should be discussed, particularly in
light of the occurrence of asbestos, arsenic, radioactivity, hardness, iron, and other naturally
occurring substances in Highlands waters. The potential causes for each of these parameters,
including agriculture should be discussed. The potential causes of increased TDS (transport and
road deicing) should be discussed. The statement that “119 of the 183 sub-watersheds are impaired
or threatened” is important and should be followed by a discussion of a representative sample of
specific water bodies, the nature of their impairments, and their degree. This discussion should
accompany the Impaired Waters Overall Assessment by HUC 14 map. The RMP must include a
program for gathering initial (base line) surface water quality data and monitor water quality for each
HUC 14.
RESPONSE: Natural water quality and the potential causes of these parameters are discussed in the
Water Resources Technical Report. The RMP does include a program to gather water quality data and
monitoring for each HUC 14 subwatershed.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to the map on Impaired Waters, the areas in
red are described as impaired which are in the predominately rural areas while the non-impaired
waters are shown in the built up areas of Morris County. This is counter intuitive and calls to
question the validity, reliability, and the methodology used in the analysis. In addition, the map is
incorrect in what it is trying to portray. The RMP text is describing surface water impairment, while
the Map is showing entire sub-watersheds as impaired. The map should be corrected.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council obtained surface water quality assessments from NJDEP and
the map depicts HUC 14 subwatersheds with impairments, based on this information more
subwatersheds in rural areas are impaired. Not necessarily all streams/stream segments in a HUC 14
subwatershed are impaired but NJDEP describes an entire HUC 14 subwatershed as being impaired
if monitoring data indicate any impaired water body. The map accurately depicts subwatersheds
95
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
listed as impaired on the 303(d) list. A map can depict point sources in the watershed, but it is hard
to map nonpoint sources of pollution. Also, the source of impairment generally comes from many
sources and sometimes the source is unknown.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern about the water that flows from New York State
into New Jersey - concerned how New York waters impact New Jersey waters.
RESPONSE: New York and Pennsylvania must achieve compliance with New Jersey surface water
quality standards at the border. New York is responsible for determining the exact load reduction
needed to attain surface water quality standards at the border and for allocating that load between
point and nonpoint sources. Water use of interstate waters is addressed by direct interaction
between the states.
Sustainable Development and Water Resources
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority
(RVRSA) serves the Township of Mine Hill and Picatinny Arsenal as customers who have
purchased a certain amount of treatment capacity. The portion of the capacity that is not used is
reserved for their future use. The RVRSA also operated an Industrial Pretreatment Program in
compliance with NJDEP Regulations. Each Industrial Permit contains a permitted flow. The
unused portion of the permitted flow is reserved for each permitted industry. The RVRSA also
utilizes a permit program for new construction and re-development. Upon the issuance of a permit,
capacity is reserved for that project for a period of one year with the ability to extend the period.
These existing legal contractual commitments of capacity by the RVRSA must be recognized and
considered by the Highlands Council in assessing the available capacity of facilities and in assigning
priorities for use of the available capacity.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the concerns expressed in this comment. This
level of detailed information regarding contracted flows is not available regionally, but will be
incorporated during the plan conformance process.
COMMENT: One comment stated that with respect to Objectives 2K3f and 2K4c, the RVRSA
cannot accept these policies as the RVRSA has the right and obligation to serve areas within the
approved Future Sanitary Sewer Service Areas as designated in the approved Wastewater
Management Plan and provide for in its Service Agreement with the member municipalities.
RVRSA requests that the Highlands Council modify this policy to permit package treatment facilities
only outside NJDEP approved Future Sanitary Sewer Service Areas and areas as provided for in
service agreements or with the consent of the Authority as is required by State Law.
RESPONSE: The prioritization of where public infrastructure will be expanded, and for which
uses, has changed in the RMP Policies 2K3 and 2K4. Further, under the new Water Quality
Management Planning rules (N.J.A.C. 7:15), new Wastewater Management Plans will be developed,
and may or may not include the future sewer service areas that are depicted in current or expired
plans. NJDEP will require a consistency determination from the Highlands Council, which will be
prepared based on the RMP. The use of community on-site wastewater treatment facilities (package
plants) is not anticipated in Existing Community Zones, but rather in the Protection or
Conservation Zone where development is not within or immediately adjacent to an existing
wastewater infrastructure.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the Council include specific provisions that would
provide priority review for projects that include affordable housing. COAH recommends that, in
96
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
municipalities where there are water and/or sewer constraints, the Council institute policies that
would prioritize and reserve such resources for affordable housing purposes. COAH further
recommends that the RMP include technical assistance and research on alternatives for enhanced
wastewater management. In addition to conservation practices, the RMP could include research and
development initiatives that would result in alternative forms of wastewater management or an
expansion of existing treatment facilities that would both protect the watershed and provide growth
opportunities at higher densities in appropriate locations.
RESPONSE: Policy 2J4 and 2K3 prioritize utility capacity for affordable housing in the Existing
Community Zone, where growth will be at densities suitable for public utilities. The use of
alternative systems, such as enhanced septic system treatment or a community, on-site wastewater
facility is discussed in the RMP Policy 2K3 and RMP program, Wastewater System Maintenance.
However, these systems do not allow for increases in development yield beyond the level that would
be allowed using septic systems.
COMMENT: A few comments had questions in regard to establishing the density of new
residential development using a nitrate dilution model which coincides to the LUCM. Can
municipalities translate this data into density per acre for their Master Plans and by simple division
or are there other considerations in developing minimum lot area criteria?
RESPONSE: Only septic system yields were reported in the RMP and Technical Report. Septic
system densities vary by each subwatershed and are not necessarily intended to be minimum zoning
lot sizes. How a municipality distributes the septic systems is at their discretion, within the Policy of
2L2 and the RMP’s smart growth principles. However, it should be noted that these policies include
mandatory clustering in the Conservation Zone, requirements for low impact development
techniques and other provisions that would suggest that septic system densities should not be
directly used as minimum lot sizes, but rather as a factor in deriving average lot sizes.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the language in this section that refers to the agricultural
impervious cover triggers should be amended as follows: “Agricultural or horticultural development
that would result in the increase of 3 % or more of new agricultural impervious cover to the total
land area of a Farm Management Unit (either individually or cumulatively) since enactment of the
Highlands Act, will require the farm owner or operator to develop and obtain Soil Conservation
District (SCD) approval of a Farm Conservation Plan, agricultural or horticultural development that
would result in the increase of 9% or more of new agricultural impervious cover to the total land
area of a Farm Management Unit(either individually or cumulatively) since enactment of the
Highlands Act, will require the farm owner or operator to develop and obtain Soil Conservation
District(SCD) approval of a Resource Management System (RMS) Plan.”
RESPONSE: The proposed language has been changed by the Highlands Council in the RMP
Policy 2J4b.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested minimizing the extension of public water and sewer
infrastructure within the Protection and Conservation Areas. There should be an affirmative
statement indicating that restrictions will not be placed on such extensions in the Existing
Community Zone, except where they have a direct negative impact on Existing
Community/Environmentally Constrained Areas.
RESPONSE: Policy 2J4 in the RMP contains modified language regarding how the prioritization
for the extension of public water can occur.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 2J8a “requires” the maximum feasible water
97
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
conservation and recycling for development and redevelopment, including renovations to existing
single family dwellings and commercial/industrial buildings. First, “require” should be amended to
“encourage.” Second, renovations to existing single family buildings and commercial property carry
exemptions from the Act and, subsequently, from the RMP.
RESPONSE: This Objective is now 2J7a, and will not apply to exempt development. The word
“encourage” is not enforceable.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Objective 2J8c is listed twice and the second listing is
incorrect. The second listing should be “2J8d” and “public wastewater collection and treatment
systems” should be changed to “public community water systems” to be consistent with this
section’s policy and other objectives. Wastewater is addressed by Objective 2K6b on page140. With
regard to each of the 2J8c’s, what is the basis for the minimum density and minimum FAR
proposed? Also, density and FAR are measures applied to an entire site, not to portions of a site.
The section should explore the use of “gross” and “net” densities.
RESPONSE: The duplication of numbering for Objective 2J8c and its reference to wastewater are
acknowledged and have been corrected. The densities associated with public water service are
intended to make efficient use of capital investment associated with public infrastructure. In both
cases, the requirement applies to the developed portion of the property and therefore can be
considered a “net” density approach.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the objectives listed under Policy 2L2 provide target nitrate
level for new development in different zones. The Council needs to establish a protocol for the
establishment of densities when a parcel is split by more than one zone.
RESPONSE: For the Planning Area, septic system densities are not generally applied to specific
parcels. Rather, septic system yields were projected for each municipality by LUC Zone.
Conforming municipalities are given the discretion to decide how to amend their zoning to allocate
that yield among parcels during Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Objective2L2d proposes use of a 2mg/L nitrate level in
the Existing Community Zone within the Planning Area on a “case-by-case” basis. This language is
not used when describing the application of nitrate standards in any other zone. What does it mean?
Will the target vary by project? If so, can the target vary in the Protection and Conservation Zones?
RESPONSE: The nitrate target concentrations do not vary within each zone. The project-specific
reference arises because septic systems will not be commonly situated in the Existing Community
Zone, where most development is on public sewer. The yield analysis and placement of septic
systems will be on a project-by-project basis.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 2M2a supports the identification of “innovative
technologies that may be appropriate for the design, installation, and maintenance of on-site
wastewater treatment systems to minimize impairment to ground water or surface water quality due
to elevated nitrate concentrations and other pollutant loads from septic systems provided the
systems meet the minimum standards of N.J.A.C 7:9A.” Where innovative technologies are
proposed that would improve septic treatment, the Council should permit waivers to the septic
density standards to allow use of such technologies and subsequent increases in septic density. The
Council should encourage the use of advanced septic technologies wherever possible.
RESPONSE: The Council does encourage the use of proven advanced wastewater treatment
technologies. However, their use does not waive the yield analysis based on the applicable nitrate
standard as nitrate is just one indicator of water quality.
98
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Wanaque Valley Regional Sewage Authority sewage
plant is near capacity, and has operated over capacity in the past. The EPA grant does not allow
expansions of the plant.
RESPONSE: This capacity limitation will be a factor that may be addressed in the Plan
Conformance process.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that septic density in Highlands areas designated for growth
should be strictly regulated to avoid contamination of groundwater in border towns. Almost 100
residences in Chatham Township draw their drinking water from private wells.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council does not have authority in border towns and must work in
cooperation with NJDEP to address these issues. Objective 2L2h does require that new
developments using septic systems use a design that protects untreated well water quality, which
applies both to the project and nearby land uses.
COMMENT: A few comments stated support for Objectives 2J4b, 2K3d and 2K3f, although there
are reservations about how they will affect future agriculture. Any landowner, regardless of whether
he/she is actually the one who chooses to exercise the ability to cluster and receives the financial
benefits, has real limits imposed on the remaining agricultural land that could devalue the farm in the
future because the options for use are curtailed. It is not clear whether these limits apply if the
density is transferred off the farm to another location.
RESPONSE: The clustering provisions have changed in new Policies 2J4 and 2K3. If septic system
density were transferred through some type of non-contiguous clustering, deed restriction or
Transfer of Development Rights, then the yield associated with that property would be removed.
The remaining farmland must be protected from further development. This is not a loss of value,
because the development value was already transferred from that portion of the property.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that the Existing Community Zone is where the majority of
development is supposed to take place, but strict interpretation of this policy may result in limiting
development activities in the ECZ (Policy 2J5).
RESPONSE: The extension of public water infrastructure in the Existing Community Zone is
discussed in new Objective 2J4c. Development in that zone in intended to be both protective of
natural resources and in accordance with the smart growth principles of the RMP.
COMMENT: Several comments expressed concern that the nitrate dilution standard of 2 mg/L in
the ECZ is too restrictive and will eliminate any meaningful economic development within the area
where growth is supposed to occur.
RESPONSE: The 2 mg/L standard is also applied through the new Water Quality Management
Planning rules (N.JA.C. 7:15). Therefore, that standard will be applied regardless of the RMP ECZ
standards. More dense development is thereby encouraged to use sewer extensions.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that extensions of sewers in the Preservation Area, or
creation of community onsite treatment systems, should be banned except where otherwise
explicitly mentioned in the Act, e.g. health and safety. That would not include serving new cluster
development.
RESPONSE: The goals regarding the extension of public infrastructure into the Preservation Area
(Goal 2I) have been clarified to ensure their consistency with the provisions of the Highlands Act
and the NJDEP Highlands Rules (N.JA.C. 7:38). Cluster development is not one of the allowable
99
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
circumstances.
COMMENT: One comment noted that since placement and design of septic systems is already
regulated, it is assumed that the extra requirements have to do with maintenance and monitoring.
Specifics should be outlined and information about who will pay should be provided.
RESPONSE: Specifics regarding wastewater systems maintenance are discussed further in RMP
program Wastewater Systems Maintenance. Depending on the type of management structure set-up
(i.e., utility authority, municipal permit program), the costs will be borne by homeowners,
municipalities, or some combination.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that there is allowance for too much development and too
many loopholes permitting extension of sewers and the use of the nitrate model that does not
accurately determine how much additional pollution can be added before impacts on human health
occur.
RESPONSE: The septic system yields are based on a nitrate dilution model used widely in
temperate areas of the United States, with conservative factors based on the low nitrate targets and
the use of drought ground water recharge instead of average annual recharge. The potential for
sewerage extensions and creation of new facilities is very limited by the requirements in the
Highlands Act and the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP suggests background nitrate dilution
concentration of 0.83 mg/L be used to establish septic density, which is a very low threshold. State
Plan technical reports indicate that a target water quality standard for nitrate of 3 mg/L was
supportable for Category 1 Water areas. Pine Barrens region uses a 2 mg/L standard. EPA safe
water standard is 10 mg/L. The Land Use Capability nitrates map indicates that everything south of
Route 80 equals or exceeds 0.83 mg/L. What does this mean for development? Will it be precluded
since it already exceeds threshold?
RESPONSE: The nitrate targets applied to each zone are discussed in Policy 2L2. They are used as
the basis for determining allowable septic system yields based on developable lands in each
municipality, subwatershed and Zone. Use of these targets limits does not preclude development.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that the RMP gives highest priority for available sewer
capacity to extending service to failing septic systems. The RVRSA agreed with that priority. They
request that the Highlands Council advise the Authority of all areas currently served by septic
systems that should be connected to the RVRSA. RVRSA provides sewer capacity to the nine
members it serves on a first come first serve basis. A reserve fund is maintained to provide
treatment capacity for individual septic systems that fall within the approved Sewer Service Area.
RESPONSE: The areas served by septic systems that may need to connect to public sewer to
alleviate a public concern have not been identified, but the basis for such delineations is provided in
Chapter 5. As the Council proceeds with the Plan Conformance process, some areas will be
identified. However, not all areas will be connected to sewer depending on their proximity to
existing infrastructure, and the suitability of the parcel to be modified with a septic system meeting
current state standards under N.JA.C. 7:9A.
COMMENT: One comment noted that to “Allow water resource transfers between sub watersheds
only when there is no other viable alternative and where such transfers would demonstrably not
result in impairment of resources in any watershed. Potential effects on upstream and downstream
sub watershed should be included in any such evaluation (page 129).” Would the Highlands Council
100
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
consider a water resource transfer in the case of Brownfields redevelopment? “Prohibit new,
expanded or extended public water systems unless they are shown to be necessary for and are
approved by the Highlands Council to address documented threat to public health and safety where
no alternative is feasible, to serve a designated Highlands Redevelopment Area, or cluster
development, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through
issuance of a waiver by NJDEP or the Highlands Council, and will maximize the protection of
sensitive environmental resources (page 136).” While this provision acknowledges redevelopment, it
appears as yet another obstacle for the redevelopment of the Hercules tract. “To ensure compliance
with the statutory revocation of designated sewer service areas unless the wastewater collection
systems had been installed by August 10, 2004, and unless extensions are warranted to address
documented threats to public health and safety or are exempt from the Highlands Act (page 135).”
The Township paid for the expansion of the Musconetcong Sewer Authority facility and anticipated
funding it through future connections to the system. With the revocation of the MSA sewer service
area, how will the Highlands Council compensate Roxbury and its taxpayers?
RESPONSE: Sewer service areas in the Preservation Area were revoked by the New Jersey
Legislature through the Highlands Act. Sewer service areas in the Planning Area will be reviewed by
the NJDEP with a consistency determination from the Highlands Council. The eligibility of an area
to be designated a Highlands Redevelopment Area will have a bearing on the inclusion or exclusion
of areas for sewer service.
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to nitrate dilution, Ringwood’s Precambrian
rock aquifers do not act like a homogeneous material so nitrate concentrations cannot be computed
by averaging developed and open space areas throughout the watershed. Water travels randomly
through fractures in this type of bedrock. The complex geology and the fissures in the rock means
that groundwater introduced in one area may emerge somewhere totally different and have nothing
to do with recharge in the area water is being taken from
RESPONSE: The Council’s median nitrate targets and nitrate dilution models do not assume to
model specific concentrations. They are used on a subwatershed-scale to model regional impacts to
ground water quality. A municipality has the opportunity, through Plan Conformance, to apportion
septic systems yields in a manner that addresses the unique attributes of its ground water resources.
COMMENT: One comment stated objection to the Highlands Council establishing a lower nitrate
standard for the Conservation Zone than would apply in the Protection Zone. Given the resource
constraints and significance of the groundwater resources in the Township, the nitrate standards for
the Protection Zone should apply the Environmentally Constrained Conservation Zone to avoid
any degradation to drinking water supplies.
RESPONSE: The median nitrate concentrations were not calculated by subzone. The Protection
Zone standard (0.72 mg/L) is more restrictive than for the Conservation Zone (1.87 mg/L).
COMMENT: One comment noted that if public community water systems can use up to the full
net available water volume, then individual wells and non-public uses will exceed the net available
supply and exacerbate deficits which is inconsistent with RMP policy.
RESPONSE: Through Plan Conformance, local development review, Highlands Project Review,
and interagency coordination, the Highlands Council will review all projected water use against water
availability. Individual domestic well usage, while not likely to be directly approved by the Council,
can be planned using the RMP’s build out and Smart Growth principles during Plan Conformance.
Finally the Water Use and Conservation Plans will be utilized to achieve all these objectives.
101
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the provision of a set resolute limit on impervious cover
would be more desirable. Impervious cover limits such as those being pursued by New Jersey
Conservation Foundation should be set for Highlands Agricultural Resource Areas because limiting
impervious cover is as important to water quality as protecting forest cover. This should be for a
specific site not an entire project area. Prohibit expansion of public infrastructure for all
development in the Preservation Area, including for clusters and redevelopment areas except for
public health and safety, and limit such expansions in the Planning Area to areas adjacent to land
uses of similar density and existing public infrastructure with capacity. Clustering adjacent to current
sewers should only apply to a specific site and not consider other properties in the valley, town, or
geographic area as adjacent as well. Finally, impervious cover limits must apply to the entire site if
clustering is considered, which means that the 9% maximum must apply to all farm and residential
buildings on the farmland portion and the calculation must add in the footprint of the cluster and its
driveways and parking areas as well. There are numerous RMP policies and objectives that relate to
the expansion of infrastructure. For example, Objective 2K3d seems to require that any expansion
of wastewater systems to serve clusters in the Agricultural Resource Area be within or immediately
adjacent to an Existing Area Served (i.e. pipes in the ground), without distinguishing the
Preservation from the Planning Area. Municipalities in planning for clusters and transfers to noncontiguous lots should be required to take both the point and nonpoint loadings and cumulative
impact into consideration as per the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that language be changed by removing “to serve cluster
development, or to provide for minimum practical use in the absence of any alternative through
issuance of a waiver by NJDEP or the Highlands Council . . .” Include following language:
“Expansion of public wastewater collection and treatment systems and community on-site treatment
facilities within the Preservation Area are prohibited expect as necessary for public health and
safety.” Cluster policies as proposed will result in nitrate loads exceeding DEP standards for public
health and will degrade groundwater quality.
RESPONSE: Objective 2K3d has been modified in the RMP. The policies regarding extension of
public infrastructure in the Preservation Area is discussed in Goal 2I and is consistent with the
provisions of the Highlands Act and the NJDEP Highlands Rules (N.JA.C. 7:38). The Highlands
Council supports the use of cluster development as an alternative to conventional subdivision of a
property into equal-sized parcels in the Planning Area, but also supports land preservation and
farmland preservation activities that would reduce the need and desire for both cluster and
conventional development. The RMP has been modified to include requirements, in both the
Preservation and Planning Area, addressing the increase of impervious cover in agricultural
development.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that prohibiting the expansion of waste water treatment
facilities and limiting them in cluster developments is shortsighted and counter intuitive. The
objective should be to improve waste water treatment. Period. On-site treatment facilities can be
highly effective and far more environmentally friendly than pumping wastewater to a bulk treatment
plant and dumping huge amounts of effluent in one place.
RESPONSE: Policy 2K3 has been modified in the RMP. The use of septic systems and on-site,
community wastewater treatment is envisioned in areas of the Protection and Conservation Zones
that are not immediately adjacent to existing infrastructure. When adjacent to existing infrastructure
or in the Existing Community Zone, public infrastructure is envisioned in accordance with the
Smart Growth principles of the RMP to make efficient use of public investment.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that rather than buy into the DEP regulations that limit
102
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
impervious surfaces on farms, the Council should have no limits on such surfaces but instead
require a zero impact design that recharges water on site. The same philosophy should apply to all
areas in the Highlands. Right now, ponds are all but impossible to get approval for. They provide
for both recharge and water use that does not impact the underlying aquifer.
RESPONSE: Agricultural use and development is not defined as Major Highlands Development in
the Preservation Area, so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 do not apply. However, the GPOs of the
RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which addresses agricultural practices
that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In addition, RMP Policy 3D2 and 3D3 require
conservation plans for farms that meet the 3% and 9% impervious cover triggers for new
agricultural or horticultural development regulated under the Highlands Act and subject to the
NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands. The Council will coordinate with the
NJDA, the NJDEP and the NRCS to sustain and enhance agricultural land, the agricultural industry
and natural resources in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments asked why force the expansion of wastewater collection facilities to
accommodate infill and redevelopment areas when on site facilities may be better (and already exist)
and existing capacity can be more productively utilized?
RESPONSE: The use of existing capacity in redevelopment and infill in appropriate locations is
deemed to be a wise use of public utility capacity. The RMP allows for situations where that type of
development will need to be served by on-site wastewater treatment.
COMMENT: One comment notes that the Technical Report Addenda provides septic system
densities for the Highlands Region of 1 septic system per 26.1 acres in the Protection Zone and 10
acres/unit in the Conservation Zone (page 39). However in reviewing the documentation on actual
septic system densities provided in the technical addendum, the average unit per acre varies more
than what was identified. An explanation of the difference between stated densities in the Technical
Addendum and the allowable number would be helpful. Additionally, a description of how nonresidential on-site systems will be determined should be provided. It was also noted that it appears
that the parcel based map used to determine densities does not fully account for all new residential
development. This may alter the actual allowable septic system densities identified in the Technical
Addendum and updated information should be used to determine the allowable number of new
units.
RESPONSE: Septic density will vary because the amount of recharge used in the nitrate dilution
model varies by subwatershed. The densities cited in the comment are representative of the average
density in the respective LUC Zone. Non-residential septic will be assigned a flow equivalent of 1
equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) per 300 gallon of wastewater flow per day.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the Council should increase the amount of water
recharge to groundwater, reduce the consumptive/depletive use of groundwater, and should
maintain the “Green Infrastructure” of the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and believes that the RMP will
help achieve these goals.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that water conservation should occur on golf courses where
they use millions of gallons of potable water to keep grass green.
RESPONSE: Objective 2J6 encourages water recycling/ reuse measures, such as domestic and
institutional gray water systems, where appropriate, to minimize water use in existing land uses. This
objective includes golf courses. NJDEP permit requirements and evolving golf course development
103
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
practice are resulting in the use of highly monitored and computerized irrigation systems that reduce
wastage.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
General
COMMENT: Several comments supported the majority of Agricultural Resources Goals, Policies
and Objectives as written in the 2007 Draft RMP and that much progress has been made from the
first draft to this draft in addressing agricultural concerns.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in these comments.
COMMENT: One comment urged the Council to continue to work with local farmers, the New
Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA), County Agriculture Development Boards (CADB), the
New Jersey Farm Bureau (NJFB) and other agricultural representatives to develop programs that
will support and enhance agriculture in the region and allow for expansion of operations as new
agricultural techniques and technologies become available.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will continue to collaborate and coordinate with all federal,
State, county, municipal, and nonprofit entities that oversee agricultural programs.
COMMENT: One comment stated the Council has no legal jurisdiction over farmland.
RESPONSE: In the Preservation Area, agricultural use and development is not defined as “Major
Highlands Development,” so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 do not apply. However, but the
goals, policies and objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1,
which addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In
addition, RMP Policy 3D2 and 3D3 require conservation plans for farms that meet the 3% and 9%
impervious cover triggers for new agricultural or horticultural development regulated under the
Highlands Act and subject to the NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands.
COMMENT: One comment stated there was no mention of coordination with County Boards of
Agriculture.
COMMENT: One comment stated the title should be changed to Agricultural/Farmland
Resources.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding language to the introduction paragraph to reflect the
importance of agriculture as a resource and that preserving farmland is a significant priority.
RESPONSE: The Agricultural Resource Goals, policies and objectives were updated to address and
incorporate appropriate wording suggestions and the introduction paragraphs were expanded to
address the importance of preserving agricultural land and the viability of the agricultural industry.
COMMENT: One comment stated farmland is not sufficiently protected and policies that
encourage more development of agricultural lands do not support agriculture and the 2007 Draft
RMP should aggressively pursue farmland preservation.
RESPONSE: The Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship Goals, policies and
objectives and Program in Chapter 5 of the RMP were strengthened to sustain and enhance
agricultural land and the viability of the agricultural industry. Several new policies and objectives
were added including creating and maintaining a confidential list of priority agricultural lands to
prioritize the preservation of farmland and several new Right to Farm goals, policies and objectives.
In addition corresponding program components were added.
104
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Specific Goals, Policies and Objectives
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding language to Policy 3A1 and 3A3 stating priority
lands will be permanently preserved.
COMMENT: One comment stated that using a broad definition of soil types in Policy 3A3 may
cause agricultural operations to conflict with other goals of the plan specifically for extremely wet
soils, modified agricultural wetlands such as located in the Great Meadows and Wallkill areas.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
The NJDA and the State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) provided input in including
Prime, Statewide Importance, Unique and Locally Important soils as Important Farmland Soils in
the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the best way to meet the goal of Policy 3A5 is for the
Council to research all potential sources for conservation funding available and hold outreach
workshops for landowners on every preservation option that exists.
RESPONSE: The Council will continue to collaborate and coordinate with all federal, State, county,
municipal, and nonprofit entities to maximize existing funding and stewardship programs.
COMMENT: Several comments asked for clarification on Policy 3A7 and accompanying
objectives.
COMMENT: One comment stated the policy should be expanded to include all agricultural lands
regardless of size.
COMMENT: One comment stated that support of agricultural housing should apply to all farms,
not just those in conservation areas.
COMMENT: Another comment requested limiting the policy to family and farm worker housing.
COMMENT: One comment requested revisions to Policy 3A8 to delete the word “encourage” and
replace it with “require” and provide clarification on the term “agro-forestry.”
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should prepare agro-forestry guidance for
landowners and municipalities with open space.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that Policy 3A9 and Objective 3A9a should include the use
of Forest Stewardship Plans rather than Forest Management Plans and the accompanying Objective
3A9a should be clarified with “NJDEP” and “conservation experts.”
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions for
Policies 3A7 through 3A9.
COMMENT: One comment asked for clarification on the use of the term “credits” in Policy 3A13
and if the intent is to allow expenses incurred in the defined conservation activities and grants to
count toward meeting the financial criteria of farmland assessment.
COMMENT: Another comment requested the addition of “protection and enhancement of wildlife
and rare, threatened and endangered species habitat, protection of riparian areas, rare plants,
Significant Natural Areas, vernal pools” to the Policy.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
The term “credits” in Policy 3B4 (former Policy 3A13) has been clarified to “support incentives and
funding opportunities” and the intent is to promote existing Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) cost-share programs and other innovative
programs for best management practices.
COMMENT: In reference to Goal 3B and its accompanying policies and objectives one comment
asked what is meant by “agricultural viability.”
105
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment suggested that Policy 3B1 require a Resource Management System
Plan for public owners leasing lands.
COMMENT: One comment for Policy 3B2 suggested adding “including, but not limited to” in
reference to the types of programs.
COMMENT: Another comment stated Policy 3B2 needed clarification on innovative practices,
because agriculture health care, banking practices, housing and labor don’t differ from the general
population.
RESPONSE: Agricultural viability for a farm unit means the farm is capable of working,
functioning and developing the necessary financially sustainable practices in order for the farm to
continue to exist and be profitable over the long term as an independent unit. The viability of
Highlands Region farming depends upon a number of things, including but not limited to a healthy
agricultural environment and land base that encourages long-term, commercially significant
agriculture. Agricultural innovative practices differ from the general population in that the practices
support sustainability and viability of the agricultural industry. The RMP was updated to address or
incorporate appropriate wording suggestions and the definition of agricultural viability will be added
to the Sustainable Agriculture Technical Report.
COMMENT: One comment stated farmer outreach and education about the availability of state
and federal funding programs should be included in Policy 3B3. Another comment stated Policy
3B3 should include the addition of programs for “sustainable, non-detrimental” agriculture.
COMMENT: Another comment stated Policy 3B3 should include the addition of programs for
“sustainable, non-detrimental” agriculture.
COMMENT: One comment for Policy 3B4 suggested adding “including, but not limited to” in
reference to the types of programs and adding organic farming, road side stands, and community
commercial kitchens for value-added products.
COMMENT: One comment suggested Policy 3C1 and 3C2 should be combined and clarified and
additional water or wastewater infrastructure should be prohibited unless to address an existing
public health concern, for family and farm labor housing or limited agricultural infrastructure.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address and incorporate appropriate suggestions for
Policies 3B3 through 3C2.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for Policy 3D1, but cautioned such systems often do
not provide the benefits claimed. For instance the Pineland’s Commissions experience in this area
should be examined and prior to approval alternative systems should be thoroughly evaluated and
peer reviewed.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 3D2 should mention organic farming techniques.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding the Right to Farm Act provisions in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 4:1C1-et seq. to Policy 3E3 and that this policy should address all regulations, not just
development regulations.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address and incorporate appropriate suggestions for
Policies 3D1 through 3E3.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 3E1 and 3E2 should include “Agriculture Retention
Plans” because the plan provides for a much broader view of the agricultural industry as outlined in
the NJDA’s Agricultural Smart Growth Plan and the SADC’s new rules require municipal Planning
Incentive Grant applications and Comprehensive County Plans that mirror the elements outlined in
the Smart Growth Plan.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 3E1 should be amended for the Highlands Council
106
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
to work with the SADC to amend requirements for County Farmland Preservation Plans, because
the SADC has recently developed standards for the development of Farmland Preservation Plans
and many counties, including Morris are developing plans in conformance with these new
guidelines.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Farmland Preservation Plans required through Plan
Conformance should recognize agricultures impacts on water quality.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address and incorporate appropriate wording suggestions
for Policies 3E1 and 3E2. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, SADC and CADBs through
the RMP Plan Conformance process on master plans and development regulations including the
Agriculture Retention/Farmland Preservation Plans.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a new policy to assure agricultural activities in
carbonate rock areas do not pose risks to groundwater through the use of karst and that an outreach
and education program should be developed for karst areas.
RESPONSE: Policy 1K4 and the Program on Carbonate Rock Areas in Chapter V of the RMP
address protecting public health and safety and the quality of ground waters from inappropriate land
uses and pollutant discharges in Carbonate Rock Areas.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a new policy and objective for designating Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR) program sending areas for farmland preservation in the Preservation
Area and Planning Area and implementation of such a TDR program.
RESPONSE: The goals, policies and objectives and Program for Landowner Equity address
farmland preservation through the Highlands Development Credit (HDC) Program, the Highlands
regional transfer of development rights program.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a new policy in reference to support proposals to
enhance the long-term viability of the agriculture industry in the Highlands Region through
innovative programs with regard to sustainable and organic agriculture.
RESPONSE: Policy 3B5 and the program in Chapter 5 of the RMP, Implementation of Strategies
to Sustain and Enhance the Viability of the Agricultural Industry, address sustainable and organic
agriculture.
Agricultural Sustainability and Viability
COMMENT: Several comments requested creating a dedicated funding source to preserve
farmland.
COMMENT: One comment stated that young farmers will not be able to afford additional costs to
ensure consistency with the 2007 Draft RMP and increased costs will have a negative impact on the
struggling farm industry.
COMMENT: One comment stated that farmers need other income opportunities to supplement
traditional farm income.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and will coordinate and collaborate with all
federal, State, county, municipal, and nonprofit entities to maximize existing and
alternative/innovative funding and stewardship programs to promote the sustainability of
agricultural land and viability of the agricultural industry.
COMMENT: Several comments asked for a description or definition of sustainable agriculture and
107
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
sustainable agricultural practices.
RESPONSE: The Sustainable Agriculture Technical Report includes a definition of sustainable
agriculture based on the 1990 Farm Bill and a discussion on sustainable agricultural practices. A
condensed definition of the term means an integrated system of plant and animal production
practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term satisfy human food needs,
enhance environmental quality and natural resources, make efficient use of nonrenewable resources
by integrating, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls, sustain the economic
viability of farm operations, and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. This
definition was added to the RMP Glossary.
COMMENT: One comment stated that additional business opportunities should not be allowed on
farms as a matter of right and home businesses should have strict standards to be sure that there are
no negative impacts to Highlands natural resources.
COMMENT: Several comments stated the plan freezes agriculture in place and needs to take into
account that agriculture will have to grow, adapt and evolve in the future in order to remain a viable
industry in New Jersey.
COMMENT: One comment stated the 2007 Draft RMP is too limiting in what farmers can do and
there is little opportunity or description of the need for the farm operation to adapt over time.
RESPONSE: Agricultural use and development is not defined as Major Highlands Development,
so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 for the Preservation Area do not apply. However, the Goals,
policies and objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which
addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In addition,
RMP Policy 3D2 and 3D3 require conservation plans for farms that meet the 3% and 9%
impervious cover triggers for new agricultural or horticultural development regulated under the
Highlands Act and subject to the NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands.
The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, the NJDEP and the NRCS to sustain and enhance
agricultural land, the agricultural industry and natural resources in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment asked that “economic benefits” provided by the Regions agriculture
be quantified.
COMMENT: One comment asked for the inventory of farm assessed lands to include conversion
figures to be produced on an annual basis.
RESPONSE: One of the goals of the RMP is to monitor and track long-term successes of the RMP
(see Chapter 6 Implementation, RMP Monitoring). The RMP Monitoring Program and associated
Monitoring Review Report will evaluate the progress in achieving the goals of the RMP through
implementation of policies and programs.
COMMENT: One comment stated the way the plan is currently written, if a farmer wishes to
construct a new farm building or residence, a conservation easement may be forced on the
remainder of the property without compensation and any clauses of this nature should be removed
from the plan.
RESPONSE: There is no mandate in the RMP requiring a farmer to place a conservation easement
on their property in order to construct a building or residence. The Garden State Preservation Trust
legislation requires that direct acquisitions by Green Acres and the SADC be from willing sellers.
The Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship Program in Chapter 5 of the RMP include
a program component on willing sellers.
108
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Stewardship Programs, Conservation Plans and Water Use
COMMENT: All policies and objectives referring to Conservation Plans should be clarified to state
that the plans are prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or appropriate
staff and approved by the local Soil Conservation District.
RESPONSE: The RMP policies and objectives were updated to reflect the wording suggestion.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that proper management of nutrient pollution from
agricultural areas should be mandatory and that the Highlands Council, State and federal
government should provide oversight, funding and resources in implementing best management
practices in coordination with the NJDA and the NJDEP to protect Highlands water quality.
RESPONSE: RMP Policy 3D2 and 3D3 require conservation plans for farms that meet the 3% and
9% impervious cover triggers for new agricultural or horticultural development regulated under the
Highlands Act and subject to the NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands.
The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, the NJDEP and the NRCS to promote existing NRCS
and FSA cost-share programs and alternative/innovative programs for best management practices
that protect and enhance Highlands water quality.
COMMENT: One comment stated the 2007 Draft RMP should specifically prohibit the clearing of
existing trees for open agricultural use.
RESPONSE: Policy 1A2 and accompanying Objective 1A2c and the Forest Resource Management
and Sustainability Program in Chapter 5 of the RMP address the protection of forested areas. The
clearing of trees for agricultural or horticultural development must meet the requirements of the
Highlands Act. An activity conducted in accordance with an approved woodland management plan
pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1964, c.48 (C.54:4-23.3) or the normal harvesting of forest products in
accordance with a forest management plan approved by the State Forester are exempt from the
provisions of the Highlands Act and the RMP. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA and the
NJDEP State Forester to provide guidance for the development of Forest Management Plans that
improve the maintenance of ecosystem and water resource values of the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested extending strict restrictions to protect not only prime
soils, but statewide, unique, and locally important soils and agricultural expansion or development
that reduces water quality should not be permitted.
RESPONSE: Policy 3A2 and Policy 3A4 in the RMP seek to promote farmland preservation and
limit non-agricultural uses on all Important Farmland Soils within the Agricultural Resource Areas
and accord priority to the preservation of agricultural lands within Agricultural Priority Areas.
COMMENT: One comment stated that allowable agricultural uses implied by language in the goals,
policies and objectives are too broad and that this will result in agricultural use conflicts from
improper farm operations not subject to BMPs.
COMMENT: One comment stated the use of phrases such as “support the resource protection
requirements of the RMP,” “conform to the resource values of the Highlands Region” and
“additional standards to prevent degradation of natural resources” allows municipalities to use their
discretionary planning and regulatory powers to set their own restrictions on agriculture. The farmer
will have to spend time and money to prove that what they plan to do is exempt under the DEP
Highlands Rules, governed by the NJDA Agricultural Development in the Highlands Rules, or
permitted by the Right to Farm Act. The Highlands Council together with the NJDA, the NRCS
109
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
and other agricultural agencies, must develop a Memorandum of Agreement to streamline any
required natural resource review or to accept Farm Conservation Plans as evidence that Highlands
resources have been considered and protected.
RESPONSE: Agricultural use and development is not defined as Major Highlands Development,
so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 do not apply in the Preservation Area. However, the Goals,
policies and objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which
addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In addition,
RMP Policy 3D2 and 3D3 require conservation plans for farms that meet the 3% and 9%
impervious cover triggers for new agricultural or horticultural development regulated under the
Highlands Act and subject to the NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands.
The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, the NJDEP and the NRCS to sustain and enhance
agricultural land, the agricultural industry and natural resources in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that agriculture should have priority for water use and for
assurance that adequate water will be provided to farms in the Preservation Area so that crop
irrigation is not impacted.
RESPONSE: Policy 2B4d and the Analysis of Water Use Efficiency for Agriculture & Irrigation in
Chapter 5 of the RMP address prioritizing water needs for agriculture and collaborating with the
NJDA, NJDEP and Rutgers Cooperative Extension to address water use for agriculture in the
Highlands. The Council will coordinate with these entities to sustain and enhance agricultural
operations in the Highlands.
Impervious Cover
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 3A14 should be changed or deleted. The goal
should not be to restrict impervious surfaces on farms, but to eliminate the environmental impact of
impervious surfaces on the water supply. Deed restrictions should not be used to accomplish this,
nor should regulations limit the use of the land in any way. The goal should be to assist farmers in
designing buildings that minimize the impact of changes to the water supply given that there are no
viable alternatives to the use of impervious cover. In addition, many farmers have suffered erosion
and loss of farmland due to impervious cover from developments above the farm and flooding of
streams that historically do not flood.
COMMENT: One comment stated this policy should require municipalities in all zones and areas
to include in their ordinances the NJDA Agricultural Development in the Highlands Rules and
definitions.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested revising all policies and objectives referring to
agricultural impervious cover triggers to be consistent with the NJDA Rules for Agricultural
Development in the Highlands. These rules set triggers rather than caps to allow flexibility for the
diverse activities farmers may need to undertake to be viable.
RESPONSE: Policy 3D1 (former Policy 3A14) and Policies 3D2 and 3D3 (former 3A11 and 3A12)
were updated to incorporate appropriate wording suggestions. The Council will coordinate with the
NJDA and the NRCS to assist farmers in maximizing existing and alternative programs for best
management practices that sustain and enhance agricultural land and the agricultural industry in the
Highlands.
COMMENT: One comment urged the Council to implement a specific incentive program for
landowners in the Highlands Region who wish to permanently restrict impervious cover through
110
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
farmland preservation as soon as possible to avoid further loss of agricultural soils.
COMMENT: One comment suggested adding a new policy to establish an incentive program for
landowners permanently restricting the amount of impervious cover through farmland preservation.
RESPONSE: Policy 3D1 (former Policy 3A14) addresses landowners permanently restricting the
amount of impervious cover through the use of federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program
(FRPP) funds and other initiatives and the Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship
Program in Chapter 5 of the RMP includes a new discussion on FRPP.
Agricultural Resource Area and Agricultural Priority Area Mapping
COMMENT: One comment asked if the entire township is in the Agricultural Resource Area
(ARA) does this preclude non-residential development.
RESPONSE: The policies of the RMP seek to promote farmland preservation and limit nonagricultural uses within the ARA and accord priority to the preservation of agricultural lands within
Agricultural Priority Areas, but do not restrict non-residential development from the ARA.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the Draft Final RMP promotes farmland
preservation only in the ARA and that contradicts the provisions to promote locally grown food,
because many of these farms are not in the ARA and farmland preservation should be promoted
equally throughout the entire Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The ARA was spatially delineated to represent the portion of the Highlands Region
with the largest concentration of active farms to promote sustainability of agriculture and viability of
the agricultural industry throughout the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated the mapping indicates there is very little land available for food
production and there isn’t much assistance for a farmer to change crops.
RESPONSE: Policy 3B1 seeks to encourage private and public owners of lands within an
Agricultural Resource Area to lease open lands to farmers and/or to manage open space lands in a
manner which is compatible with adjoining agricultural uses. The Highlands Act established specific
goals in the Highlands Region relating to the protection and preservation of agriculture including the
preservation of farmland; the promotion of compatible agricultural, horticultural, recreational, and
cultural uses and opportunities; and the promotion and expansion of those opportunities and uses.
The Council will coordinate with the NJDA to meet these goals.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for agricultural priority mapping.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in the comment.
COMMENT: One comment stated the 2007 Draft RMP is unclear in what farmers are allowed to
do, unclear as to what farmers can do in the ARA regardless of zone and there needs to be a process
for a landowner to petition to be in an ARA.
RESPONSE: Agricultural use and development is not defined as Major Highlands Development,
so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 in the Preservation Area do not apply. The goals, policies and
objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which addresses
agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and safety. In addition the NJDA
Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands applies to all agricultural or horticultural
development in the Highlands. Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship goals, policies
and objectives and Program in Chapter 5 of the RMP seek to promote farmland preservation and
limit non-agricultural uses within the ARA.
111
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should review all criteria used to prioritize the
preservation of farmland in the Agricultural Priority Areas and produce a clear and accurate list of
actual priorities.
RESPONSE: The Council has reviewed all criteria used to delineate the Agricultural Priority Areas
(APA) and developed a Confidential Priority List of agricultural lands in the APA to prioritize the
preservation of farmland (see new Objective 3A4a).
Cluster Development
COMMENT: Several comments asked for clarification on Policy 3A10 and accompanying
objectives.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for Objective 3A10c to the extent that clustering is
promoted as a method of reducing the impact of development permitted under the Highlands Act
and the 2007 Draft RMP. Also, the comment stated clustering should be afforded greater flexibility
in the Planning Area including variations in the 80% set aside requirement when addressing on-site
design considerations and the Highlands Council has received a great many comments voicing
displeasure with the cluster concept, however these dissenters are interested primarily in stopping all
development, not with the site design benefits of clustering.
COMMENT: One comment stated the strong support for the 2007 Draft RMP’s consistent
requirements for clustering in all of its definitions, the use of on-site wastewater treatment where
appropriate, and the provisions for water service when clusters help to preserve agriculture. If the
thousands of single family residential exemptions granted by the Highlands Act are exercised, the
prospect that very large lot zoning would carve up the most productive farmland all over the Region
is a possibility. This would make the goal of enhancement of agricultural viability nearly
inconceivable.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the 2007 Draft RMP must enable rural communities across
the entire Highlands Region, regardless of zone or area, to manage future growth in a way that
protects the best farmland through innovative planning tools such as clustered conservation
development or lot-size averaging.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and the Cluster/Conservation Design
Development goals, policies and objectives and program have been expanded, clarified and updated
in the RMP to address and incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: Several comments stated opposition to mandatory clustering and cluster
development on agricultural land and requested revisions to the goals, policies and objectives that
prohibit non-agricultural development on farmland and agricultural soils.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but determined that the mandatory
clustering provision was appropriate for the Agricultural Resource Area. These policies are
consistent with the requirements of the Highlands Act to ensure the continued viability of
agriculture in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated, in respect to Objective 3A10d, forcing municipalities to
enforce conservation easements and other aspects of the 2007 Draft RMP is not practical and
should be removed.
COMMENT: Another comment stated support for the use of conservation easements, but limiting
the potential easement holder to municipalities and the Council is too limiting and the easement will
be too complex for a municipality to monitor and enforce.
112
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment requested the addition of “a qualified nonprofit organization” to hold
and monitor easements.
RESPONSE: Under the SADC Farmland Preservation Program municipalities, counties and the
SADC monitor and enforce agricultural easements. Qualified non-profit land trust organizations
were added to Objective 3A5c as an option in monitoring and enforcing easements for
environmentally sensitive lands preserved through a cluster project.
COMMENT: One comment stated that agricultural housing should be encouraged in the cluster
development area instead of in the preserved area of the cluster and that all agricultural activities
should be strictly regulated to prevent degradation of water quality and water depletion and be
required to implement best management practices.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the cluster policies as proposed will result in nitrate loads
exceeding DEP standards for public health and will degrade groundwater quality, and the 2007 Draft
RMP must have its own unique standards for cluster.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development goals, policies and objectives and
program have been expanded, clarified and updated in the RMP to address and incorporate
appropriate wording suggestions. Regarding septic systems, the RMP provisions are more restrictive
than NJDEP’s requirements in the Water Quality Management Planning Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:15. The
preserved farmland in the cluster project area dedicated to agricultural purposes must develop and
implement an NRCS Farm Conservation Plan that addresses the protection of water and soil
resources.
Right to Farm and Farmland Assessment Act
COMMENT: Several comments stated the Right to Farm Act is important to ensure farming
remains viable and requested additional discussion and policies and objectives on the Right to Farm
Act provisions. In addition there should be coordination with the SADC Right to Farm Program,
the CADBs, Cooperative Extensive offices, and Boards of Agriculture.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address and incorporate new goals, policies and objectives
(Policy 3E3 and 3E4) and a new program discussion on the Right to Farm Act (see Chapter 5).
COMMENT: Several comments stated the Right to Farm Act overrides the Highlands Act and the
2007 Draft RMP and agricultural activity should be exempt since it’s regulated by the NJDA.
COMMENT: Several comments stated Right to Farm provisions do not override the natural
resource and environmental protection standards of the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: Agricultural or horticultural use and development are not defined as “Major
Highlands Developments,” so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 in the Preservation Area do not
apply. However, the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP apply through the Right to Farm Act,
N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct threat to public health and
safety. In addition, Policy 3D2 and 3D3 in the RMP address the 3% and 9% impervious cover
triggers for agricultural or horticultural development subject to the NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural
Development in the Highlands.
COMMENT: Several comments stated the Farmland Assessment Act should not be amended and
any changes should be done by the NJDA and the Division of Taxation.
COMMENT: One comment stated land is necessary for agricultural production and very expensive
in New Jersey. Major changes to Farmland Assessment would make most New Jersey farms no
113
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
longer economically viable and result in loss of farmland. The RMP should be careful when
considering any changes to the statewide policy of the Farmland Assessment Act. Many qualified
and educated citizens have carefully reviewed the Act over the last 43 years. However, the RMP
should address the preservation of forestland through funding for fee simple or easement
acquisition, and require the owners, private or public, to have Woodland Management Plans
approved by the State Forester. In seeking funding opportunities for acquisition, some funding
should be set aside for the Highlands Council, in cooperation with the State Forester, to develop
criteria to cost-share forest stewardship practices with the landowners in order to maintain healthy
forests.
COMMENT: One comment stated the 2007 Draft RMP should not promote changes to farmland
assessment, but requires forestry and farm owners to work together with the Highlands Council to
make the plan a workable document.
RESPONSE: Policy 3B4 (former Policy 3A13) in the RMP was updated to remove the
“amendment of the Farmland Assessment Act” and clarified to “support incentives and funding
opportunities.” The Forest Resource Management and Sustainability Program in Chapter 5 of the
RMP and Objective 1B1b seek to implement programs which encourage owners and operators of
farmland with woodlots to obtain approved Forest Management Plans or Forest Stewardship Plans
that conform to the protection standards of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested advocating for the passage of a Land Stewardship
Assessment Act.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for farmland assessment for forest lands.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment.
Definitions
COMMENT: One comment stated “impervious surface,” “agricultural impervious surface” and
“agriculture impervious cover” are used interchangeably and using different terms is confusing,
because the Glossary only defines “agricultural impervious cover.”
RESPONSE: Agricultural impervious cover and impervious surface do not have the same
definitions. “Agricultural Impervious Cover” means agricultural or horticultural buildings,
structures, or facilities with or without flooring, residential buildings, and paved areas, but shall not
mean temporary coverings (Section 3 of the Highlands Act, hereinafter “Section 3”). “Impervious surface”
means any structure, surface, or improvement that reduces or prevents absorption of stormwater
into land, and includes porous paving, paver blocks, gravel, crushed stone, decks, patios, elevated
structures, and other similar structures, surfaces, or improvements (Section 3). The Agricultural
Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship Goals, policies and objectives and Program in Chapter 5 of
the RMP were updated to address consistent use of agricultural impervious cover and impervious
surface.
COMMENT: Several comments asked what “compatible agriculture” means and does it include
direct marketing, road side stands, agri-tourism and community supported agriculture?
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act states that one of the goals of the RMP is to promote compatible
agricultural, horticultural, recreational, and cultural uses and opportunities within the framework of
protecting the Highlands environment. Compatible agriculture in this context includes agricultural
and non-agricultural development that supports existing agricultural practices, but does not harm
Highlands resources, and includes direct marketing, road side stands, agri-tourism and community
114
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
supported agriculture.
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
General Comments
COMMENT: One comment suggested the section should be amended to include recreational
resources and these should be inventoried, similar to the approach for scenic resources. The
comment suggests that a recreational resource inventory be required as part of the project review
process.
RESPONSE: The RMP discusses Land Preservation and Stewardship in goals, policies, objectives
and programs and calls for the inventory of “private and public open space” in the Highlands. The
Highlands Council, through the Plan Conformance process, intends to work cooperatively with
municipalities and counties in identifying preserved lands including easements. The Council will also
be instituting a grants program to assist municipalities and counties in conforming to the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that a member of the State Historic Preservation Office be
formally attached to the Highlands staff to perform reviews that are outside the Council’s statutory
authority.
RESPONSE: The Council will continue to work cooperatively with the State Historic Preservation
Office to achieve the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that project review that simply determines the presence or
absence of a resource is not sufficient to protect the resource. It was suggested that every resource
should be considered in context and decisions should be made to prevent degradation of the
context. The terms “context” and “degradation” should be included in the glossary.
RESPONSE: The RMP establishes goals, policies, objectives and programs that are geared toward
protection of historic, cultural, archaeological and scenic resources. Standards to achieve this
protection will be part of the Plan Conformance process. The glossary includes terms that are used
throughout the RMP as a means to support greater understanding of the intent of the various
sections of the RMP. The term “degradation” will be defined in the Plan Conformance standards.
The term “context” has not been defined because it will vary from one resource to another.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP should not require or encourage regional or
municipal plans for historic, cultural, archaeological or scenic resources unless a consensus of what
“scenic” is has been agreed upon by a wide diversity of stakeholders and a method to compensate
landowners for possible property value impacts has been established.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” allows for public input relative to scenic resource
nominations. Issues related to management of those resources will be outlined during the
nomination process.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that conforming municipalities and counties should
incorporate a broad based education and consensus building approach relative to the protection and
enhancement of historic and scenic resources.
RESPONSE: Education and outreach are important components of the historic, cultural,
archaeological and scenic resource protection programs.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that conforming municipalities that want to set standards
115
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
higher than those developed by the Highlands Council for use throughout the Region have the
higher standards reviewed and approved by the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act, in Section 14, specifically makes provision for municipalities and
counties to “adopt revisions to its master plan, development regulations, or other regulations” . . .
“that are stricter, as determined by the council, than the minimum necessary to obtain approval of
conformance with the regional master plan.”
COMMENT: A few comments appealed to the Council to protect and maintain the historic and
scenic character of the Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and appreciates the support for historic and
scenic resource protection.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council did not need a section
addressing protection of scenic resources because land development limitations were sufficient to
protect the existing scenic landscape.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment; however, the Highlands Act mandates that
the RMP address the protection of scenic resources.
COMMENT: One comment supplied information about the Taylor Steel Workers Historic
Greenway in the Borough of High Bridge.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the information.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP include a definition of the term “cultural
landscape.”
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” includes a definition of “cultural landscape.”
Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Plan as written contains more potential than actual
protection and should be strengthened with more specificity. Comments suggested that the
approach to historic resource protection be done in a more holistic manner.
RESPONSE: The Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources section of the RMP has been
amended to provide greater specificity and clarity relative to the protection of historic resources in
the Highlands.
COMMENT: One comment stated that references to the “Secretary of Interior’s standards” are
confusing.
RESPONSE: The Secretary of the Interior has a series of standards and guidelines to guide historic
preservation efforts and related to eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
COMMENT: A few comments proposed that municipalities be required to conduct an inventory of
their historic, cultural and archaeological resources.
RESPONSE: The RMP encourages municipalities and counties to include a historic, cultural and
archaeological survey as part of the Historic Preservation Plan element of the local master plan.
COMMENT: One comment stated that historic farm buildings should be afforded financial
incentives to maintain them and regulations should be flexible enough to allow economically
feasible, adaptive reuse.
116
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Historic Resource Protection Program encourages municipalities to “consider
alternative strategies to protect historic and cultural sites, such as allowing adaptive reuse of support
their protection and maintenance.”
COMMENT: One comment suggested a change in the historic nomination process to be more like
those followed by municipal historic preservation commissions and the term “nomination” be
removed because it indicates a formal consequence. The comment pointed out that there is no
formal consequence or regulation associated with being included in an inventory. The comment
suggested that “designation” would involve background research, formal analysis of integrity and
significance, and possible regulatory action.
RESPONSE: The RMP contains goals, policies, objectives and programs to support the
preservation of historic, cultural and archaeological resources. Included is a policy requiring
conforming municipalities and counties to include minimum standards for the protection and
enhancement of these resources. There is also a policy encouraging the adoption of local historic
preservation ordinances with standards designed to protect these resources through local surveys
and project review. Additionally a procedure will be adopted to update the Highlands Region
Historic and Cultural Resources Inventory.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the project review process require an applicant to
submit a report of any potential historic resource on the subject site or within a delineated area of
potential effect, and that the report be prepared by a professional preservationist. The comment
suggested that any historic resource identified during project review be added to the Highlands
Region Historic and Cultural Resources Inventory.
RESPONSE: The Historic, Cultural, Archaeological section of the RMP includes a requirement
that all development applications include submission of a report identifying historic, cultural and/or
archaeological resources on the subject site and the information gathered through the development
review process be provided to the Highlands Council for consideration in updating the Highlands
Region Historic and Cultural Resources Inventory.
COMMENT: A comment suggested that municipal inventories of historic resources be reviewed by
Highlands Council staff for inclusion in the Highlands Region Historic and Cultural Resources
Inventory.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes a requirement that municipal and county surveys of historic,
cultural and/or archaeological resources be provided to the Highlands Council for consideration in
updating the Highlands Region Historic and Cultural Resources Inventory.
Scenic Resources
COMMENT: A few comments suggested rewording the introductory paragraph regarding scenic
resources.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but did not change text of the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments proposed the addition of a new policy establishing a “Highlands
Council Scenic Resources/Design Advisory Review Board” to facilitate the inventory of scenic
resources and the development of standards to ensure that those resources are not adversely
impacted by development.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
117
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” includes the establishment of a Highlands Scenic Design
Advisory Board to review and evaluate scenic resource nominations.
COMMENT: A few comments proposed that municipalities be encouraged to conduct a scenic
resources inventory, involving local residents, to identify locally significant resources.
COMMENT: A few comments proposed that municipalities be encouraged to establish and
designate a system of local scenic roads and corridors.
RESPONSE: The RMP encourages municipalities, or groups of municipalities and/or counties, to
conduct a scenic inventory(ies) to identify locally and regionally significant scenic resources, and
involve local residents.
COMMENT: A few comments proposed that municipalities be encouraged to establish a scenic
resources design advisory board to review and provide recommendations to municipal boards on
applications that may affect scenic resources.
RESPONSE: The draft for “Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally
Significant Scenic Resources” provides for public outreach in the preparation of the nominations of
scenic resources and a management plan for the future protection of the resources. Municipal
governments may establish advisory bodies as allowed by the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A.
40:55D-1 et seq.).
COMMENT: One comment suggested that definitions and standards related to “scenic” on a
regional basis be established.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” establishes criteria for the designation of regionally
significant scenic resources.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council should use height limitations and setbacks
to protect scenic resources, rather than the approach detailed in the 2007 Draft Plan.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but believes that the management plans
proposed as part of the scenic nominations would provide more resource specific protection
measures.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that Policy 4B2 should be amended to include periodic
reevaluation of scenic resources listed on the Highlands Scenic Resources Inventory.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” requires a “detailed plan for maintaining the integrity of the
scenic resource” into the future.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that a policy be added to encourage the responsible
government entities to determine maintenance needs for scenic resources and act accordingly.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” includes a required management plan component.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the public involvement component of nominating and
evaluating scenic resources is critical and should not rely on minimal outreach, such as posting on a
municipal website. The comment suggested that the public be involved throughout the process.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” requires a public outreach effort that results in “a
118
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
meaningful opportunity to be involved in the identification and evaluation of scenic resource
nominations.”
COMMENT: One comment stated that the nomination and designation of viewsheds of scenic
features must be balanced with the need for management of other natural resources associated with
those lands. There is concern that all woodland viewsheds may be considered scenic and worthy of
protection.
RESPONSE: The management plan component of the draft “Procedure for Nomination,
Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” addresses this
need.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the proposed Highlands Scenic Design Advisory Board
include a forester.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The draft “Procedure for Nomination,
Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” provides for an
advisory board comprised of 7 members with expertise in planning and design, including
environmental design, architecture, historic preservation, ecology and land stewardship.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the use of the term “pristine watersheds” is inaccurate
because it implies original or virgin and no such natural place exists in New Jersey.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The term “pristine watersheds” is used as
part of a quote from the Highlands Act.
Goals, Policies and Objectives
COMMENT: Several comments were concerned with policies related to nomination of historic and
scenic resources and suggested they only be done with the permission of the property owner and
should be kept confidential until the nomination is approved. Comments also suggested that a
process for identifying resources be subject to broadly based consensus and recognition and support
for existing maintenance activities related to agriculture and forestry.
RESPONSE: The local survey process for historic and cultural resources will be conducted through
local public meetings, education and outreach. As such the information will not be confidential;
however, property owners will have opportunities to be involved in the process. The draft
“Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic
Resources” related to scenic resources includes opportunity for broad based public input.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested adding an objective stating that “Any proposed action
that requires federal permits, involves federal grants, or involves other federal actions that could
impact the outstandingly remarkable resource values” of the Musconetcong National Scenic and
Recreational River and the Lower Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, “pursuant to
section 10(a) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, will require review by the National Park
Service, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program.”
RESPONSE: The RMP includes Objective 4B4c that incorporates the suggested language.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested adding new policies for both historic and scenic
resources: “To actively advocate on the federal and state levels for grants and monetary incentives
to aid landowners in the maintenance of these resources.”
119
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The RMP includes policies for both historic and scenic resources advocating “on the
federal and state levels for grants and financial incentives to aid landowners” in the preservation,
protection and maintenance of historic, cultural, archaeological and scenic resources.
COMMENT: One comment was concerned that policies should be amended to indicate that
nominations of resources will only be accepted if they are brought by the local governing body.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” provide for an interested third party, with the endorsement
of the municipality or county, to submit nominations. The RMP also provides for municipal and
county inventory of historic and scenic resources.
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND MOBILITY
COMMENT: A few comments suggested wording edits.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: A few comments were received suggesting that the RMP include additional details
regarding regional airport facilities.
RESPONSE: The Transportation Safety and Mobility goals, policies, objectives and program have
been modified to reflect the seven Highlands regional aircraft facilities.
COMMENT: Many comments were received regarding greater details and protocols for the
Highlands Council Growth Inducing Study and the Transportation Project Review methodology,
particularly regarding how exemptions from the Highlands Act will be identified. A few comments
were received regarding additional details about the shared parking study that is indicated.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and the importance of the Transportation Project
Review procedures and the importance of working in consultation with New Jersey Department of
Transportation (NJDOT) as specified in Section 11.a of the Highlands Act. In response to the public
comments the Highlands Council has modified the Transportation Safety and Mobility goals, policies and
objectives and program to clarify when a growth inducing study may be required and how it will inform the
Transportation Project Review process. Additional details regarding the Transportation Project Review will
be developed in consultation with agencies including but not limited to NJDOT, NJ Transit, NJTPA and
NJDEP and will be available for public comment prior to implementation.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the 2007 Draft RMP is consistent with the NJTPA’s
Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Capital Investment Strategy.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and looks forward to promoting and
supporting a sound and balanced transportation system for the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments were received regarding more details about how the Highlands
Council will work with County Planning Departments in regard to regional transportation planning.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. The RMP policies and Implementation Programs
recognize the role of County Planning Departments and the NJTPA Regional Transportation Plan for interand intra-regional transportation planning.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that more details were required regarding the proposed
update by the Highlands Council to the Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) in support
of the RMP policies.
120
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council, in accordance with the Highlands Act, will evaluate the existing RSIS
for potential updates that support the RMP policies. The process will incorporate public participation and be
initiated post adoption of the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the RMP should address in support of traffic
calming measures the nature of trees along the roadway as a safety concern and the nature of rural
roads and bike/pedestrian safety concerns.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that traffic calming measures shall be conducted as part of
comprehensive circulation planning and incorporate signage and engineering safety in design and
implementation for the safety of Highlands residents and visitors
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that the 2007 Draft RMP Transportation Safety and
Mobility polices should include more details regarding comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian
options, support rail to trail initiatives as historic transportation/recreation corridors, recognize
roadway stormwater concerns, limit impervious surface impacts, require mixed use and transit
options, as well as include the public in the transportation planning process.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and has determined that the Transportation Safety
and Mobility goals, policies, and objectives address these concerns and more detailed analysis will be
considered as part of the development of Plan Conformance standards.
COMMENT: One comment indicated support for the 2007 Draft RMP recognition of agriculture
transportation and safety needs and that more details are needed regarding how agriculture
transportation safety will be implemented.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and looks forward to promoting and supporting a
sound and balanced transportation system for the Highlands Region. Additional details regarding the
Transportation Safety and Mobility Program will be incorporated into the Plan Conformance standards
prepared by the Highlands Council.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP include additional details regarding the
recognition of scenic byways, corridors and viewsheds
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has revised the RMP Transportation Safety and
Mobility goals, policies, objectives and program to recognize scenic byways, corridors, and viewsheds. The
Highlands Council has prepared a draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” in support of the RMP and has incorporated public comment into
the development of the procedure.
COMMENT: One comment was received indicating that the RMP should be revised to include
language regarding the role of the National Park Service, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program
review of projects with respect to activities associated with the Lower Delaware River and the
Musconetcong River as a designated National Scenic and Recreational River.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The Historic, Cultural, Archaeological and Scenic
Resources, Objective 4B4c addresses the need for review by the National Park Service, National Wild and
Scenic Rivers Program.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that greater detail on trails is needed in the Transportation
Technical Report.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the Transportation System Preservation and
Enhancement Technical Report recognized the role of trails and the New Jersey Trails Plan. The importance
of trails and greenways in the Highlands is recognized via a multifaceted approach including trails in concert
with smart growth development principles, Land Preservation, and Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
121
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
and Recreation and Tourism.
FUTURE LAND USE
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that the exemptions allowed by the Highlands Act will
provide for plenty of building.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that the exemptions provided by the Highlands Act will influence
future land use and capacity planning. The RMP Plan Conformance policies include the evaluation of
potential exemptions at the local level in support of comprehensive planning.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that preserving the community character of historic towns
and settlement patterns is an important issue in the Highlands Region. These areas include many of
the Region’s affordable housing units and redevelopment in these areas may destroy neighborhoods
and affordable housing stock.
RESPONSE: The RMP policies support maintaining community character and addressing affordable
housing needs when communities desire to grow or initiate redevelopment. All growth inducing policies of
the RMP are discretionary based on a local desire to grow. Conforming municipalities that pursue growth
shall do so in accordance with the RMP and support community character.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP needs to address septic management and
maintenance.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP Wastewater System Maintenance goals,
policies, objectives and program address septic system management and maintenance for conforming entities.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP should address the development of gas
stations in sensitive environmental areas.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that land uses should address resource protection and smart
growth principles. Permissible uses will be addressed during Plan Conformance and Highlands Project
Review in accordance with the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that the capacity analysis for future development in the
Highlands Region is lacking in the 2007 Draft RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. The Highlands Regional Build Out Technical
Report released by the Council addressed the regional land based capacity analysis for several future
development scenarios in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that the RMP does not provide a clear description of the
treatment of the various resources and the associated standards, or the six overlay zones; it also does
not clearly describe the environmental subzone policies and standards.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and has revised and reorganized the RMP Future
Land Use goals, policies, objectives and program to clarify this information.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP include additional references to affordable
housing and provide further details regarding how affordable housing opportunities might be
achieved within smart growth objectives.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has revised the RMP Housing and Community
Facilities goals, policies, objectives and program to support affordable housing and smart growth
development in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments indicated concerns regarding TDR receiving areas and
122
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
environmentally sensitive lands being in conflict.
RESPONSE: The RMP policies for growth such as potential TDR Receiving Areas are discretionary, shall be
in accordance with the RMP resource protection and smart growth policies, shall evaluate wastewater capacity
and water availability and shall consider community character. In response to comments received requesting
further clarification about potential TDR receiving areas, the Council has modified the Highlands
Development Credit Program in the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that growth was not intended to be restricted in the
Planning Area in the Highlands Region and that this authority was not mandated by the Highlands
Act.
RESPONSE: The RMP was developed for the entire Highlands Region and was blind to the Preservation
and Planning Area boundaries in accordance with the goals of the Highlands Act and Council policies. The
Highlands Act clearly recognizes that the Planning Area includes significant environmentally sensitive
resources and calls for their protection. Conformance to the RMP in accordance with the Highlands Act is
mandatory in the Preservation Area and municipalities in the Planning Area have the ability to opt-in to the
RMP through Plan Conformance. The Council has provided Initial Assessment Grants that permit
municipalities in the Planning Area to evaluate what it may mean at the local level to conform to the RMP
without obligating them to opt-in as part of the grant criteria.
Regional Guidance
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the RMP should prevent sewers and utility
infrastructure from extending into the Preservation Area and sensitive resource areas.
RESPONSE: The goals, policies, and objectives in Chapter 4, Subpart d. Sustainable Development
and Water Resources address standards regarding where the extension of infrastructure is permitted,
encouraged, and prohibited. Policies 2I1 and 2I2 specifically address the Preservation Area in a
manner that is consistent with the Highlands Act restrictions.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the RMP does not allows for mitigation of
natural resource impacts on otherwise worthwhile development properties and believes that the
presence of resources on a parcel will preclude the entire site from being developed. The comment
suggested that these restrictions will have an economic impact to the Highlands and New Jersey.
RESPONSE: Project Review Standards Program in Chapter 4 of the RMP outline the technical
standards for project reviews of applications submitted to or reviewed by the Council to ensure
consistency with the goals, policies, objectives, program requirements, and other provisions of the
RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the map adjustment process is a good addition to the RMP
and inquired about several policies relating to the map adjustment process. Another comment urged
that the Highlands Council allow flexibility in granting adjustments
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The policies and program relating to Map
Adjustments have been updated. Refer to Chapter 4, Subpart b. RMP Updates, Map Adjustments
and Local Build Out Analyses for updated policies and Chapter 6 for the updated program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Existing Community Zone consists of areas that are
already largely developed. The 2007 Draft RMP appropriately directs growth to the Existing
Community Zone; however there are few opportunities to accommodate additional growth. The
Highlands Council must define areas that are not environmentally constrained within the Existing
Community Zone and plan for the needed infrastructure.
123
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The RMP establishes a framework for future growth and economic development in
or adjacent to existing developed areas where adequate public facilities are available. Directing
growth to areas that already have some level of development makes more efficient use of existing
infrastructure and supports the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Potential growth areas
are represented by redevelopment areas, brownfield sites, grayfield sites, cluster development, and
infill in existing communities. The Land Use Capability Map Series and supporting data will be used
by municipalities and counties during Plan Conformance to determine the local land use capability
and identify opportunities for development and redevelopment consistent with the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that RMP zone policies lack specific land use standards.
Another comment suggested that the RMP should include model minimum standards, including
density, for development in the planning area.
RESPONSE: RMP zone policies have been updated and the Goals, Policies, and Objectives in
Chapter 4, Subpart a. Land Use Capability Zones have been updated. Objective 6F6a addresses
voluntary density standards for the Existing Community Zone. The Future Land Use Programs
(Chapter 5) of the RMP outline programmatic approaches for topics including Cluster
Development, Redevelopment, the Smart Growth Manual, Low Impact Development Program, and
the Community Development Design Guidebook, contains strategies to achieve well planned
growth in the Region, and outlines the agenda for future planning and development standards.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the plan would be improved by organizing policies of
particular zones in tables or charts.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has revised the information and
organization of the Land Use Capability Map zones in the RMP and the Plan Conformance
Guidelines.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council should consider the creation of
a process by which “variances” from RMP standards and requirements can be introduced and
reviewed. A Highlands Council “Board of Adjustment” is needed and the New Jersey Senate Bill
S822 was introduced on January 28, 2008 addresses this issue.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and will monitor the progression of Senate
Bill 822 and Assembly Bill 2405 through the legislative process.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that affordable housing should be discussed in the regional
guidance section of the RMP and that higher densities be encouraged in centers, appropriate with
the zone and community character in order to meet affordable housing needs.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the 2007 Draft RMP makes only limited, infrequent and
generalized references to the constitutional obligation of municipalities under the Councils
jurisdiction to address and satisfy their affordable housing obligations.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and directs the reader to the updated RMP
Housing and Community Facilities Program and policies for discussion relating to affordable
housing. These policies specifically address the constitutional obligation as a requirement of
municipal Plan Conformance.
Protection Zone
COMMENT: A few comments suggested adding a policy regarding requiring towns and counties to
create river conservation zones along the Musconetcong River.
124
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: All Highlands Open Waters receive a 300-foot protection buffer. The RMP includes
provisions for Stream Corridor Protection/Restoration Plans, which can be used to address this
comment.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that lands that are critical to preserving water quality and
quantity should be placed in the Protection Zone, such as wetlands, floodplains, and wellhead
protection areas.
RESPONSE: The Protection Zone consists of high resource value lands that are important to
maintaining water quality, water quantity, and sensitive ecological resources and processes. Land
acquisition is a priority in the Protection Zone and development activities will be extremely limited;
any development will be subject to stringent limitations on consumptive and depletive water use,
degradation of water quality, and impacts to environmentally sensitive lands. The LANDS model
uses a 75 acre minimum mapping threshold for the delineation of the Protection Zone. Individual
parcels, or individual natural resource features were not a basis for the LANDS model in delineating
each Zone unless they constituted the minimum mapping threshold. The RMP includes detailed
protection policies for natural resources features in Chapter 4, Part 1.
COMMENT: One comment stated that it is unclear when the Highlands Council supersedes the
DEP in regulation in the Preservation Area, as with the Highlands Act 300-foot buffer for
Preservation Area water bodies versus the RMP’s 1,000-foot vernal pool protection buffer.
RESPONSE: In accordance with the resource assessment requirement in the Highlands Act, the
RMP must provide for resource protection in both the Planning Area and Preservation Area. In the
Preservation Area, the RMP must be as protective as, but may be more stringent than, the NJDEP’s
Preservation Area Rules. The 1,000-foot vernal pool protection buffer is a policy in the RMP to
which conforming municipalities and counties must conform their Master Plans and development
regulations.
COMMENT: One comment questioned the logic behind his property being placed in the
Protection Zone where properties to the east are in the Existing Community Zone and there is
single-family home development to the southwest of his property and public sewer and water are
provided to those properties.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Protection Zone will severely impact a municipality's
potential for nonresidential development and tax stabilization. The Township of Roxbury objects to
the broad brush Protection Zone designation considering the community's relationship to three rail
stations, three Route 80 Interstate interchanges, existing infrastructure and infrastructure investment.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Policy 6C2 is an unjust confiscation of private land with
the creation and extension of Protection Zone into the Planning area. No relief mechanism is
provided to the landowner in the Planning Area.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is a regional planning agency therefore; the LANDS model
was based on a regional-scale approach for the mapping threshold (minimum of 75 acres) for the
delineation of the Protection Zone. Individual parcels were not a basis for the LANDS model in
delineating each Zone.
The Highlands Act mandates the protection of the Region’s natural resources and the RMP includes
protection policies for those resources. The RMP also includes rebuttal provisions for various
natural resources mapping to rebut the Highland Council’s mapping of potentially incorrectly
mapped areas. The Protection Zone delineation is based on the existence of critical environmental
features that justify a protective approach. Land acquisition is a priority in the Protection Zone.
125
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that by using forest as the main indicator of the Protection
Zone, the Highlands Council has chosen to protect habitat rather than water and that forests are not
good at increasing and protecting water supply.
RESPONSE: Numerous indicators, in addition to forested lands, were utilized in delineating the
Protection Zone. Forested lands increase water retention from rainfall and stormwater flows and
contribute to recharging ground water.
Conservation Zone
COMMENT: One comment suggested policy language that would establish river conservation
zones with 300 foot buffers surrounding certain rivers in the Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: In accordance with the policies in the RMP, all Highlands Open Waters are protected
by a 300 foot buffer.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the Conservation Zone would not be
sufficiently protective of natural resources, as compared to a local resource conservation area. The
comment stated disagreement with the policy that allows for the expansion of wastewater treatment
facilities and service areas, or relaxation of nitrate standards, in the Conservation Zone for cluster
development.
RESPONSE: RMP Plan Conformance is intended to align municipal and county plans, regulations,
and programs with the goals, requirements, and provisions of the RMP. Conforming municipalities
may have plans and/or regulations that are more protective than the requirements of the RMP. The
Highlands Council acknowledges the comment regarding cluster development, which is specifically
discussed in the updated Cluster/Conservation Design Development Program and policies. The
RMP is protective of the Conservation Zone resources through policies specific to the Zone and
also resource protection policies that apply across all zones.
COMMENT: One comment questioned the logic behind the selection and development of the
various agricultural indicators that were used to inform the Conservation Zone. In particular, the
use of “Contiguous Farms greater than 250 acres” was questioned. The comment questioned the
ability of the Conservation Zone to accurately identify agricultural areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council coordinated with the New Jersey Department of Agriculture
and the State Agriculture Development Committee in mapping the Conservation Zone and will
continue to coordinate with its State agency partners. As discussed in the Sustainable Agriculture
Technical Report, an effective way to preserve agricultural land is to amass contiguous acreage
(agricultural land mass that is not separated by intervening non-agricultural development other than
roads). The larger the mass of farmland, the greater the opportunity to preserve sufficient acreage to
provide for significant productivity; retain dealers of agricultural equipment and supplies nearby;
avoid conflicts with non-agricultural land uses, and maintain a sense of and support for an
agricultural community. Additional discussion regarding the development of the Land Use
Capability Zone Map can be found in the Land Use Capability Zone Map Technical Report.
Existing Community Zone
COMMENT: Many comments expressed disappointment and/or concern to see Existing
Community Zones in the Preservation Area, with its sensitive natural resources, which seems
contrary to the Act and request that they be removed. It was pointed out that exemptions will allow
significant development in the Preservation Area, and the Existing Community Zone will allow still
126
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
more development.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP allows local governments the ability to pursue
redevelopment in the Existing Community Zone of the Preservation Area in the name of
economics.
RESPONSE: The provisions of the Highlands Act declares that the Highlands Region, in addition
to providing clean and plentiful drinking water, ensures the economic viability of communities
throughout the New Jersey Highlands and that residential, commercial, and industrial development,
redevelopment and economic growth in certain appropriate areas of the New Jersey Highlands. The
identification of Existing Community Zones in the Preservation Area reflects the current existence
of a clearly identifiable land use pattern, and does not reflect the nature of the Conservation or
Protection Zones. Development in the Preservation Area are restricted to very low density uses,
exempt development, and development/ redevelopment that qualifies for limited waivers based on
site specific conditions.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for the allowance of residential growth areas in
water deficit areas.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has had significant discussion regarding
water deficits and the RMP requirement for Water use Conservation Management Plans. The
Highlands Restoration: Water Deficit program and associated policies have been updated in the
RMP in response to public comment. It is important to note that an Existing Community Zone is
not necessarily a focus for future growth, as some of these areas have already reached their capacity.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for Goal 6H, which may result in a possible courtordered or coercive expansions of infrastructure based upon external forces for growth and
development, such as a builder’s remedy lawsuit, or regional growth targets.
RESPONSE: Goal 6H was renumbered to 6F and slightly reworded in the RMP. The goal
articulates the RMP’s goal for supporting appropriate development in the Existing Community
Zone that maximizes existing infrastructure.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested wording edits.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: One comment suggested errors and/or discrepancies in the mapping of the Land
Use Capability Map Zones.
RESPONSE: The identification of overlay zones on the Land Use Capability Zone Map reflects the
existence of a clearly identifiable land use patterns. The Land Use Capability Zone Map may be
adjusted through two means; a Map Adjustment or as a result of an RMP Update. The RMP
Update process is provided for making relevant factual improvement to the RMP, whether regarding
mapped or other information about existing conditions that affects land use capability. The Map
Adjustment process allows for limited changes to the Land Use Capability Zone Map based on local
planning factors; compliance with the protection standards of the RMP must be ensured and no net
loss of resources or resource values may occur, among other limitations. The RMP provides
additional information in Chapter 6 regarding the RMP Updates Program and the Map Adjustments
Program.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for land use restrictions imposed in the Existing
Communities Zone- Environmentally Constrained Subzone, and particularly the lack of description,
policies, and objectives for this zone. The comment also suggested that the lake community zone
127
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
requires policies and objectives.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and Policy 6E2 and Objectives 6E2a and
6E2b address the development of Existing Community sub-zones. A narrative discussion is
included in Chapter 3 Analysis of the Highlands Region, Part 6 Community Character, Subpart d.
Future Land Use. Additional discussion relating to lake management is contained within the Lake
Management Area Program.
COMMENT: One comment requested additional objectives and standards to back up a policy
relating to the encouragement of new growth, where desired by the municipality, and development
in the Existing Community Zone in the form of center and mixed use development.
RESPONSE: The comment is acknowledged and the Future Land Use Programs of the RMP
outline the programmatic approaches for topics including Cluster Development, Redevelopment,
Low Impact Development Program and the Smart Growth and Community Design Handbook (as
addressed in the Chapter 5), contains strategies to achieve well planned growth in the Region, and
outlines the agenda for future planning and development standards.
COMMENT: One comment asked why Highlands municipalities should absorb the burden of strict
standards to conserve water. This unduly burdens Highlands towns and residents and does not
provide an equitable mechanism for sharing the burden of protecting these precious water supplies.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and continues to work to secure a dedicated
funding source to assist in implementing aspects of the RMP. To that end, the Highlands Council
persists in advocating for the imposition of a water user fee as set forth in the RMP. Funding is
already available to address the reasonable costs of Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Existing Community Zone reinforces poor
planning decision of the past.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Existing Community Zone has limited
opportunities for additional growth, as much of it is already developed.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed concern for the RMP approach of channeling growth
and development into the Existing Community Zone. The comment suggested that there is
insufficient utility capacity and any vacant parcels within the Existing Community Zone are too
constrained to be candidates for development.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Existing Community Zone in their municipality does
not have public water or sewer service. The comment expressed the hope that the Highlands
Council will examine on-the-ground conditions before allowing additional development in the
Existing Community Zone.
RESPONSE: The RMP establishes a framework for future growth and economic development in
or adjacent to existing developed areas where adequate public facilities are available. Directing
growth to areas that already have some level of development makes more efficient use of existing
infrastructure and supports the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Potential growth areas
are represented by redevelopment areas, brownfield sites, grayfield sites, cluster development, and
infill in existing communities. Development will be limited in the Highlands Region based on
enhanced environmental standards adopted by the NJDEP and through implementation of the
RMP. Decisions regarding future development will be discussed during Plan Conformance as well
as updated local information. The ability to develop in the Highlands Region will depend upon
RMP zone, water availability, utility capacity, RMP resource protection requirements, local zoning,
and Highlands project review.
128
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for the environmentally sensitive lands that are
included in the Existing Community Zone.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and recognizes that the ability to develop in
the Highlands Region will depend upon RMP zone and policies, local zoning, and Highlands project
review. Environmental features throughout the Highlands Region including those within the
Existing Community Zone such as steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, critical habitat, groundwater
recharge areas, historic/cultural sites, streams and rivers are addressed individually through RMP
standards that apply to all LUC Zones and have been mapped and are available as on-line mapping
tools at the Highlands Council website.
COMMENT: One comment requested the removal of the adjacency provisions in the RMP,
suggesting that this will allow sprawling patterns to continue.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and feels that the RMP establishes a
framework for future growth and economic development in or adjacent to existing developed areas
where adequate public facilities are available. Directing growth to areas that already have some level
of development makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure and supports the protection of
environmentally sensitive areas. The adjacent lands will be evaluated by the Council through Plan
Conformance and Highlands Project Reviews.
COMMENT: A few comments were concerned that RMP policies and regulations within the
Existing Community and Lake Management zones appear to offer numerous openings to developers
that could promote increased development or redevelopment in those areas.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that appropriate growth is allowed and encouraged by the
RMP in the Existing Community Zone, however provided that it is wanted locally, and consistent
with RMP policies and conforming local plans. Policies are written to allow for opportunities for
appropriate development, redevelopment, and infill development. The Lake Management Program
provides details relating to the protection and enhancement of Highlands Lakes and their environs,
including Highlands lake communities.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council, as part of this RMP or as a
priority amendment, should identity where there is infrastructure in the Existing Community Zone
that would allow increases in development and redevelopment.
RESPONSE: The Land Use Capability Map Series provides a series of maps regarding land use
capability and includes the Land Use Capability Zone Map, Land Use Capability Water Availability
Map, Land Use Capability Public Community Water Systems Map, Land Use Capability Domestic
Sewerage Facilities Map, and the Land Use Capability Septic System Yield Map. The Land Use
Capability Map Series provides, among other things, information regarding infrastructure with
additional capacity in the Existing Community Zone. The Land Use Capability Map Series and
supporting data will be used by municipalities and counties during Plan Conformance to determine
the local land use capability. The Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report combined this
information with existing information on land availability to assess the potential for growth in such
areas.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the build out analysis should reflect an endorsement of
the towns involved with any growth. The Highlands Council specifically adopted a resolution to
make growth optional, and they must give deference to the townships in the existing community
zones to opt for growth. The comment suggested that if a town does not want the type of growth
recommended in the RMP, it will be open to builder’s remedy lawsuits.
129
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: Highlands Council policy is that provisions and standards relating to regional growth
activities which increase the intensity of development shall be discretionary for conforming
municipalities and counties. Build out models estimate the extent of growth on an area of land
assuming that all developable land is converted to the uses permitted under the regulatory or policy
framework that has been specified in the model. Municipalities that conform to the RMP are
required to conduct a local build out analysis, consistent with the RMP (Objective 6G4c). During
the local build out analysis, municipalities will have the opportunity to explore scenarios relating to
growth and the planning for affordable housing needs.
Redevelopment
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the redevelopment of existing areas should be the
focus of efforts to accommodate new growth in the Highlands.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that redevelopment of existing commercial districts and
abandoned or contaminated sites should be permitted, regardless of zone type.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and agrees. The RMP establishes Goal 6J,
“Accommodation of regional growth and development need through the reuse and redevelopment
of previously developed areas, including brownfields, grayfields, and underutilized sites.”
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that RMP mapping did not designate growth zones
within the Preservation Area to meet Highlands Act requirements for redevelopment. Another
comment stated that the RMP maps in the Preservation Area should reflect the policy that
development and redevelopment is limited to brownfields and grayfields or areas where the existing
impervious coverage is 70% or greater.
RESPONSE: The Land Use Capability Map identified Existing Community Zones in the
Preservation Area, which are areas characterized by existing development, and thus, may include
sites that are suitable for redevelopment. The Procedures for Highlands Redevelopment Area
Designations establish the process of designating a redevelopment area in the Preservation Area of
the Highlands. The actual determination of impervious surfaces will require a case-by-case analysis
of impervious surface during the Highlands Redevelopment Site Approval process based on a
determination of surfaces that are paved, have a structure upon them, or are one of the specifically
listed surfaces mentioned in the Highlands Act. A similar process is provided for Redevelopment
Area based on NJDEP-certified brownfields.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern with the overlay zone mapping for a specific
parcel.
RESPONSE: The Land Use Capability Zone Map may be adjusted through two means: a Map
Adjustment or an RMP update. The RMP Update process is provided for making relevant factual
improvements to the RMP regarding mapped or other information about existing conditions that
affects land use capability. The Map Adjustment process allows for limited changes to the Land Use
Capability Zone Map based on local planning factors; compliance with the protection standards of
the RMP must be ensured and no net loss of resources or resource values may occur, among other
limitations. The RMP provides additional information in Chapter 6 regarding the RMP Updates
Program and the Map Adjustments Program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should not support the use of
eminent domain, specifically relating to situations when private property is taken against the will of
the land owner.
130
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: As discussed in the Redevelopment Program, in New Jersey the phrase “area in need
of redevelopment” refers to a process established through the Local Redevelopment and Housing
Law (“LRHL”), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq.. This law establishes the process by which municipalities
commence redevelopment as a public purpose. While the Highlands Act and the RMP refer to
“redevelopment” activities, the term in this context is not intended to, nor should it be interpreted
to, indicate the redevelopment process pursuant to the LRHL.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that any sites that have been identified as appropriate for
development by the Highlands Council should be placed on a Highlands Inventory and also added
to the NJ SiteMart.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has identified an existing Highlands contaminated site
inventory as presented in the Regional Land Use Conditions and Smart Design Technical Report. The
contaminated site inventory will be updated to include additions and deletions as needed based upon
input from local, county, state, and non-profit stakeholders beginning during the Plan Conformance
process. Site owners or municipalities are free to decide to utilize SiteMart, New Jersey’s Online
Searchable Database for Brownfield Properties, as a marketing tool. The Redevelopment Program
contains additional information relating to brownfield sites.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP should contain specific regulations and
guidance regarding brownfield sites. One comment proposed that only brownfields with existing
water and regional sewer service should be eligible for development. Set asides for open space and
green space should be allowed and financial assistance should be offered.
RESPONSE: The RMP’s Redevelopment Program assists interested parties, municipalities,
counties, State, and federal agencies to understand where redevelopment opportunities are targeted
by the RMP, and the protocols for redevelopment within each RMP zone and in the Planning and
Preservation Areas. The Procedures for Highlands Redevelopment Area Designations establish the
process of designating a redevelopment area in the Preservation Area and procedures for Planning
Area redevelopment areas will follow.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council did not consult with municipalities
regarding redevelopment sites and incorporate these into the Land Use Capability Map.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized regionally available data for inclusion in the LANDS
model, which was used to develop the Land Use Capability Zone Map. More detailed information
for the Land Use Capability Zone Map development can be found in the Land Use Capability Zone
Map Technical Report. Individual redevelopment sites were not used as an indicator in the LANDS
model. Redevelopment sites will be a topic of discussion during Plan Conformance and conforming
municipalities are required to identify any development, redevelopment, and brownfield
opportunities in the local land use plan element of their master plans, as appropriate. (Policy 6L1)
Smart Growth
COMMENT: One comment stated that any growth in the Planning Area should be fit into a very
small area and should stay away from sensitive environmental resources. The comment suggested
that only unconstrained lands with water capacity should be subject to growth and that growth
should be smart growth.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that smart growth initiatives and COAH mandates
would result in higher density than appropriate.
RESPONSE: The RMP establishes a framework for future land use which guides development
131
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
away from environmentally sensitive lands and promotes compact development and redevelopment
in or adjacent to existing developed areas where adequate public infrastructure are available to serve
new growth and development, provided that such development and redevelopment is compatible
with existing land uses and community character.
Goals, Policies and Objectives
COMMENT: One comment requested clarification of Objective 6N2b, specifically what is the
difference between “strict limitation” and “limitation” and what the intent is relative to impervious
coverage.
COMMENT: One comment questioned the intent of objective 6N2b and whether the limitation of
impervious cover would interfere with the smart growth principles aimed at encouraging compact,
mixed use development.
RESPONSE: The term “strict” has been removed from Objective 6N2b. The objective supports
policy 6N2 which requires municipalities to adopt low impact development standards to protect the
natural hydrologic features of the land. Its intent is to limit impervious coverage where feasible
along with other low impact development techniques to manage stormwater. Compact, mixed use
development may be supported by site design that utilizes a full range of low impact development
techniques.
COMMENT: One comment questioned whether the use of best management practices, such as
mechanical devises and underground detention facilities, could be utilized to justify higher
impervious coverage and whether the RMP would supersede the 2004 Stormwater Rules.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not supersede the 2004 Stormwater Rules; however, it does have
additional recharge requirements in areas with environmental constraints. These recharge
requirements may be met through the use of best management practices, although non-structural
stormwater controls are preferred. There is no provision for increased impervious coverage as a
result of best management practices.
Housing
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Land Use Capability Maps show the location of all
affordable housing developments approved by the courts or by COAH. The comment stated that
sufficient vacant land must be designated to produce the low and moderate income homes needed
in the Highlands region. The comment also suggested that reasonable density and design standards
must be proposed to assure that affordable housing can be constructed at reasonable cost.
RESPONSE: The Land Use Capability Zone Map Technical Report outlines the process for developing
the Land Use Capability Map. Sites for affordable housing development were not used as an
indicator in the development of the Land Use Capability Map. Municipalities are required to plan for
affordable housing needs consistent with RMP resource standards. Municipal conformance with the
RMP requires that municipalities adopt a new or updated housing element, fair share plan, and
implementing ordinance(s) that incorporate affordable housing obligations and local land use
capability. RMP resource protection standards may affect the ability of planned (unbuilt) sites to be
developed for affordable housing, and plans should provide alternate mechanisms to address
affordable housing obligations. RMP density guidelines for infrastructure served areas and septic
areas are provided.
COMMENT: One comment commended the Highlands Council for the policy regarding marketrate and affordable housing sufficient to meet the needs to the Highlands Region.
132
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in the comment.
COMMENT: One comment encouraged the Highlands Council through the RMP, plan
conformance, and coordination with COAH to ensure that outstanding second round affordable
housing obligations are fulfilled, as well as third round growth share. The comment encouraged the
Highlands Council to facilitate affordable housing production in keeping with market-growth, and to
encourage affordable housing as part of center-based development and redevelopment
opportunities.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Housing section of the RMP did not provide
sufficient information regarding how the RMP and Highlands Council will ensure that the region’s
affordable housing needs are met. Another comment asked how the newly revised COAH rules will
be enforced in the Preservation Area and the Planning Area.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that certain policies be amended to not require
conforming municipalities to petition for substantive certification to COAH, as municipalities may
address afford housing obligations by other means.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that additional tangible policies and objectives be
added to the RMP in order to ensure the goal of providing market-rate and affordable housing
sufficient to meet the needs.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been revised to provide additional clarification regarding affordable
housing in the Highlands Region. The discussion regarding substantive certification with COAH
has been amended, see Policy 6O7. Municipalities in New Jersey have a constitutional obligation to
address affordable housing needs. Conforming municipalities are required to implement both the
resource protection requirements of the RMP along with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s doctrine,
in its Mount Laurel decisions, that every municipality in a “growth area” has a constitutional
obligation to provide through its land use regulations, sound land use, and long range planning, a
realistic opportunity for a fair share of its region’s present and prospective needs for housing for low
and moderate income families. Municipal conformance with the RMP requires that municipalities
adopt a new or updated housing element, fair share plan, and implementing ordinance(s) that
incorporate affordable housing obligations and local land use capability.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that Housing should be a stand-alone topic, instead of
being paired with Community Facilities.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and feels that housing and community
facilities are interrelated in support of sound land use practices and comprehensive planning
practices.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the COAH rules seem to be in conflict with the RMP
resource protection standards. Several comments indicated that resource requirements will have an
adverse effect on housing affordability and housing choices in the Region.
RESPONSE: RMP housing policies require that conforming municipalities implement resource
protection requirements and provide a realistic opportunity for a fair share of its region’s present
and prospective needs for housing for low and moderate income families. Objective 6O1b discusses
the “interagency partnership with the COAH in support of the achievement of both the resource
protection requirements of the RMP and the municipal constitutional obligation, in ‘growth areas,’
to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of a fair share of affordable housing for low
and moderate income households.”
The Land Use Capability Analysis Approach Program outlines the Highlands Council’s approach for
determining a conforming municipality’s land use capability, combining land, resource, and utility
133
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
based capacity considerations. Municipal conformance with the RMP requires that municipalities
adopt a new or updated housing element, fair share plan, and implementing ordinance(s) that
incorporate affordable housing obligations and local land use capability.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Highlands Council, as a State agency charged with
significant land use regulatory functions usually reserved for municipalities, has an obligation to
satisfy the Mount Laurel doctrine. One comment stated that the Highlands Council must actually
provide a housing element to its plan showing how it will provide a realistic opportunity for the fair
share housing needs of the Highlands region. The comment also questioned how does the
Highlands Council plan to implement the statutory requirement, N.J.S.A. 13:20-23(b), that “Nothing
in this act shall affect protections provided through a grant of substantive certification or a judgment
of repose granted prior to the date of enactment of this act.”
COMMENT: One comment stated the 2007 Draft RMP needs major revision to establish how
affordable housing is to be provided in the Highlands Region to meet the need of low and moderate
income households. The planning responsibilities of the Highlands Council are not limited to water
resource protection at the expense of affordable housing.
RESPONSE: The RMP Housing and Community Facilities Program and policies have been
clarified to recognize the statutory updates at COAH and the relationship to the Highlands Act.
Municipal conformance with the RMP requires that municipalities adopt a new or updated housing
element, fair share plan, and implementing ordinance(s) that incorporate affordable housing
obligations and local land use capability. The municipal housing element should be designed to
achieve the goal of providing affordable housing to meet the fair share obligation, by demonstrating
that existing zoning or planned changes in zoning provide adequate capacity to accommodate
household and employment growth projections consistent with the resource protection
requirements of the RMP.
In order to meet RMP housing policy requirements, conforming municipalities are required,
consistent with the Fair Housing Act, to either petition COAH for a substantive certification of its
housing element and ordinances or institute an action for declaratory judgment granting it repose in
the Superior Court. Participation in the Substantive Certification program is encouraged and
provides protection from exclusionary zoning litigation (also referred to as builder’s remedy
lawsuits), flexible options for addressing affordable housing obligations, and priority for state
funding.
COMMENT: One comment stated that options for developing affordable housing are limited for
Preservation Area towns, and accomplishing the affordable housing obligation should not require
the expenditure of the taxpayer’s money.
RESPONSE: In order to meet RMP housing policy requirements, conforming municipalities shall
be consistent with the Fair Housing Act, and either petition COAH for a substantive certification of
its housing element and ordinances or institute an action for declaratory judgment granting it repose
in the Superior Court. Participation in the Substantive Certification program is encouraged and
provides protection from exclusionary zoning litigation (also referred to as builder’s remedy
lawsuits), flexible options for addressing affordable housing obligations, and priority for state
funding. It allows municipalities to collect development fees to fund housing initiatives and
provides a variety of mechanisms that do not necessitate new construction to address housing
obligation, including accessory apartments, buy-down program, and municipally-sponsored rental
program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should address and object to the
134
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
unusual and extraordinary projections of employment and Growth Share housing obligations. The
Highlands Council should coordinate with COAH to develop more appropriate projections.
RESPONSE: Municipalities that conform to the RMP are required to conduct a local build out
analysis, consistent with the RMP (objective 6G4c). The Municipal Conformance Build out analysis
will assist municipalities in determining household and employment projections consistent with
RMP conformance.
LANDOWNER FAIRNESS
COMMENT: One comment contended that any compensation provided by the Highlands Council
be based on the value of land and not the value of any speculative development.
RESPONSE: With respect to the Highlands TDR Program, allocation of Highlands Development
Credits looks to the development potential of a parcel of land as of August 9, 2004, including
considering State environmental laws and regulations in place at that time. Under this allocation
method, development potential that existed prior to the Highlands Act is considered.
COMMENT: Numerous comments contended that the lack of dedicated funding for acquisition is
unfair and that the RMP must address landowner equity.
RESPONSE: The Council notes that the RMP discusses landowner equity issues through
numerous goals, policies, and objectives in the RMP, including those detailing the Highlands TDR
Program, the exemptions and waivers allowed under the Highlands Act, and the Council’s requests
that the Legislature adopt dedicated sources of funding.
COMMENT: A number of comments argued that the Highlands Council should condition
adoption of the RMP on the Legislature providing a dedicated funding source for fee and easement
acquisition.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments, but states that it has a legal
obligation to adopt the RMP per the Highlands Act even in the absence of any specific funding to
address landowner equity concerns.
COMMENT: One comment stated that property value is a social construct and that land in the
Highlands Region obtains its value by the public improvements that are made to transportation and
infrastructure.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the point made in this comment.
COMMENT: Several comments contended that the RMP does not provide a discussion of the cost
to implement the RMP and the costs to be borne by Highlands counties and municipalities.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that it is charged with preparing a cash flow timetable
as part of the fiscal component of the RMP. Information regarding the cash flow timetable is
provided in Chapter 3, Part 8, Subpart B of the adopted RMP. The Council has funding to address
the reasonable costs of plan conformance by municipalities and counties.
COMMENT: Several comments noted that the costs of protecting the Highlands Region’s water
supply should be borne by all those who use Highlands’s water, not just those located in the
Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council agrees that there must be an equitable distribution of the
benefits and burdens of implementing the RMP. One means of sharing this burden that the
Highlands Council has advocated is the enactment of a water user fee which would be paid by all
135
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
those who use Highlands Water. Such a measure requires enacting new legislation which the
Highlands Council has worked to support in the Legislature.
COMMENT: A few comments argued that the Highlands Act is unconstitutional and unfair.
RESPONSE: The Appellate Division of Superior Court has held that the Highlands Act is
constitutional in the case OFP, LLP v. State, decided August 10, 2007. This matter is pending
review by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Additionally, several other recent court decisions in
Superior Court have also held that the Highlands Act as enacted is constitutional.
COMMENT: One comment stated that a sufficient dedicated funding source must be established
for the Highlands TDR Program otherwise the program will never be implemented.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but notes that there are two initial sources
of funding for capitalization of the Highlands Development Credit Bank. First, the Highlands
Council may request initial bank funds from the State Transfer of Development Rights Bank under
amendments to the State Transfer of Development Rights Bank Act. Second, under the Highlands
Act at N.J.S.A. 13:20-35.j, the Highlands Council may direct any penalty monies collected for
violations of the Highlands Act or the NJDEP’s Preservation Area Rules to the Highlands
Development Credit Bank. In addition to these two sources, the Highlands Council has advocated
for additional funds being appropriated from the State budget to capitalize the bank.
COMMENT: One comment argued that the Highlands Council should not attempt any effort to
minimize the exemptions allowed by the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but believes that offering Highlands
Development Credits in exchange for voluntarily agreeing not to exercise an applicable Highlands
Act exemption promotes the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP and the objectives of the
Highlands Act.
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMENT: A few comments suggested wording edits.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the discussion of land acquisition does not provide a
specific dollar amount set aside or the timing for acquisitions.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been modified and addresses land acquisition costs for a five year and
ten year time period in the Analysis of the Highlands Region (Chapter 3), the Financial Analysis
Technical Report and in the Land Preservation Program.
COMMENT: Several comments indicated that the Sustainable Economic Development Program
must address the farming community and landowner “fair compensation,” and that the Highlands
Act diminishes tax ratables.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and recognizes that the RMP and the
Highlands Preservation Area Rules will restrict development in certain areas of the Highlands
Region. The RMP policies, Sustainable Economic Program, and Landowner Equity Program, as
well as several supporting Council resolutions demonstrate the Council’s commitment to sustainable
approaches to community fiscal concerns.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the use of carbon sequestration and overall carbon
136
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
footprint as an economic opportunity was not mentioned in the 2007 Draft RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the role of the RMP as related to the
State Energy Master Plan and Global Warming Response Act. The Air Quality Assessment Program
and Air Quality Technical Report as well as the RMP goals, policies, objectives and programs related to
both economic sustainability and resource protection support energy efficient practices and
technology.
COMMENT: One comment stated that economic sustainability in the Highlands Region cannot be
evaluated through conventional measures, needs to address the environment and social factors,
should recognize the field of green business, and should involve all sectors of government, business,
non-profits, and citizens in these efforts.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments regarding the unique economics for the
Highlands Region and the role of energy efficiency and innovative technologies and programs in
support of economic sustainability. The goals, policies, objectives and program for Sustainable
Economic Development have been modified, as have the Smart Growth and Air Quality
components of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that specific objectives for charitable and non-profit
campgrounds should be addressed in the RMP and defined in the Highlands Project Reviews to
ensure a streamlined review for such facilities.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the importance of recreation and
tourism in the Highlands Region and has developed goals, policies and objectives that support such
initiatives. The Highlands Project Reviews are performed on a case by case basis and are intended
to inform all applicants of the protocols and review requirements prior to submittal to the Highlands
Council; projects are reviewed in accordance with the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment recognized that the Highlands Council in the 2007 Draft RMP
discussed a variety of mechanisms for providing economic sustainability for Highlands communities
and supports these concepts and encourages the Highlands Council and the NJ Legislature to
develop fiscally viable options for the communities that have been entrusted to protect the highly
significant Highlands water resources.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the importance of fiscally sound
communities and has incorporated into the RMP policies, Plan Conformance process and RMP
Implementation Programs initiatives that support regional and local economic sustainability.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that areas of the Highlands that are appropriate for
economic development may be surrounded by limited growth areas and have limited access to them
as a result. How will the RMP address this issue?
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that existing development patterns and future land use
conditions may present challenges at the local and regional level. The Highlands Council policies
recognize that a partnership with state, county, and local stakeholders will be required in support of
the RMP policies. The Plan Conformance process includes requirements that address connecting
land use and circulation plan elements.
AIR QUALITY
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that the RMP should include more details on renewable
energy, policies to stop additional auto emissions and require the reduction of greenhouse gas
137
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
emissions.
RESPONSE: The Council has clarified the language of the Air Quality goals policies, objectives and program
to recognize the State Global Warming Response Act and Energy Master Plan.
COMMENT: One comment inquired as to how air quality standards would be implemented by the
Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has modified the Air Quality goals, policies,
objectives and program language regarding the Council’s approach to addressing air quality standards for
project reviews.
LOCAL PARTICIPATION
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should provide for greater
participation by municipal elected officials in developing/amending the Regional Master Plan
(RMP). The comment suggested that advisory committees composed of local officials be
established for this purpose.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has conducted extensive outreach to the municipalities
through various mailings and fliers, presentations at local meetings, and invitations to all to
participate in the process of RMP development and implementation.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council should recognize in the RMP that the
development of all plans, standards, and guidelines not yet developed should be subject to public
discussion and review prior to their adoption or implementation.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council recognizes not only its legal obligation to provide for public
review and comment on all components of the RMP, but the inherent value in doing so. Public
participation has been a vital element in the development of the RMP and opportunities will
continue to be made available throughout its implementation. The Council adheres to a rigorous
public participation procedure that ensures its information is widely and readily available; that its
meetings are noticed and open to the public; and that opportunities for public comment are
provided during every open session.
COMMENT: One comment expressed opposition to actions taken by the Governing Body of
Bloomingdale regarding a Union Avenue development project.
RESPONSE: The issue is not currently within the jurisdiction of the Highlands Council and will be
considered only if applicable, in the context of Plan Conformance.
PROGRAMS – CHAPTER 5
General Comments
COMMENT: A number of comments stated that the Draft Final Plan lacked clear standards and
guidelines and was not specific enough to be implementable.
RESPONSE: The RMP on adoption has been clarified in many places regarding specifics relative to
standards and guidelines and additional conformance standard guidance will be released in support of Plan
Conformance.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that many of the programs had been only partially developed
and needed more specifics in order to guide activities in the Region.
RESPONSE: The programs within the RMP have been more fully developed and additional procedures will
be prepared to provide additional guidance and direction.
138
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP should cross-reference historic, cultural,
archaeological, and scenic resources throughout, especially when discussing natural resource
protection. Most historic resources lie on environmentally sensitive lands, like riparian areas and
steep slopes and therefore must be afforded the protections that they are legislatively deemed to
have by cross-referencing the need to evaluate sites for natural resources and historic resources. A
new sub-zone, Historic Resource District, should be created. The map from the technical report
should be completed and maintained.
RESPONSE: Two fundamental goals of the RMP are the “protection and preservation of the
historic, cultural, and archaeological resources of the Highlands Region” (Goal 4A) and “protection
and enhancement of the scenic resources within the Highlands Region” (Goal 4B). The goals,
policies and objectives for historic, cultural, archaeological, and scenic resources have been amended
and strengthened to be protective of these resources. Most all resources in the Region are
intertwined and interconnected – water quantity is linked with aquatic ecosystem health, steep slopes
is linked with water quality and habitat, critical habitat is linked with Highlands Open Waters, etc. –
and are cross-referenced throughout the RMP as appropriate.
COMMENT: One comment stated that guidelines should be in place to protect, enhance, and
restore natural resources. The RMP should establish a hierarchy of preventing damages to natural
resources by requiring applicants to avoid, minimize, and mitigate.
RESPONSE: The concept of a hierarchy of natural resource protection of avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation was intended in the 2007 Draft RMP; language has been added or clarified
throughout the RMP (e.g., Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas, Critical Habitat, etc.) to
address this hierarchy.
COMMENT: One comment questioned how New Jersey pays for the maintenance and
improvement of the “green infrastructure” of the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. Policy 1H3 is now included in Policy 1H2.
The Council will act as an information clearinghouse for preservation programs, funding, and
stewardship for public and private organizations. It is very common for several funding entities,
public and private, to be involved in preserving land together and the Council will help in
coordinating these efforts. Policy 1H4 acknowledges the importance of dedicated sources of
funding for the Highlands Region. This policy sets forth six different funding mechanisms the
Council will advocate for including the reauthorization of the Garden State Preservation Trust and
the extension of the dual appraisal methodology.
COMMENT: One comment noted that rather than having separate low impact development
regulations, acquisition prioritization plans, resource stewardship plans, low-impact development
and best practices programs for each individual natural resource (i.e. forests; open waters & riparian
areas; steep slopes; critical habitat) a single Land Preservation and Stewardship Plan that addresses
these resources comprehensively is recommended at the county and local level. These plans should
address preservation; acquisition, use, facilities, management and restoration of public open space
resources comprehensively in one document, rather than address each resource category in a
separate document. Land Preservation and Stewardship Plans should also include projected
acquisition costs associated with targeted lands, and costs associated with capital improvements and
restoration, as well as a timeline for implementation, provided a steady source of Highlands specific
139
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
funding for these purposes is identified and made available.
RESPONSE: The RMP does feature a single, distinct Land Preservation Program. This program
features mapping regarding Conservation Priority Areas, Agriculture Priority Areas, and Special
Environmental Zones. It includes elements such as Identification of Critical Lands, Establishment
of Land Preservation Priorities and a Special Environmental Zone, Implementation of Strategies for
Land Preservation by Maximizing Current Land Preservation Funding Programs, Implementation of
Strategies for Land Stewardship by Maximizing Current Land Stewardship Funding Programs,
Establishment of New/Alternative/Innovative Land Preservation Programs and Establishment of
New/Alternative/Innovative Stewardship Programs. These program elements are intended to
facilitate coordinated land preservation planning and stewardship efforts at the county and municipal
level. Municipalities and counties are able under the RMP to combine stewardship plans for various
resources into a combined document.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the preservation efforts of non-profit entities should be
consistent with County and Local Land Preservation and Stewardship Plans in the Preservation
Area. County and local open space plans should identify partnership implementation opportunities
with non-profits, other government entities, and the private sector. County and local Land
Preservation and Stewardship Plans should be mutually supportive, and developed through a
coordinated inclusionary process. Preservation Area jurisdictions should be required to share data
layers and mapping resources during the plan development process.
RESPONSE: No change was made to the RMP as the comment is directed to non-profit entities
and county and local open space planning efforts. The Council encourages the sharing of data layers
and mapping resources among all Highlands counties and municipalities.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Conservation and Protection Zones, particularly the
Protection Zone, are described as areas that have high natural resource value and need to be
protected through significant limitations and prohibitions on development. It appears that the
Conservation Priority Area map depicts less than 20% of the Highlands Region critical lands. Is the
RMP saying that these are the only land areas worthy of compensation? If so, then the Protection
and Conservation Zone policies and standards need to be revised to be less draconian.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not state that only lands within the Conservation Priority Area are
worthy of compensation. The Conservation Priority Area map identifies and prioritizes those lands
within the Highlands Region which have the highest water and ecological resource values. The
Protection Zone and Conservation Zone also consist of lands with significant value that warrant
stringent protection.
Forest Resource Management and Sustainability
COMMENT: One comment stated that there is no mention in this section of the exemption in the
Highlands Act for forest activities under a woodland management plan.
RESPONSE: The forestry exemption is cited in the RMP, Chapter 5, Part 1, Forest Resource
Management and Sustainability.
COMMENT: One comment stated that active management to keep forests healthy requires
reducing the deer herd, reducing exotic invasive species and addressing regeneration.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses forest health in Policy 1B1.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP requirements for forest resource protection are
140
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
duplicative of municipal requirements and that counties will have to develop forest stewardship
plans for all county-owned lands.
RESPONSE: The RMP policies include encouragement for voluntary creation of Forest
Stewardship Plans and highlight that the New Jersey Forest Stewardship Program includes a costsharing element to the Program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Landscape Project encourages movement toward a
climax forest that would lead eventually to the disappearance of the valuable oak-dominated forest
that is critical to so many species. The comment suggested that this is poor policy.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council cannot amend the Landscape Project data and does not
utilize the project in delineating the Forest Resource Area or in evaluating forest integrity class.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested several text edits regarding forest management and
sustainability.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges all suggested text edits and has updated this section where
edits were deemed appropriate and/or necessary. The Council will acknowledge the existing
guidelines for Forest Management Plans, will utilize appropriate and scientifically-defensible
guidance and standards for Forest Stewardship Plans, and will coordinate with New Jersey Forest
Service on these issues.
COMMENT: A few comments urged the use of Forest Stewardship Plans rather than Forest
Management Plans.
RESPONSE: Forestry activities are exempted from the Highlands Act when performed in
compliance with an approved Forest Management Plan. It is not within the Highlands Council’s
legal authority to substitute Plan requirements for exempted forestry activities. The Highlands
Council encourages creation of Forest Stewardship Plans on both private and public lands.
COMMENT: One comment stated that state certified foresters should be required to approve
Forest Stewardship Plans or Forest Management Plans prior to the purchase of easements. One
comment stated that NJDEP foresters should inspect working woodland management areas on a
regular basis.
RESPONSE: NJDEP is the agency under which Forest Stewardship Plans and Forest Management
Plans are approved.
COMMENT: One comment stated that sustainable forestry criteria should follow the same
standards as those used by the New Jersey Forest Service and USDA-Forest Service.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will review and include appropriate guidance for standards for
implementation of the Forest Resource Management and Sustainability Program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Forest Management Plans are scientifically-based
documents that concern forest yield as well as other non-commodity functions such as wildlife,
water, recreation, and air quality.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges and supports the comment.
COMMENT: One comment stated that this section does not assign responsibility for development
of forest plans.
RESPONSE: The section has been revised to clarify which policies and program requirements are
required through Plan Conformance by municipalities.
141
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that this section must include funding for all required forestry
program elements.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has funding to aid municipalities with complying with
elements of the RMP Programs that are mandatory through Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Model Municipal Tree Ordinance should include
specific standards.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will provide more specific conformance standards during the
Plan Conformance process.
Restoration of Streams and Riparian Areas
COMMENT: One comment stated that the use of the word “guidance” implies that
implementation of the Stream Program will be optional. The comment stated that the Council
should indicate whether technical guidance will be a requirement for conformance.
RESPONSE: The term guidance, as used in the Program Summary, was intended to indicate that
the Council will be providing technical guidance to conforming municipalities in the development of
Stream Corridor Protection/Restoration Plans, outlined in Objective 1D4i.
COMMENT: One comment provided suggested text edits in this section regarding increased
likelihood of finding archeological remains in riparian areas.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges all suggested text edits and has updated this section where
edits were deemed appropriate and/or necessary.
COMMENT: One comment stated that funding mechanisms for implementing Stream Corridor
Protection/Restoration Plans must be provided for by the Highlands Council. The commenter
suggests that the Highlands Council offer opportunities to work with developers to accomplish
restoration goals in exchange for development encroachments that follow LID and BMPs.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has grant funding to aid municipalities with complying with
elements of the RMP Programs that are mandatory through Plan Conformance, which may include
such provisions where in conformance with the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP does not identify contaminated sites and does not
prioritize cleaning up of those sites despite the Planning Area goal to “protect, restore, and enhance
the quality and quantity of surface and ground waters.” The commenter states that the RMP should
address high mercury levels in the Pequest River that result from the Pequest Trout Hatchery,
operated by NJDEP.
RESPONSE: The RMP does include a map on the Region’s known contaminated sites, as provided
by NJDEP. Clean up of contaminated sites is the responsibility of the party responsible for the
contamination and is authorized and overseen through NJDEP in collaboration with the Highlands
Council. The Chapter 4, Part 1, Subpart b of the RMP does provide numerous policies for the
protection and restoration of the Region’s water bodies.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Watershed Value assigned to their township does not
reflect the protection status of their streams or the undeveloped, resource constrained nature of the
township. The comment suggests that the Highlands Council revise the methodology for assigning
watershed value to streams to reflect the classification of streams and the extent of prime recharge
142
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
areas in the township.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized peer-reviewed scientific literature to identify
defensible indicators of watershed condition for the Highlands Region. From the suite of
indicators identified in the literature, the Highlands Council selected the following to evaluate each
of the sub watersheds of the Highlands Region: 1) Percent Developed Lands; 2) Habitat Quality; 3)
Forest Cover. Prime ground water recharge areas were not utilized in the methodology, as they exist
in every subwatershed. Watershed Value is only one element of resource protection in the adopted
RMP. The RMP provides for protection policies for numerous natural resources (Highlands Open
Waters, Critical Habitat, Prime Ground Water Recharge Areas, etc) and utilizes Watershed Value in
only a portion of the Highlands Open Waters resource protection goals, policies, and objectives.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP should have labeled Pohatcong Creek and its
tributaries as “high” riparian integrity. The comment stated that the riparian integrity methodology
should be revised such that undeveloped stream corridors within the Environmentally Constrained
Sub-Zone in the Conservation Zone are “high” riparian integrity.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council analyzed land use characteristics and land cover condition
within the riparian areas to model riparian integrity. The Highlands Council peer-reviewed scientific
literature to identify indicators of riparian area integrity. From the suite of indicators identified in
the literature, the following were selected: Amount of Impervious Coverage, Degree of Agriculture
Land Use, Frequency of Road Crossings, Condition of Vegetation Cover, and Habitat for
Water/Wetland Dependent Species. Because the model is based on land-use condition, the
Highlands Council did not include arbitrarily assigned classes, such as streams located within various
zones.
Critical Habitat Conservation and Management
COMMENT: Several comments stated that “no net loss” requires a definition. The comment
stated that some rare species benefit from forestry and require disturbance/ early successional
habitat.
RESPONSE: The mitigation requirement of no net loss of habitat value shall ensure that all four
elements (habitat quantity, quality, type, and function are accounted for and included in the
mitigation design). The RMP policies and objectives have been clarified on this point.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Habitat Conservation Plans should remain in the purview
of the Division of Fish and Wildlife and not be the responsibility of the local and county
government.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act mandates the protection of the Region’s flora and fauna and the
RMP provides for the protection of the Region’s habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered
species. The Critical Habitat Conservation and Management Plan Guidance and the conformance
standards will aid municipalities in compiling the required information for their locality and meeting
the requirements of the RMP. Use of such plans at the local level is critical, as municipalities are
responsible for development reviews.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Critical Habitat should be mapped as no-build areas
pursuant to the Highlands Act and a timeline provided for compensating landowners affected by the
no-build areas. The comment stated that Land Preservation and Stewardship Plans should include
Critical Habitat definitions and examples. The comment stated that the RMP should provide
guidelines for stewardship of publicly owned vernal pools
143
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act does not require critical habitat to be identified as no-build area.
The RMP provides for protection of Critical Habitat and also provides for rebuttal procedures
should an applicant or landowner dispute mapped Critical Habitat on their property. Stewardship
guidance will be included in the Highlands Council’s guidance for Critical Habitat Conservation and
Management Plan.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that this section lacks specific benchmarks and standards.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been modified to clarify that the Habitat Conservation and
Management Plan Guidance shall include standards for conformance with the Goals, Policies,
Objectives, and the Program in the RMP. The Highlands Council will provide a draft guidance
Habitat Conservation and Management Plan following adoption of the RMP and will develop a
Final Habitat Conservation and Management Plan in consultation with qualified professionals during
Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: A comment stated that this section lacks protection for rare plant species.
RESPONSE: Policy 1F1 in the RMP has been modified to clarify that Significant Natural Areas
“include habitat for documented threatened and endangered plant species.”
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP should not rely on NJDEP’s Landscape Project
to determine the presence of wildlife species. One comment stated that not all wildlife habitat can
be deemed critical and should not all be protected equally. The comment stated that there can’t be a
balance of land use or economic vitality if all listed species are “critical” regardless of their
dependence upon the Region for survival. The Highlands Council’s Critical Habitat, to be adopted
as an overlay ordinance layer, is not scientifically-reviewed, has no regulatory authority, and has not
been publicly vetted.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the most current version (Version 3) of the
Landscape Project, provided from NJDEP-ENSP, which is now publicly available through
NJDEP’s GIS webpage. All mapping is based on species occurrence data and surrounding habitat
requirements. The RMP includes the ability for modification to critical habitat boundaries due to
site habitat suitability or existing land uses, as approved by the Highlands Council in coordination
with NJDEP-ENSP.
COMMENT: A comment stated that the current language in this section’s Issue Overview, implies
that all animals and plants benefit from closed canopy, climax forests and not to confuse disturbance
with degraded ecosystems.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges that some species benefit from disturbancebased ecosystem regimes. The term “disturbance” in this section is not meant to imply a prohibition
of natural occurring disturbance, but rather human-imposed disturbance to Critical Habitat.
Land Preservation
The public comments and staff responses for Land Preservation both Goals Policies and Objectives
(4.1.5) and Programs (5.1.4) were synthesized into one section. See Section 4.1.5.
Carbonate Rock (Karst) Topography
While there were several comments Carbonate Rock GPOs (4.1.6), there were no comments specific
to the Carbonate Rock Program.
144
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Lake Management Area
COMMENT: A few comments requested that the RMP not make it difficult to do lake
maintenance. The Council should speak with lake communities about lake management.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. A new objective has been added with
respect to the Lake Community Sub-Zone to permit and encourage the control and removal of algae
and non-native invasive aquatic weeds that cause nuisance for lake users. The Highlands Council
will be coordinating with the NJDEP regarding dredging and other necessary lake maintenance
activities. New Objective 1L4d includes text that on-going coordination will be undertaken with the
Greenwood Lake and Lake Hopatcong Commissions as well as individual lake associations
regarding lake management issues.
COMMENT: A few comments noted support for the designation of a Lake Management Sub-zone
in the Existing Community Zone as an important step in recognizing and identifying special features
within the Existing Community Zone that have common characteristics in terms of resource values,
constraints and opportunities.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in these comments.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that while water pollution from failing septic systems may be
a very important issue in the Lake Management Area, the Lake Management Program needs to also
recognize and provide for the historic and cultural values of the built-up areas surrounding lakes, as
well as the underlying ecological and natural resources values, and the need to protect, restore and
maintain both. Lake Management Area goals, policies and objectives and the implementing program
should be clarified to specifically include the protection of ecological and natural resources values, as
well as historic and cultural values, as these are important Highlands Act and RMP goals and
policies.
RESPONSE: The Lakes Management goals, policies, objectives and program both seek to
stringently protect the cultural and historic resources associated with lake communities, and have in
several cases been reworded to emphasize these points and the importance of ensuring that the
replacement of failing septic systems not create other environmental impacts.
COMMENT: One comment suggested numerous minor word changes to several of the Lake
Management policies and objectives and program elements.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council considered each of the comments and made word changes
where deemed appropriate.
COMMENT: One comment expressed the opinion that the Lake Community Sub-Zone should
preclude high density residential development and TDR receivership and it should be supported by
model ordinances such as septic maintenance and fertilizer ordinances.
RESPONSE: Detailed guidance for the development of local ordinances will be provided to
municipalities with land areas in the Lake Community Sub-Zone.
COMMENT: One comment dealt with the Educations and Awards Program. The Council intends
to work with landscape professionals and lawn and garden centers to promote the use of fertilizers
that do not contain phosphorous. As long as it is permissible and economically viable, these
fertilizers will continue to be used. Even if local businesses do not carry them, they will be brought
in from elsewhere. The Council should instead focus its efforts instead on working with the
145
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
NJDEP and the Legislature to ban their use throughout the State.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council does not have authority over the entire State. NJDEP already
is requiring that specific municipalities adopt ordinances controlling fertilizer use, to conform with
adopted TMDLs that address excessive phosphorus loadings to surface waters.
COMMENT: A comment noted that it is good to recognize the existing development areas, for
example lake communities, and consider that there may be existing environmental problems, such as
failing septic systems and lack of water, that may need future infrastructure improvements to correct
them.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in this comment.
COMMENT: A comment noted that the introductory paragraph states that standards will be
established by the Highlands Council to address “direct and proximate impacts upon the lake.”
However, the RMP has stated that private lake communities were not studied or evaluated prior to
release of the 2007 Draft RMP.
RESPONSE: The commenter is referring to the statement in the introductory paragraph that reads
“Past NJDEP studies indicate that nearly every public lake (privately-owned lakes were not
evaluated) is experiencing unacceptable contamination, often including excessive bacteria and
nutrients.” The point of that statement was to make the general characterization that past studies of
public lakes by NJDEP noted that nearly all were showing impacts from development, and so it is
reasonable to assume that other lakes will show similar impacts. The standards that the RMP
references to protect lake habitat and water quality (e.g., limiting shoreline hardscaping, limiting the
removal of natural shoreline vegetation, and limiting an increase in impervious cover, etc.) are
commonly utilized water quality protection standards.
COMMENT: One comment noted that reeds and other wetland species that are below the high
water mark shall be preserved or restored, making no distinction between natural vegetation and
invasive plants. What should be done about invasive species?
RESPONSE: A new objective has been added with respect to the Lake Community Sub-Zone to
permit and encourage the control and removal of algae and non-native invasive aquatic weeds that
cause nuisance for lake users.
COMMENT: One comment noted that shoreland vegetation within 50 feet of the shoreline is
protected and preserved, except for a minimum area permitted for water dependent recreational
facilities. The term “water dependent recreational facilities” is not defined. This section also seems
to require that if development is proposed on a property, restoration of native vegetation shall be
required if there is an existing disturbed area within 25 feet of the shoreline. What constitutes a
disturbed area? Of particular concern is whether the definition of water dependent recreational
facilities includes the docks and beaches; which presumably it does. However, it is unclear as to
whether it includes patios, equipment sheds, etc., and how this would impact specific projects which
may not fall under the Act’s exemptions.
COMMENT: One comment noted that Highlands Act specifically provides for an exemption for
the construction of a single-family dwelling for an individual’s own use or the use of immediate
family member on a lot which was owned by that individual on the date of enactment of the act.
The Act also exempts the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot in existence on the date
of the enactment of the Act, as long as the construction does not result in ultimate disturbance of
one acre or more of land. The reconstruction of any building or structure for any reason within
125% of the footprint of the lawfully existing impervious surfaces on the site as long as the
146
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
impervious surface is not increased by a quarter acre or more is also exempt from the Act.
Improvements to single-family dwellings in existence on the date of the act including additions,
garages, sheds, driveways, porches, decks, patios, swimming pools or septic systems are also exempt
from the Act. In a fully developed lake community, such as Highland Lakes, the regulations under
the shoreland protection tier have limited applicability.
RESPONSE: The term “water dependent” means a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in
any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations.
Examples of water dependent facilities and uses would include docks, beaches and boat launch
facilities. The term would not include patios and equipment sheds. However, improvements to a
single family dwelling are exempt (Exemption #5) from the Highlands Act, the Highlands
Preservation Area rules, and the provisions of the RMP. The improvements include, but are not
limited to, “an addition, garage, shed, driveway, porch, deck, patio, swimming pool, or septic
system.” Further, the construction of a single family home on a pre-existing lot for use by the
owner or the owner’s immediate family is also exempt (Exemption #1).
COMMENT: One comment noted that it is impractical and unrealistic to expect that piers and
docks which are considered permanent fixtures to individually-owned properties would be held “in
common” between property owners in order to reduce the total number of new docks and piers.
The last paragraph of this section states that development adjacent to Highland Lakes shall include a
protection buffer of 300 feet from the edge of the open water feature and all development shall
comply with buffer standards. This requirement seems to be in addition to shoreline protection
tier’s standards listed above.
RESPONSE: With respect to the comment regarding piers and docks to be held in common, the
Council acknowledges the opinion but no change was made to the RMP. The goal of this standard
is that attributes of piers and docks shall be controlled in municipal development regulations to
achieve the minimum disturbance of shoreline, shoreline vegetation, and wetland vegetation as
possible with due consideration to safety, including provisions for piers and docks held in common
to reduce the total number of new docks and piers. In regard to the buffer comment, the buffer
extends 300 feet or the first property line perpendicular to the shoreline.
COMMENT: One comment expressed the opinion that green roofs are uneconomical and
impractical for private single family residences.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but no change was made to the RMP. The
RMP states that green roofs are strongly encouraged. Feasibility will depend on the nature of the
house but such homes have been constructed in the United States and Europe.
COMMENT: One comment requested that reference to the “stormwater management train” be
clarified and defined.
RESPONSE: “Stormwater management train” means the application of a series of physical
stormwater best management practices to achieve water quality of runoff.
COMMENT: One comment expressed the opinion that it is impractical to discuss “constructed
wetlands” and other elements requiring additional land in a highly developed lake area that is a
nearly fully developed community.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and notes that such requirements will apply
to non-exempt developments. The intent of this standard is to encourage the use of swales with
natural vegetation or constructed wetlands where it is feasible.
147
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment noted that it appears that the Highlands Council must approve all
finishing materials to determine whether they are compatible with the natural or historic character of
the Highlands Region. Does this section also include architectural review for the exteriors of all new
or redeveloped buildings? If it is determined that the scenic resources tier is not voluntary, the
comment strongly objects to any attempt to enforce any architectural standards or review process
for private lake communities.
RESPONSE: For lakes that are privately-held and managed by a single homeowner or lake
community association, the scenic resource tier requirements shall be voluntary. For other lakes, the
intent is for such standards to apply through the local development review process for non-exempt
developments. Add
COMMENT: One comment states that it is unclear what the relationship between outdoor lighting
is to water quality management.
RESPONSE: The outdoor lighting standard concerns aesthetic values, not water quality values.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the maintenance and operation of dams currently falls
under the NJDEP Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control. This is an example of the Highlands
RMP’s failure to appropriately distinguish between what development activities will fall under the
compliance requirements of the Highlands Council and what development activities will remain the
authority of other NJDEP departments. Furthermore, while it may be an appropriate policy to
develop financing and administrative mechanisms for the operation of public lakes, it is completely
inappropriate to mandate financing and administrative mechanisms for private lakes.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges that the maintenance and operation of dams
currently falls under the NJDEP Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control. This policy is intended
to benefit the continued functioning of lakes – both private and public lakes – it is not intended to
be a mandate but rather to encourage long-term maintenance of lakes and dams.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the general goals of most lake associations and the goals of
the Highlands Act and RMP are similar in many ways - to acknowledge and preserve the Highlands
Region as one of special significance in terms of natural resources and quality of life. However, it is
felt that the Highland RMP fails to recognize the success of private lake associations in achieving
those goals, and in their ability to continue to maintain the lake community for both the private and
public benefit. Additional burdensome compliance requirements strain lake community resources.
RESPONSE: New Objective 1L4d includes text that on-going coordination will be undertaken with
the Greenwood Lake and Lake Hopatcong Commissions as well as individual lake associations
regarding lake management issues.
WATER RESOURCES AND UTILITIES
COMMENT: One comment noted that the review/approval process for system improvements
(like well drilling) should be efficient as possible.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that groundwater does not necessarily flow within
boundaries of subwatersheds. A “Low Flow Margin Method” will be utilized to “catch” intermixing
of surface and ground waters, however not all streams are so predictable and complex geology of the
region makes this task very suspect. This needs better recognition in the Plan especially as it relates
to standards set for consumption limits in the various zones. The RMP indicates that based upon an
148
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
analysis as an exporter of water the Highlands water resource serves a significant population outside
the Highlands region. Projecting this demand to the year 2030 shows that sustainable capacity will
be exceeded by the major cities in the North East portion of New Jersey. If this is the case and
limits are to be placed upon development will these demand projections be lowered and the
corresponding numbers be addressed by the consumptive depletive analysis determinations of the
New Jersey Water Supply Master Plan currently being developed? Should additional reservoir
projects be advanced or modified over the water supply plan's previous projections? Policy suggests
that 80% of net water availability within each sub watershed that serves a water utility shall be
reserved for public community water systems serving the Planned Community Zone, 20% will
remain for the Protection and Conservation Zone. How will this potentially affect standardized
farming practices of irrigation recognized under the Right-to-farm Act? Agricultural activities are
dependent upon a guaranteed supply of water for irrigation. A long-term goal of the Highlands Plan
is to incorporate a more refined hydrologic unit map using (LiDAR) technology to better identity
the resource. The Council is encouraged to expedite use of better technology due to the difficulty in
understanding the true hydrogeologic functions of the Highlands aquifers in light of this limiting
features importance in density determinations. Many of the water related “objectives” identify area
specific constraints to land use based upon limiting water resource features even though the true
nature of the features is not truly know at this time. Until such time as these data become available
the protection mechanisms should be advisory.
RESPONSE: The hydrogeologic interactions between ground water and surface water are an
exceedingly complex subject, as the Highlands Region contains varying aquifer formations.
However, most ground water stays within its source subwatershed unless diverted through wells,
and many of the aquifer systems that affect multiple subwatersheds already have been addressed by
NJDEP or USGS models. The approach taken to date by the Highlands Council is consistent with
the approach utilized in the New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan. The resulting resource
protection standards are based on the best information to date consistent with the goals, policies,
and objectives of the RMP. The question of reservoir safe yields is distinct from the management of
subwatershed Net Water Availability. NJDEP regulations require that water purveyors remain
within their safe yields, which may require the development of new water supplies or better
management of existing supplies. The policy noted in the comment was from the 2006 Draft RMP
and is not contained within the 2007 Final Draft or the adopted RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments noted the need for better definition of “no significant safe yield
reduction” in objectives that reference water allocation permits and ensure that there will be no
negative impacts during drought.
RESPONSE: Safe yields are approved and monitored by the NJDEP. A major purpose of the
RMP is to protect the safe yields of reservoir systems by limiting upstream use of ground waters,
which has the added benefit of protecting aquatic ecosystems. Through interagency coordination,
the Council intends to help ensure that the safe yields are protected.
COMMENT: Several comments stated the belief that allowing sewer extensions or package plants
to be extended by virtue of proximity to development will encourage sprawling land use patterns.
RESPONSE: For expansion of wastewater infrastructure in the Conservation Zone or Protection
Zone, mandatory clustering provisions apply unless to address a public health issue or for
redevelopment. New development will be situated on at most 20% and wherever possible 10% or
less of the site when public sewer or community on-site treatment is used. In the Existing
Community Zone, minimum density standards apply. None of the scenarios will foster sprawling
land use patterns.
149
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment noted that with respect to Farm Conservation Plans and Resource
Management System Plans, federal conservation program priorities are set at the local level and then
forwarded to the State Technical Committee (NRCS & others) for ranking. The language in
Objective 2K3d and 2K3f that refers to the agricultural impervious cover triggers should be
amended.
RESPONSE: The Council incorporated text edits where they were deemed appropriate.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP now contains detailed nitrate thresholds,
modeling approaches, site specific requirements and septic system yields in each subwatershed for
each community. These requirements will effectively increase the minimum lot size to over 10 acre
parcels. There will likely be no development in the environs due to these requirements. Well
contamination by septic systems in Vernon has been absolutely minimal. These requirements are
extraneous and detrimental to the well being of our community who has survived on septic systems
and the public health and safety has not been compromised.
RESPONSE: The septic densities reported in the Water Resources Technical Report are not
recommended zoning lot sizes. They are used to calculated septic system yield, which is the number
of septic units each municipalities will realize while keeping in conformance with the nitrate target
for that LUC zone. These nitrate targets were set to be protective of ground water quality in
accordance with the goals of the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the use of a nitrate standard is not converted into the
appropriate density to achieve that standard. In the section on background nitrate concentrations
and the resulting impact on development intensity, it would be helpful to municipalities to identify
the density that results from the nitrate concentration modeling.
RESPONSE: The septic system densities reported in the Water Resources Technical Report are
representative of the Highlands Region. Municipalities will be provided with detailed results during
Plan Conformance, and will be able to modify these results using updated land use information
during that process.
Highlands Restoration: Water Deficits
COMMENT: A few comments noted that Policy 2B4 calls for the development of Water
Management Plans. Are these plans to be created on a local or regional basis and what funding
source will be provided for implementation?
RESPONSE: These plans, now called Water Use and Conservation Management Plans, are
required for municipal Plan Conformance. However, the Highlands Council will encourage
cooperative planning among municipalities, counties and water purveyors, with public involvement,
to achieve more coordinated and cost-effective results and to achieve planning at the HUC14
subwatershed level. The Highlands Council will provide funding for reasonable costs, as is true for
all Plan Conformance requirements.
COMMENT: One comment noted that historically, the NJDEP has not developed a methodology
to determine sustainable water supply; however, developing and using a methodology without
providing definitive future enhancements is inappropriate. Additional data gathering needs to be
done to supplement current data gaps and omissions; pilot projects need to be implemented;
research by both the private and public sector need to be initiated; and monitoring requirements
need to be addressed in the RMP.
150
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council generally agrees with the suggestions in this comment, which
are addressed in more detail in the Water and Ecological Science Agenda.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP indicates that the NJDEP should, to the extent
feasible under law, modify water allocation permits to correspond to the Highlands RMP. The
Highlands Act clearly states that compliance with the Highlands RMP is to be voluntary in the
Planning Area. This section should be amended so as not to suggest that the NJDEP subvert the
intent of the law by denying permits in the Planning Area based on the RMP findings and policies.
Modification of water allocation permits should be limited to the Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act includes numerous provisions, including both the voluntary
nature of municipal and county Plan Conformance in the Planning Area and a requirement that
NJDEP decisions under the Water Supply Management Act be consistent with the RMP. A water
allocation decision may have the potential to influence local development decisions, but does not
determine local zoning or master plans. Therefore, the two provisions are not in direct conflict.
COMMENT: Numerous comments stated that there should be no more new development in water
deficit areas.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Highlands Council should not grant conditional
water availability in water deficit areas, particularly in prime recharge areas, until the efficacy of water
mitigation measures are evaluated.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the conditional water availability approach is
inconsistent with the purpose and objectives of the Highlands Act, especially for those
environmentally sensitive lands located in the Preservation Area. This approach will place the
burden to sustain water supply to such developments on the municipalities and taxpayers as
opposed to the developers. The RMP should eliminate conditional water availability in its entirety
from the RMP as end users must be held accountable to maintain water conservational requirements
in the same manner as all watershed municipalities.
COMMENT: One comment stated that all references to Policy 2B5 (provision of conditional water
availability with Current Deficit Areas) and associated objectives should be eliminated.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has determined that a small amount of additional water
demand may occur in water deficit areas under specific conditions, including mitigation of 125% to
200% to ensure that the deficits shrink, not increase. The RMP program on water deficit reduction
provides more detailed information regarding how these deficit mitigation measures will be
monitored and ensured. The RMP requires that the mitigation be successfully completed prior to
initiation of the new water use, or sooner in some cases. It should be noted that the availability of
water for development or agricultural purposes does not remove or affect any resource protection
policies that would normally apply, and therefore is a separate issue than the protection of sensitive
lands.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Council should take the bold step of
limiting/curtailing the use of water outside of the Highlands Region. The Council should not
further restrict and penalize property owners in the Region. It is not fair that others have unlimited
use of our water.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes policies regarding the transfer of ground water from
subwatersheds within the Highlands Region to areas outside of the Highlands. However, the vast
majority of transfers are from reservoir systems owned by entities that served non-Highlands
municipalities. The reservoirs retain water from wet periods to sustain uses during dry periods.
Such transfers are regulated by NJDEP, including requirements for water conservation and water
151
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
loss reduction programs.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Council should not allow development in the
Preservation Area. People are concerned about lost farmland value; however, if wells go dry the
land has no value at all.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act provides for limited continued development of the Preservation
Area that is exempt, meets the stringent NJDEP Preservation Area rules, or qualifies for one of
several waivers.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that recharging 125% of water volumes within the same
watershed for mitigation is fine in theory; however, demanding recharge where such recharge may
be tainted, polluted, or subject to road wash for example, will only increase ground water
degradation. The policy needs to be applied in scientifically identified recharge areas where land use
and expected residuals will not harm ground water quality.
RESPONSE: The RMP provides for preferential recharge of clean waters and is opposed to the
recharge of polluted water.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that farming activities require water availability and though
the RMP recognizes this, it should provide more assurance that water will be available for farming
irrigation. The RMP states that water will be available to farms that utilize water protection, reuse,
and best management, but there is no funding or staff to help farms be conservation-friendly.
RESPONSE: Policies in the RMP have been revised to clarify the intent with regard to water
availability for farming. The Highlands Council will coordinate with the NJ and U.S. Departments
of Agriculture to support conservation-friendly farm practices, many of which are eligible for costshare funding.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there is no water deficit problem. The Region provides
water for 5.4 million New Jersey citizens, 800,000 of them living here in the Region. Impervious
surfaces actually help reduce evapotranspiration thus, reducing water loss. Natural ground shallow
recharge supports streams.
RESPONSE: The Water Resources Technical Report provides extensive research regarding the impacts
of consumptive and depletive water uses from ground water, and from surface water without
storage, on stream flows during critical low flow periods. During times of normal rainfall, water
uses have a far more limited impact, but New Jersey water allocation, safe yield and water availability
methods are all focused on drought impacts. Highlands streams, being in many cases small and in
most cases coldwater fisheries, are more susceptible to ecological damage from low flows during
drought.
The Efficient Use of Water
COMMENT: Many comments noted that the RMP should advocate for recycling and conservation
measures in areas receiving Highlands water. It has been estimated that 80% of the water is
provided to municipalities located outside of the Region; it does not help much if Highlands
residents do all the conserving.
RESPONSE: The RMP does recommend improve water conservation by those areas outside the
Highlands Region. However, it should be noted that water conservation within the Highlands
Region is critical in several ways: 1) it focuses on local use of ground water supplies, whereas most
exported water comes from reservoirs; 2) it enhances water availability within the Region; and 3) it
152
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
helps offset deficits within the Region. The dependence of Highlands communities on limited
ground water supplies is a critical factor in the pattern of historic development within the Region.
COMMENT: One comment requested that with respect to the “Analysis of Water Use Efficiency
for Public Water Supplies” element of this program, that in addition to collaborating with the
NJDEP, the Council should also collaborate with the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Rutgers Cooperative Extension, county Soil Conservation Districts, and the New Jersey Department
of Agriculture. Further, it is suggested that funding for this research should be included in the
stewardship budget as part of the Cash Flow Analysis.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will coordinate with these entities in the efforts regarding
agricultural water use efficiency.
COMMENT: One comment noted that improvements in infrastructure efficiency will help
augment water available and reduce deficits.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges and agrees with this comment.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that public water and wastewater capacity should only be
made available in developed areas where infrastructure presently exists.
COMMENT: Many comments stated that public water and sewer service should not be allowed to
expand into the Protection Zone or Conservation Zone in either the Preservation or Planning Area.
RESPONSE: The RMP under Goals 2J and 2K provides limited but important opportunities for
expansion or creation of water and wastewater infrastructure. The Highlands Act specifically
includes a provision for service of exempt developments and a waiver process for some
circumstances, which the RMP incorporates directly. Smart growth principles are the basis for
expansion potential in the Existing Community Zone, subject to environmental protection
standards.
COMMENT: One comment stated that existing older homes should not get certificates of
occupancy (or approval) for improvements unless they comply with modern plumbing standards to
help control water use.
COMMENT: A few comments asked whether minor home improvements would trigger water
conservation measures. It is not clear how they will be implemented or paid for. It also is not clear
how conservation renovation will be triggered.
RESPONSE: Municipalities, through Water Use and Conservation Plans, will determine how they
wish to use water conservation to meet deficit reduction or prevention objectives.
COMMENT: One comment noted that requiring water conservation in West Milford will not
compensate for the additional water depletion as the municipality already has water conservation in
place.
RESPONSE: The Water Use and Conservation Plan for West Milford will help determine how
both water conservation and recharge restoration or enhancement can be used to offset any
anticipated development. If that plan determines that limits exist, then West Milford will need to
determine how to reduce its development potential to stay within such limits.
COMMENT: One comment stated that there are no current security mandates regarding existing
reservoirs and no recommendations in the RMP for new water reservoirs.
RESPONSE: NJDEP studies have indicated that no significant, reasonable reservoir sites remain in
the Highlands Region. Public water supplies in New Jersey are engaged in the homeland security
153
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
process in coordination with both New Jersey and federal agencies.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP needs more water conservation strategies such as
using gray water for non-potable uses and using low flow fixtures.
RESPONSE: The RMP’s Water Efficiency Program has been augmented to address this issue.
Further guidance will be made available. Water conservation technology is a mature and improving
field, with extensive literature available through national associations and USEPA.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP notes that agriculture uses comprise 0.2% of
water allocated in the Highlands Region. The comment noted that the RMP proposes 10% for
agriculture, but that won't happen without a good water allocation process. Water allocation for
agriculture needs to be streamlined because today, it takes years.
RESPONSE: NJDEP is responsible for requirements of the water certification program for
agricultural uses, in consultation with the NJ Department of Agriculture.
COMMENT: One comment stated the belief that properly designed development can reduce
runoff. The comment noted that had he been permitted to subdivide and develop his property into
four lots, it would have reduced run-off. It also would have addressed an existing drainage problem
on the public road by off-site improvements.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges this comment, and while it cannot speak to a
specific development proposal, the RMP strongly supports low impact development approaches to
reducing runoff from new development.
Water Quality Restoration
COMMENT: One comment stated that the New Jersey Water Supply Authority has developed a
water protection program that far exceeds American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards.
Middlesex Water just got a 9.1% rate increase – New Jersey American is too - increasing quarterly
dividend yet again. One wonders if environmentalists are advocating on behalf of water companies.
RESPONSE: AWWA does not have standards for water protection programs, but does encourage
its members to develop proactive programs and has specifically cited the NJWSA programs in
national reports coauthored with the Trust for Public Lands. Rate increases for investor-owned
water utilities require approval of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the community septic proposal is an especially worrisome
example of an extreme privatization scheme that could force current residents out of their
neighborhoods - neighborhoods that have typically been very stable and affordable, and open the
way for privatization interests, linked with developers, to redevelop these historic settlements with
new and denser housing projects. In summer 2007, Byram was invited to participate in a pilot study
group regarding these systems as a possible solution for Highlands neighborhoods with septic
failures. The study concluded that, for several reasons, community septics were not a workable or
desirable solution in Byram’s neighborhoods. Byram's committee suggested that the Highlands
Regional Master Plan look at improvements to existing septic management and land use regulations
to address septic problems.
RESPONSE: The community septic system proposal is one alternative to individual septic systems.
The technique may not be appropriate for all communities, and if properly planned and applied it
will not force residents out of a neighborhood.
154
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment referred to the 2007 Draft RMP on page 209- The Highlands Council
intends to “coordinate its efforts with existing assistance programs of farm preservation” to manage
nitrate problems in agricultural areas. The comment stated that deed restrictions on preserved farms
are the only way to accomplish this intention and felt that the RMP should be clear on its intent.
Deed restrictions are not the proper vehicle to use to regulate fertilizer and pesticide application.
Nor should deed restrictions beyond the restriction that keeps the land in agricultural use be
extracted without just compensation. In all cases, deed restrictions are not practical for anything
subject to changes in technology.
RESPONSE: Several programs are available to assist farmers in the development and
implementation of conservation management plans and resource management plans. The USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service is the primary source of assistance for landowners in the
development of resource management pertaining to soil conservation, water quality improvement,
wildlife habitat enhancement, and irrigation water management. All agricultural technical assistance
is coordinated through the locally led Soil Conservation Districts. The funding programs include
EQUIP, CRP, and CREP. These programs are designed to provide technical, financial, and/or
educational assistance to farmers.
COMMENT: One comment referred to the 2007 Draft RMP on page 210- Stormwater
management - Specific programs for municipal stormwater management should be outlined prior to
adoption of the RMP as local governments cannot evaluate the potential impact nor can they
decipher the Highlands Requirements compared to the DEP requirements without this information.
RESPONSE: Stormwater Management Programs will be outlined prior to conformance. The RMP
provides specific standards that exceed NJDEP requirements with regard to disturbance of Prime
Ground Water Recharge Areas and the implementation of Water Use and Conservation
Management Plans.
COMMENT: One comment referred to the 2007 Draft RMP on page 211- Water quality
restoration- Specific programs for areas with a high density of septic systems should be outlined
prior to adoption of the RMP as neither local governments nor private homeowners can evaluate
the potential impact without this information.
RESPONSE: Specific programs will vary from community to community. The Highlands Council
will coordinate with the local government regarding septic system surveys and management
programs.
COMMENT: One comment referred to the 2007 Draft RMP on page 211 - Education and
Outreach – Educating the public about such things as the use of lawn fertilizer is a waste of taxpayer
money. The comment stated that the practice should simply ban them if they are unnecessary and
hazardous, and do so throughout the State. The comment stated that educating farmers on organic
farming was not the correct approach because if the market forces and profitability would influence
farmers to practice organic farming on a large scale. Currently there is insufficient farm labor and
insufficient demand at the high price levels necessary for profitability, and organic farming will be
limited to largely part time niche operations until these factors change.
RESPONSE: Phosphorus fertilizers are necessary for the formation of plant roots, but people
overuse the amount needed and it runs off into nearby water bodies which contribute to
eutrophication of a water body. The Highlands Council does not have the authority to regulate
fertilizer use outside the Highlands Region, though NJDEP has been requiring the adoption of
fertilizer control ordinances by specific municipalities to address pollution problems caused by
excessive phosphorus in surface waters.
155
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
The Highlands Council supports organic operations and the transition to organic farming since no
artificial pesticides or fertilizers are used in organic farming, thus not as much harm to water quality.
If a farm does not want to transition to organic farming, there are other sustainable farming and
grazing practices that can be implemented, such as Integrated Crop Management, nutrient
management, etc.
Wastewater System Maintenance
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the possibility of putting sewer lines in environmentally
sensitive areas should be taken out of the RMP, as it can interfere with recharge processes.
RESPONSE: The extension of sewer to the Protection and Conservation Zone comes with
requirements to maximize protection of environmental sensitive resources (Objective 2K3c). Other
resources prohibit the extension of wastewater to that area unless under special circumstances.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Hardyston Township was well ahead of the curve as it
relates to the portion of the township that is in Preservation Area. That land area is now included
generally within either the Middle Impact Development District (MIDD)-10 District with a density
of 1 unit per ten acres or the Open Space/Government Use (OSGU) District which has a density of
one unit per 25 acres.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and looks forward to working with
Hardyston Township during Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that under no circumstances should either municipalities or
homeowners be forced to comply with new regulations regarding septic system maintenance and
replacement without funding. In addition, existing septic systems that are performing the way they
were designed to perform must be grandfathered until they no longer function. There must be no
requirement for a septic system to be upgraded upon the sale of a home just because better septic
designs are available than when the system was originally built. If the government wants to fund
replacement of septic systems or installation of sewers, it should be done only after sufficient review
and acceptance by the voters who are affected. Such regulations would have a huge detrimental
impact on real estate values and would bankrupt entire communities.
One comment asked what source did the Highlands Council use when stating that septic systems are
not maintained and that homeowners are unaware of the costs and consequences? Residents of the
Highlands are generally aware of these things. Mandatory maintenance contracts are simply
unacceptable and will be a bureaucratic nightmare to administer.
A few comments asked what is meant by a “community based wastewater system.” It is generally
impractical to require new developments to share a system. Even a condominium development with
a management structure already in place will likely become prohibitively expensive to the residents if
forced to maintain expertise on staff to stay on top of the never ending changes to waste water and
storm water regulations. This is clearly a government function that is better left to the counties to
deal with. This function must remain centralized.
RESPONSE: The failure rates of septic systems due to lack of maintenance is a problem noted in
many communities. Inattention to such systems can also have a significant detrimental impact on
public health, the environment, property values and communities. Maintenance programs have
existed in some northern New Jersey municipalities for many years, and do not have to be complex
to be effective. NJDEP is requiring a basic form of such programs through its Water Quality
Management Planning Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:15, and the RMP requires additional activities only in
certain higher-risk circumstances. A community based wastewater system, or package plant, is
156
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
typically a privately-owned wastewater treatment system dedicated to a single development. These
types of systems are increasingly common as the costs associated with their construction, design and
maintenance are decreasing. That type of wastewater treatment becomes cost-effective as the size of
the development increases.
COMMENT: One comment noted the Wastewater System Maintenance Program is based on
flawed assumptions. It portrays septic systems negatively and it portrays community systems as
superior due to Council’s oversight by DEP and funding from large user base. Septic systems
recharge ground water on site whereas sewers withdraw ground water and discharge effluent to
surface water bodies, potentially sending water to a different watershed (a consumptive/depletive
use), which is conflict with Act. Many Highlands sewer facilities are poorly run and do not comply
with DEP’s monitoring requirements, whereas septic system homeowners care for their onsite
systems. Enforcement doesn’t happen with the community sewer facilities. It is unclear as to where
the responsibility for creation of on-site or communal systems will lie (for failing septic systems),
especially since these systems will not be under DEP’s authority. The goal of this section appears to
be to sewer the Highlands and reap big profits for developers and utility companies. This will lead
to more development and depletion of ground water supplies. The RMP needs to provide
guidelines for local boards of health regarding properly design and citing of systems.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not favor one option over the other. Community-based, on-site
systems are one alternative, and may not be feasible in every situation. Many discharge to ground
water in the same area as the development, and therefore are little different from septic systems in
terms of recharge but provide much better treatment. Septic systems, whether individual or
communal, are another alternative. Any wastewater facility discharging more than 2,000 gallons/day
to ground water is required to have a NJPDES discharge permit from NJDEP. The permit
identifies the responsible entity for the treatment system. Conformance standards are being
developed regarding septic system maintenance.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that extension of sewers and package plants should not be
permitted. When it does occur, it should be for health and safety only, not for cluster and
redevelopment. Installing modern technology septic systems, such as those manufactured by BioMicrobics produces highly treated effluent that processes the effluent to potable water levels. The
additional cost per new home is approximately $5000 each and retrofit kits on an installed basis are
about $3000 per home.
RESPONSE: In cases where septic system failures indicate a significant problem, municipalities will
determine the feasibility and appropriateness of various approaches.
COMMENT: One comment suggested several specific word changes to the program.
RESPONSE: The suggested word changes were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Bedminster may, in the future, seek sewer extensions to
remediate health hazards from malfunctioning septic systems in existing fully-developed areas
immediately adjoining, but outside the State Plan designated centers. It was suggested that the RMP
should support this remedial action whenever municipal policies and regulations recognize such
hazards.
RESPONSE: The RMP provides for sewer extensions adjoining existing areas if serviced for public
health reasons. Chapter 5 provides more detailed information regarding how such needs can be
proven.
157
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
General
COMMENT: One comment stated that the agricultural resources section speaks in general terms
about the need for additional resources for farmland preservation, but does not emphasize how
important farmland preservation is to agriculture in the State.
RESPONSE: The introduction paragraphs of the Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and
Stewardship goals, policies, and objectives and program in the RMP were expanded to address the
importance of preserving agricultural land and the viability of the agricultural industry.
Agricultural Sustainability and Viability
COMMENT: Several comments stated the 2007 Draft RMP must create a level economic playing
field for agriculture in the Highlands Region that allows farmers in the region to compete with the
rest of New Jersey. Agriculture must be allowed to change to be competitive and a farmer must
have the ability to borrow against their land equity.
COMMENT: Several comments stated the program does not contain language to make agriculture
viable in the Highlands, which is necessary for agriculture to be competitive. In addition the
comments stated that agri-tourism is not the preferred way for farmers to enhance their businesses,
because the expense of the public on their farm does not outweigh the economic benefit.
COMMENT: One comment stated that in addition to a land base, agriculture requires stable land
values and nothing in the RMP protects land values. In addition, agriculture is threatened in the
State by the lack of local resources, including equipment, transportation, and regulations and farmers
can’t rely on agriculture as a full time occupation. The RMP needs to recognize how difficult it has
become to farm and compete nationally and globally.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address and incorporate appropriate suggestions; the
Council will coordinate and collaborate with all federal, State, county, municipal, and nonprofit
entities to maximize existing and alternative/innovative funding and stewardship programs to
promote the sustainability of agricultural land and viability of the agricultural industry.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Warren County Department of Land Preservation
produced a report that documents Preservation Area standards have significantly reduced the value
of land and one of the major areas of concern is environmental standards in the Planning Area will
affect land values similar to the effects on land values in the Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: The RMP’s policies and objectives have been developed so that the Highlands Act
requirements are met, including both environmental protection and provision for smart growth that
is in keeping with environmental protection.
COMMENT: One comment stated that prioritizing the most productive agricultural land for
preservation is unnecessary and marginal agricultural land that is desirable for development should
be targeted first. In addition there should be a means for allowing construction of residential
development on large lots, which would have a minimal impact on the environment and preserve
open space without the need for public funding.
RESPONSE: The most prime productive agricultural lands are typically the most suitable for septic
systems and desirable for development, therefore the RMP considers Prime, Statewide Importance,
Unique, and Locally Important soils as Important Farmland Soils as critical agricultural resources of
the Highlands Region and one of the criteria for prioritizing farmland for preservation.
COMMENT: One comment stated the 2007 Draft RMP does not include sufficient discussion on
158
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
land preservation priorities in the Protection and Conservation Zones and the plan should include
identification of preservation priorities, identification of properties that lack any development
potential due to resource or capacity constraints, and a financial analysis of the cost to preserve
priority land.
RESPONSE: The Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship and Land Preservation
Programs of the RMP were expanded to include discussion of creating and maintaining a
confidential priority list for land preservation and projected five and ten year land acquisition costs
to preserve the confidential priority list.
Stewardship Programs, Conservation Plans and Water Use
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the 2007 Draft RMP should promote United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) cost share
programs and provide clarification on what can be done on the farm.
RESPONSE: Policy 3D5 was expanded to include promotion of USDA NRCS and Farm Service
Agency (FSA) cost-share programs, and the Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and Stewardship
Program was expanded to include a section on the Establishment of Alternative/Innovative
Agriculture Stewardship Programs. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA and NRCS to foster
and implement conservation plans and best management practices in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Water Quality Technical Report shows the increase in
septic systems since 1986 and that continued agricultural practices in the region had no impact on
median nitrate concentration in the subwatersheds. The septic densities established in the
Preservation Area and proposed in the Planning Area will have a significant impact on agricultural
land values and make it more difficult to farm in the region.
RESPONSE: The impact of agricultural practices on the Highlands Region’s water quality is
addressed in the white paper on Conservation Plans and Best Management Practices, which will serve as an
addendum to the Sustainable Agriculture Technical Report. The Agricultural Sustainability, Viability and
Stewardship Program in Chapter 5 of the RMP addresses promoting existing NRCS and FSA costshare programs for best management practices and establishing alternative/innovative agriculture
stewardship programs to sustain and enhance agricultural viability and water quality. The septic
system densities were established based on commonly used nitrate dilution models and nitrate
targets appropriate to each LUC Zone.
COMMENT: One comment stated that stewardship programs are helpful to farmers only when
there is a savings in property taxes through farmland assessment and if farmland assessment is
significantly changed many people will drop out of programs. The comment also stated that owners
of woodland in the Preservation Area are dropping out of stewardship plans, because their land has
lost value and the RMP should address this issue.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and supports continuation of the Farmland
Assessment Program, creation of similar but separate incentives for private forest land stewardship,
and funding for agricultural land and open space preservation programs.
Cluster Development and Open Space/Conservation Design Standards
COMMENT: Several comments expressed support for cluster development.
COMMENT: One comment stated that funding is needed for conservation planning to assist soil,
water and natural resource conservation practices and a well constructed cluster ordinance is
necessary to protect landowner equity.
RESPONSE: The Council will provide grants, technical assistance and planning assistance to
159
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
municipalities for cluster development planning. The Council will also create Cluster Development
Conformance Standards and guidance that include examples of model cluster ordinances and
relevant master plan provisions. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA and the NRCS to
assist farmers in maximizing existing and alternative programs for best management practices that
sustain and enhance agricultural land and the agricultural industry in the Highlands.
COMMENT: Several comments did not support cluster development on agricultural land.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the inclusion of lot-averaging and open space design will
increase the fragmentation of agricultural lands.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should place more emphasis on
preserving agriculture and not on cluster development.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP would allow non-farm residential development in
agricultural areas and these non-farm clusters do not preserve farming or farmland.
RESPONSE: State, county, and local farmland preservation programs are given high priority by the
RMP but have funding constraints, and as a result techniques such as clustering that accommodate
limited growth and preserve agricultural lands are necessary. In an Agricultural Resource Area
(ARA), where other land preservation techniques are not feasible, clustering is mandatory for
residential development through Municipal Plan Conformance, local development review, and
Highlands Project Review and the use of clustering must preserve at least 80 percent of the land in
perpetuity for agricultural use or for environmental protection.
COMMENT: One comment stated that all cluster development should be located adjacent to other
similar developed areas and on public sewer.
RESPONSE: Water and wastewater availability, expansion, or creation for cluster development is
wholly dependent on the Highlands LUCM Zone in which the cluster project area is located. The
cluster design development plans and regulations must consider existing community character and
incorporate smart growth design principles and Low Impact Development (LID). Where a cluster
development is acceptable but no utility services are directly adjacent, the creation of project-specific
utility services may be needed, and in the case of wastewater especially may be preferable to the use
of septic systems.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the development of Open Space/Conservation Design
Standards for the stewardship and use of preserved lands should be established in the 2007 Draft
RMP.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will create Cluster Development Conformance Standards that
include examples of model cluster ordinances and relevant master plan provisions. The council will
also create Cluster Development Design Guidelines to guide municipalities, local development
review and Highlands Project Review to supplement the cluster program. Cluster development
design guidelines will be incorporated into cluster zoning ordinances. This level of detail is
inappropriate to the RMP, but the Cluster Development Program was modified to provide more
guidance.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the County Agriculture Development Boards (CADBs)
should continue to be the agency responsible for monitoring deed restrictions on preserved farms
and the office of the State Forester must be the agency responsible for monitoring conformance
with approved Woodland Management Plans required for Farmland Assessment.
RESPONSE: If the County Agriculture Development Board (CADB) holds the easement on a
preserved parcel of farmland, the CADB is the entity responsible for monitoring and enforcing the
160
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
deed of easement. Under the State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) Farmland
Preservation Program the entity that holds the easement is responsible for monitoring the preserved
farmland and could include the SADC, CADB or a municipality. The NJDEP State Forester is
responsible for developing and approving Woodland Management Plans and Forest Management
Plans.
Additional Land Use Opportunities
COMMENT: One comment stated that this program component should establish standards for
such uses including the number of employees, nitrate loading from septic systems, parking, air
emissions, and impermeable cover.
COMMENT: One comment stated the words “should be permitted” should be removed from the
program in reference to businesses opportunities permitted as a matter of right.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address and incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council adopt a policy to amend the
New Jersey Right to Farm laws where necessary to allow additional business opportunities for
agricultural operations by right.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act does include the legislative directive that the Highlands Act does
not compromise the New Jersey Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, but the goals, policies and
objectives of the RMP apply through the Act, which addresses agricultural practices that pose a
direct threat to public health and safety. The Council will coordinate with the NJDA, SADC and
CADBs to allow additional business opportunities for agricultural operations as necessary to support
the viability of the agricultural operation subject to compliance with the resource management and
protection requirements of the RMP.
Identification of Willing Sellers
COMMENT: One comment stated that the identification of willing sellers and support of
legislation to extend the dual appraisal methodology used by the Garden State Preservation Trust
(GSPT) beyond the June 30, 2009 expiration date should be prioritized in program discussions.
RESPONSE: The extension of the GSPT dual appraisal methodology is supported in the goals,
policies, and objectives (Policy 1H6) for Land Preservation and Stewardship.
Right to Farm
COMMENT: One comment stated that agriculture should be exempt from the Highlands Act and
that agricultural activities are treated differently in the LUCM zones, but agricultural activities are
supposed to be regulated by the NJDA.
COMMENT: One comment stated the RMP contradicts the Right to Farm Act.
RESPONSE: Agricultural or horticultural use and development are not defined as Major Highlands
Developments, so the NJDEP Rules N.J.A.C. 7:38 in the Preservation Area do not apply. However,
the Act does not exempt agriculture. The goals, policies, and objectives of the RMP apply through
the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A 4:1C-1, which addresses agricultural practices that pose a direct
threat to public health and safety. In addition, Policy 3D2 and 3D3 in the RMP address the 3% and
9% impervious cover triggers for agricultural or horticultural development subject to the NJDA
Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands.
COMMENT: Several comments stated the Right to Farm Act must be included in the RMP,
because it enhances agricultural viability and allows farms flexibility to change. The RMP must
discuss the County Agriculture Development Boards role to resolve conflicts with farms and local
161
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
communities.
RESPONSE: The RMP was modified on adoption to address and incorporate new goals, policies
and objectives (Policy 3E3 and 3E4) and a new program discussion on the Right to Farm Act.
HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
Historic Resource Protection
COMMENT: One comment suggested that language should be added stating that municipalities
and/or counties are responsible for nominating specific resources for inclusion in the Highlands
Historic and Cultural Resource Inventory.
RESPONSE: Municipalities and counties are encouraged to conduct historic resource surveys and
include them as part of the Historic Preservation Plan element of their master plan. Additionally,
those historic resources that are identified through local project review by conforming municipalities
and counties are required to be reviewed and evaluated for possible inclusion in the local survey.
Municipal and county surveys are required to be submitted to the Highlands Council for
consideration in updating the Highlands Region Historic and Cultural Resources Inventory.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that any requirement to consider historic transportation
infrastructure should include feasibility criteria for maintenance of such facilities.
RESPONSE: The Historic Resource Preservation Program requires counties, as part of Plan
Conformance, to address historic transportation infrastructure within the county master plan and
encourages them to develop a program to preserve the historic integrity of historic bridges. The
county program may include feasibility criteria relative to the maintenance of those structures.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council does not need to prepare a
historic preservation manual because the State Historic Preservation Office already has adequate
publications. It was suggested that the Council offer grants to municipalities to prepare local
community design guidelines.
RESPONSE: The Historic Resources Protection Program states that the Council will, “in
coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office, will develop or adapt a historic
preservation manual to provide guidance.” The Council will also offer grant to municipalities and
counties for implementation of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment was concerned that any heritage tourism efforts should avoid private
property and markers and signs should not be placed without permission of the landowner.
RESPONSE: Any heritage tourism program would respect the private property rights of
individuals.
COMMENT: One comment stated that identification of historic sites should be limited to the
property owner only. The comment was concerned that privacy would be jeopardized and many
locations could be considered “historic.”
RESPONSE: Historic surveys are generally conducted by a professional and involve an objective
evaluation of potential resources within the designated survey area. The results of the survey are
made available to the public, including individual property owners who may provide input.
COMMENT: One comment suggested coordination with other historic protection and tourism
efforts in the Region, such as the Crossroads of the American Revolution and the proposed
162
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.
RESPONSE: The Council will coordinate their activities with respect to historic and cultural
resources with the State Historic Preservation Office and the New Jersey Historic Trust, as well as
municipalities and counties through Plan Conformance. In advocating for heritage tourism, the
Council will also coordinate with other appropriate organizations involved in historic resource
preservation throughout the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the Council was overstepping federal and state
regulatory programs with respect to the treatment of historic resources. The comment suggested
that the Council should support and encourage practical attainment of existing regulatory programs.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act establishes a series of goals for the regional master plan and
among them is the preservation of historic sites and other historic resources. The goals, policies,
objectives and program contained within the RMP have been developed to meet that mandate and
in many instances have been devised to make use of existing programs, such as the Historic
Preservation Plan element of the municipal master plan and the appointment of historic
preservation commissions.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Historic Resource Protection Program should use
the broadest possible standards for identification of these resources. It was suggested that those
listed resources should then be the responsibility of an applicant to demonstrate that a proposal
would not adversely impact the resource.
RESPONSE: The Council will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office in
establishing acceptable criteria for the identification of historic resources. Conforming
municipalities and counties will be required to establish minimum standards for the protection and
enhancement of historic resources. Additionally, conforming local governments are encouraged to
adopt local historic preservation ordinances with standards designed to protect historic resources.
COMMENT: One comment stated that once an historic preservation manual is developed it is
important to make it available to stakeholders for their use.
RESPONSE: The historic preservation manual will be made widely available to all interested
stakeholders and will be posted on the Council’s website as part of its Highlands Guidance System.
COMMENT: One comment stated that farmers must not be required to renovate and/or maintain
old, obsolete structures with no economic assistance or benefit. It was suggested that farm
structures be included in any compensated adaptive reuse funding or tax incentive program and
municipalities enable non-farm use of historic farm buildings in order to support their preservation.
RESPONSE: The Council will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office and the New
Jersey Historic Trust to support economic assistance to preserve historic agricultural structures. The
RMP includes a policy to advocate for grants and financial incentives to aid landowners in the
preservation and maintenance of historic, cultural and archaeological resources. Additionally, the
Historic Resource Protection Program encourages municipalities to consider alternative strategies,
such as adaptive reuse, to protect historic and cultural sites.
COMMENT: One comment stated that municipalities and counties should not be required to
include a Historic Preservation Plan element in their master plans because this information is
available at the State Historic Preservation Office.
RESPONSE: The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) does not have listings of all historic
resources in the Highlands nor does it provide local planning for preservation at the community
163
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
level as would be supported by a municipal master plan. The Historic and Cultural Resource
Inventory prepared by SHPO includes: 1) all properties listed on the State or the National Register
of Historic Places; 2) all properties which have been deemed eligible for listing on the State or
National Register; and 3) all properties for which a formal SHPO opinion has been issued.
Scenic Resource Protection
COMMENT: Several comments supported the creation, maintenance and expansion of a Scenic
Resource Inventory and supported the policy to address and minimize the potential impact of
development on these resources.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and appreciates the support for scenic
resource protection.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council establish definitions and standards to
enable municipalities and counties to decide on what is “scenic” on a regional basis. It also
suggested that a broadly based education and consensus building effort be undertaken to identify
unique scenic vistas.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” (June 2008) establishes criteria for designation of regionally
significant scenic resources. The Procedure also requires a public outreach effort intended to
provide for meaningful input from the community and states that local consensus will be recognized
as one criterion for evaluation.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that there must be flexibility in siting structures and
establishing road corridor regulations to protect existing tree rows along roads is inappropriate. It
was also pointed out that vegetation along roadways may pose a safety issue relative to collisions
with wildlife.
RESPONSE: The Scenic Resources Protection Program addresses the establishment of road
corridor guidelines along scenic roads subject to safety considerations.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Highlands Council conduct a study of significant
scenic areas within the Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council developed the draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation
and Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” to assist in the identification of
regionally significant scenic resources.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council needs to identify “ridgelines”
before it mandates ordinances to protect them.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” establishes criteria for the identification and designation of
ridgelines.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that it should be clear that the Highlands Act goals are
specific regarding scenic and aesthetic resources and regional character. It was also stated that these
values have national significance and the Highlands was recognized by the 1992 US Forest Service
Study as a “landscape of national significance.”
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the support expressed in these comments.
164
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that obsolete farm structures that are required to be preserved
for the sake of scenic resource protection should be allowed non-farm use to justify the costs
associated with maintenance.
RESPONSE: The Scenic Resources Protection Program of the RMP encourage municipalities and
counties to consider alternative strategies to protect scenic features, such as allowing adaptive reuse
of existing agricultural structures to support their protection and maintenance.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that local scenic resources receive the same consideration
during local project review as those listed on the Council’s Scenic Resources Inventory.
RESPONSE: Local officials may exercise additional review initiatives subject to enabling legislation,
such as the Municipal Land Use Law. The RMP applies specifically to regionally significant scenic
resources.
COMMENT: A few comments recommended that local government entities develop a Scenic
Resources Management Plan, they be required to create local scenic resources inventories, and that
locally significant scenic resources be eligible for inclusion in the Highlands Scenic Resource
Inventory.
RESPONSE: The RMP encourages municipalities, or groups of municipalities and/or counties, to
conduct scenic resource inventories and these inventories are to be provided to the Highlands
Council for consideration in updating the Highlands Scenic Resources Inventory. The draft
“Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic
Resources” include a requirement for submission of a Scenic Resource Analysis and Management
Plan with each scenic resource nomination.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the baseline inventory of scenic resources be finalized
before the adoption of the RMP and that it be maintained in its entirety and added to with municipal
public lands, including conservation lands and lands identified on the municipal Recreation and
Open Space Inventory (ROSI).
RESPONSE: The baseline inventory was prepared as an initial listing of potential scenic resources
within the Highlands Region. The baseline consists of publicly-owned parks, forests, and recreation
areas and was assembled as a starting point from which to begin to refine a list of regionally
significant scenic resources.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Highlands Council add both the Musconetcong
Scenic River and the Highlands Millennium Trail to the Scenic Resource Inventory. Other
comments suggested adding water supply reservoirs, municipal open space, and nonprofit preserved
lands to the Inventory. Comments also supported the addition of other features, including
ridgelines, forests, meadows, scenic corridors, scenic rivers and streams, water bodies, scenic byways,
trails and rivers, geologic formations, significant natural communities, agricultural landscapes and
orchards, industrial archaeology remains, and historical/cultural resources that could be viewed from
a public vantage point.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Scenic Resource Inventory will be updated and maintained according
to the process outlined in the Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources once it is adopted. The draft Procedures provide for
nomination, evaluation and inventory of a diversity of scenic resources, including scenic
byways/corridors, panoramas and valleys, ridgelines, mountainsides and geological features, natural
features, including vegetation and water features, and cultural landscapes.
165
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments supported the development of scenic resource protection
mechanisms and urged the Council to develop specific standards and guidelines, as well as model
ordinances, to protect scenic resources.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that it is important that the standards for scenic resource
protection be included as part of the RMP to assist in scenic resource protection measures.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested amending the program summary to make specific
reference to standards, mechanisms and programs.
RESPONSE: The Council has released for public comment (June 2008) a draft “Procedure for
Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” which
establishes a method for nomination, evaluation, designation and management of scenic resources
and protection. Conforming municipalities and counties are required to include minimum standards
for the protection of scenic resources listed in the Highlands Region Scenic Resources Inventory.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the terms “scenic” and “scenic character of
the Highlands” are subjective and may be inappropriately applied.
RESPONSE: Nominations and evaluations of proposed scenic resources will be subject to the
“Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands Regionally Significant Scenic
Resources” once it is adopted. The draft Procedure outlines criteria to support objective decisionmaking relative to scenic resources within the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that municipalities, counties and regional agencies be
encouraged to pursue designation of scenic byways within the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The draft “Procedure for Nomination, Evaluation and Inventory of Highlands
Regionally Significant Scenic Resources” includes scenic byway/corridor as one of the types of
regionally significant scenic resources that may be nominated to the Highlands Scenic Resources
Inventory. The Scenic Resources Protection Program of the RMP encourages municipalities and
counties to pursue designation of the scenic byways where appropriate.
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND MOBILITY
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern with the lack of Transportation Project review
standards in the 2007 Draft RMP.
COMMENT: Several comments were received regarding greater details and protocols for the
Highlands Council Growth Inducing Study and the Transportation Project Review methodology,
particularly regarding how Exemptions from the Highlands Act will be identified and the role of the
Land Use Capability Map (LUCM) in the project review process.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the importance of the Transportation Project
Review procedures and the importance of working in consultation with New Jersey Department of
Transportation (NJDOT) as specified in Section 11.a of the Highlands Act. In response to the
public comments, the Highlands Council has modified the Transportation Safety and Mobility goals,
policies and objectives and program to clarify when a study regarding growth inducing impacts of a
project may be required and how it will inform the Transportation Project review process.
Additional details and procedures regarding the Transportation Project review will be developed in
consultation with agencies including but not limited to NJDOT, NJ Transit, NJTPA and NJDEP
and will be available for public comment prior to implementation.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP include additional details regarding regional
airport facilities and the designation of airports in the Land Use Capability Map.
166
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: In response to the comment the Highlands Council has modified the Transportation
Safety and Mobility goals, policies, objectives and program to reflect the seven Highlands regional
aircraft facilities. Regional aircraft facilities will be further evaluated at the local level during Plan
Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the RMP is consistent with the NJTPA’s Regional
Transportation Plan and the Regional Capital Investment Strategy. It is important for the Highlands
Council to work with NJTPA regarding Adopted RMP transportation planning initiatives.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and looks forward to promoting
and supporting a sound and balanced transportation system for the Highlands Region in
consultation with agency partners and through Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: A few comments were received regarding more details about how the Highlands
Council will work with County Planning Departments in regard to regional transportation planning.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP policies and Implementation
Programs recognize the role of County Planning Departments and the NJTPA Regional
Transportation Plan for inter- and intra-regional transportation planning.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that more details were required regarding the use of the
Highlands Region population and employment projections used by the NJ Transit Score program
and the NJTPA 2030 Access and Mobility Plan. The previous data was not reflective of the
Highlands Act and RMP and therefore the findings may be skewed.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council developed the Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report to
support regional planning and inform the county and local Plan Conformance process. This
partnership with counties and municipalities in regard to linking land use and transportation
planning will inform forecasts for population and employment and will be shared with agencies and
the public in order to inform comprehensive planning for inter and intra regional transportation
needs in support of RMP policies. The Council will also continue to coordinate with NJTPA
regarding the impacts of the RMP on potential transportation needs and use projections in the
Highlands and the broader region.
COMMENT: One comment requested additional details for County Planning Departments and the
connection between the RMP and the Human Services Plan required by each county.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that through Plan Conformance it will be working with
counties regarding a Circulation Plan element that addresses all federal, state and regional needs in
support of transportation and transit for all stakeholders.
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that the RMP Transportation Safety and Mobility policies
should include more details regarding the linkage between transportation and land use.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council agrees that the linkage between transportation and land use is
in concert with the goals of the Highlands Act; therefore, the RMP polices and implementation
programs holistically link resource protection needs, infrastructure including water, wastewater and
transportation/transit to existing developed land areas as a means to address access and mobility
planning at a regional, county and local level. During Plan Conformance the Highlands Council will
work with municipalities and counties to further support the linkage between land use and
transportation planning, including the development of guidance as appropriate.
COMMENT: One comment was received indicating support for a Memorandum of Understanding
167
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
(MOU) between the NJTPA, NJDOT and the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and continues to work with many agency
partners in establishing an MOU, where appropriate. The Highlands Council intends to develop a
MOU with state transportation planning agencies including but not limited to NJDOT in support of
RMP policies.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP include the identification of Transportation
Projects for review by NJDOT as required by the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has revised the RMP Transportation Safety and Mobility
Program to recognize specific transportation projects.
COMMENT: One comment was received regarding the Transportation Project Review language
and the prohibition of through lane capacity in the Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has revised the RMP Transportation Safety and Mobility
Program to clarify the Transportation Project Review process and clarified the language regarding
through lane capacity in the goals, policies and objectives in Chapter 4 that support the program in
Chapter 5.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that traffic calming measures are unsafe, agriculture safe
routes do not make sense, and there is no bus or rail transit in the Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment but continues to support the
RMP policies for Transportation Safety and Mobility.
FUTURE LAND USE
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that development should be limited in the Highlands
Region and that in the Existing Community Zone development is subject to a natural resource
review by the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the RMP policies and standards include
resource protection for the Highlands Region and that the Highlands Act intended to limit
development patterns in the Highlands Region to those areas that can support smart growth without
compromising environmental protection.
Land Use Capability Analysis Approach
COMMENT: Some comments were received that requested RMP Updates Program be more
clearly outlined. Specifically, updates should be made to more closely align with the State Planning
areas. The underlying caution for both RMP Updates and Map Adjustments is that both programs
have the potential to be used to further private, local or regional political agendas rather addressing
pure data errors or gaps.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses the requirements of the Highlands Act to provide guidance to
municipalities and counties for the implementation of resource protection and smart growth policies
during Plan Conformance. The Highlands Council recognizes that the RMP was created at a
regional scale and that new, updated or additional information available at the federal, State, county
or public level may become available. To facilitate the collection and verification of new
information, the RMP Updates Program (Chapter 6) was separated from the Map Adjustment
Program and described in more detail to facilitate and coordinate the exchange and verification of
updated, relevant factual information and focuses on existing on the ground conditions. The
168
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Highlands Council is committed to enhance its existing data necessary through Plan Conformance at
a local scale and verification of data is a key component. The program includes criteria for who can
submit information and verification through supporting relevant documentation.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP must include a determination of the “amount
and type of human development and activity which the ecosystem of the Highlands Regional can
sustain” [N.J.S.A. 13:20-11a(1)(a)].
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the results of the Resource Assessment to identify
those lands within the Highlands Region with significant natural and ecological resources.
Indicators were used to measure the relative quality of a particular resource, such as ground water
recharge, watershed condition, open waters and riparian areas, forests, critical habitat, and slopes.
Areas with significant agricultural lands and important farmland soils were also evaluated. A
determination was made as to their quality and importance to the Highlands Region.
The Council then used the results of the Smart Growth analysis to identify the nature and extent of
developed lands that have limited and dispersed environmental and agricultural resources. Areas
were identified based upon existing patterns of development with particular emphasis on areas that
are currently served by existing water and wastewater infrastructure. These findings were used to
develop the Land Use Capability Map Series as follows:
Land Use Capability Zone Map
Land Use Capability Water Availability Map
Land Use Capability Public Community Water Systems Map
Land Use Capability Domestic Sewerage Facilities Map
Land Use Capability Septic System Yield Map
The information provided in the LUC Map Series and other data were used in developing the
Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report, which provides regional information on the amount of
development that can be supported in the Highlands Region, based on available land, utility capacity
and water availability.
COMMENT: Several comments identified technical aspects of the development of the Land Use
Capability Zone Map. Comments included the need to use all resource features, 75 acre minimum
zone size threshold is too broad, Existing Community Zones are in areas with depleted water, and
the overall mapping is a farce.
RESPONSE: The Land Use Capability Map Technical Report provides an introduction and overview of
the development process, data input information, and the utility of the Land Use Analysis Decision
Support (LANDS) Model for the Highlands Region. Given a region of over 860,000 acres, the use
of a 75 acre minimum mapping unit was identified as reasonable. The resource features used were
those that most directly reflected environmental and land use features and did not introduce major
redundancies. Existing Community Zones reflect the location and extent of existing communities,
and may be in areas that are currently with and without utility capacity and water availability. While
utility capacity and water availability may be modified through human action, the existing
development pattern will remain.
COMMENT: One comment requested additional clarification on the policies that govern the
Environmentally Constrained Zones.
RESPONSE: Like Zones, the Environmentally Constrained Sub Zones have specific policies
associated with them and are addressed by feature and in many cases vary depending on Planning
and Preservation Area. For example, for wastewater management infrastructure for the Planning
Area, new, expanded or extended public wastewater collection and treatment systems and
169
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
community on-site treatment facilities in the Protection Zone, the Conservation Zone and the
Environmentally-Constrained Sub-Zones are prohibited unless they are shown to be necessary for
and are approved by the Highlands Council for one or more of the following purposes: 1) to
address a documented existing or imminent threat to public health and safety; 2) to serve a
designated Highlands Redevelopment Area; 3) to serve a cluster development that meets all
requirements of Objective 2J4b; or 4) to avoid the taking of property without just compensation.
Cluster Development
General
COMMENT: Several comments stated support for cluster development and lot-averaging.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for cluster policies and objectives relating to cluster
with the exception of Objectives 2J4b, 2K3d, 2K3f, and 3A10c that limit impervious cover on the
land set-aside for permanent agricultural use. Impervious cover should not be restricted for future
farming purposes.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for the 80% set aside cluster provision for agriculture.
COMMENT: One comment stated support for cluster policies that support landowner equity and
preservation and the Cluster Goals Policies and Objectives that refer to agricultural impervious
cover should be amended for the New Jersey Department of Agriculture (NJDA) Rules 2:92
Agricultural Development in the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The 3% and 9% impervious cover triggers for new agricultural or horticultural
development established in the Highlands Act require conservation plans for farms that meet these
thresholds. Conservation plans are subject to the NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the
Highlands. The Cluster Development goals, policies and objectives were revised to incorporate
language from the NJDA Rules 2:92 Agricultural Development in the Highlands. To address the
water quality impacts of clusters combined with ongoing agriculture, clusters for agricultural
preservation will require the implementation of an NRCS Farm Conservation Plan focused on water
and soil resources.
COMMENT: One comment supported cluster development in the RMP, but expressed concern
over allowing development within or immediately adjacent to Existing Community Zones.
RESPONSE: The majority of existing development is within the Existing Community Zone,
therefore from a smart growth perspective it is important to place new development adjacent to
existing development to maximize the use of existing infrastructure. Development located in the
environs is less efficient in that it requires new infrastructure, such as transportation, water,
wastewater, and community facilities, which only increase traffic congestion, impervious cover and
ultimately the cost of government services.
COMMENT: One comment stated that large lot zoning leads to sprawl, but clustering on small lots
is smart growth.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that cluster development on working farms and allowing
new sewers to be built is a recipe for sprawl.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the cluster program should encourage clustering of clusters
with mixed use development and consistent with smart growth principles.
COMMENT: One comment stated that historical Highlands residential, commercial and
agricultural development or existing community character and design should be considered when
designing cluster developments.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments, but increases in land value and budgetary
170
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
funding constraints make it nearly impossible to preserve agricultural and environmental resources
with public tax dollars alone. Municipalities need several planning tools in their toolbox to achieve
their desired resource protection goals and the requirements of the RMP. Planning mechanisms that
do not require public funding for compensation, such as clustering techniques, must be made
available to retain agriculture and environmental resources. The Cluster/Conservation Design
Development program and goals policies and objectives have been modified to require the design of
the cluster development consider existing community character, and incorporate smart growth
design principles and Low Impact Development (LID).
COMMENT: One comment stated that cluster development should not be permitted if sewers are
required to support higher density.
COMMENT: One comment stated clustering will allow sewers to be extended into the
Preservation Area, which is in conflict with the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: Cluster development yields are based on the septic system density requirement of the
RMP relevant to the LUCM Zone in which the cluster project area is located in, except where
specifically allowed by the Highlands Council through the use of Highlands Development Credit
purchases where wastewater infrastructure is available consistent with RMP policies and objectives.
Policy 2I1 in the Sustainable Development and Water Resources section prohibits the expansion or
creation of public wastewater collection and treatment systems and community on-site treatment
facilities in the Preservation Area unless approved through a Highlands Applicability Determination
or a Highlands Preservation Area Approval with waiver pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:38 and Policy 7G1.
Cluster development, unless it meets one of those requirements, is not eligible for water supply or
wastewater utility service in the Preservation Area.
COMMENT: One comment stated that houses and agriculture do not make good neighbors and
that the land preserved will be brush-hogged every so often, which is not real farming.
COMMENT: One comment stated that cluster development is out of context with rural areas and
high density housing is a use that is not compatible with agriculture. The same comment asked who
would maintain the 80% portion of the parcel that is deed restricted.
COMMENT: One comment stated that stringent standards should be established and controlled to
prevent cumulative impacts on water quality, loss of forest, agricultural soils and habitat in the 80%
deed restricted area.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development program and goals, policies and
objectives in Chapter V, specifically Objective 3A5b, require that all cluster or conservation design
development proposed in an Agricultural Resource Area be buffered appropriately with existing
natural resources, such as hedgerows or trees, or with new buffers to avoid conflicts between nonagricultural development and agricultural activities, and to protect existing agricultural uses. The
program has also been modified to include specific requirements for the deed of easement and
monitoring and enforcement for Cluster Design for Environmental Protection or Cluster Design for
Agricultural Preservation to ensure these resources are preserved in perpetuity.
COMMENT: One comment stated if streams, slopes and forests can’t be built on, then why should
zoning be changed to force irregular shaped lots and how will property lines be known when natural
features change over time?
RESPONSE: Implementation of the RMP through Plan Conformance will result in the protection
of natural resources through a combination of site design and conservation easements. Individual
lots may be structured to ensure that a building site is available that will not infringe upon the natural
resources, which would then be protected from future encroachment through a conservation
171
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
easement. Changes in natural resource features over time will not result in modification of the
conservation easement, which will have specific descriptions of the land area involved and will
require the use of physical markers on site.
COMMENT: Several comments stated concern with regard to pollutants including nitrates from
development and agricultural use and that a nitrate target of 10 mg/L with 2 acre lots is not
acceptable in a cluster development and the 2007 Draft RMP makes it impossible to cluster outside
of sewer service areas. How would cluster be designed on a 20% set aside with minimum lot sizes
of two acres?
COMMENT: One comment stated that clustering should not be allowed in agriculture areas within
the Conservation Zone due to resource protection and the concentration of nitrates associated with
development.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development program and goals, policies and
objectives, specifically Objective 2J4d and 2L2h, require best management practices and site design
that protect the on-site wells from contamination resulting from agricultural practices and must
include provisions to minimize or reduce net pollutant loadings from the total cluster project area
including the preserved agricultural lands. Objective 3A5d requires the land in the cluster project
area dedicated to agricultural purposes develop and implement a Farm Conservation Plan that
addresses the protection of water and soil resources prepared by the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The council will create Cluster Development Design Guidelines to
guide municipalities, local development review and Highlands Project Review that illustrate
examples of cluster project areas.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP needs a well-constructed cluster ordinance to
protect agricultural lands and provide for landowner equity.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will create Cluster Development Conformance Standards that
include examples of model cluster ordinances and relevant master plan provisions.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the cluster program encourages towns to map where
clusters can go and the New Jersey courts define this as TDR subject to the State TDR Act. The
Council should come up with a strategy to avoid this issue.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the clustering provisions violate the New Jersey Municipal
Land Use Law (MLUL) because it allows for the developer to retain ownership of the land
developed for clustering, rather than this land being owned by the people who live in the cluster as
required under the MLUL. It also violates the Highlands Act because of the increased pollution that
comes from clustering.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development Program in Chapter 5 has been
revised so it does not interpret the MLUL clustering and lot-averaging provisions, but to recognize
the provisions. The Council will create Cluster Development Design Guidelines to guide
municipalities, local development review and Highlands Project Review to supplement the cluster
program. Cluster development design guidelines will be incorporated into cluster zoning ordinances
and illustrate examples of contiguous and non-contiguous cluster, lot-averaging and conservation
design consistent with the MLUL. Where the cluster is created through lot-averaging, the preserved
farmland can be retained in private ownership with a conservation easement.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP requires that high value resources be avoided in
locating clusters including Forest Resource Areas, Critical Habitat Areas, Steep Slopes, Prime
Ground Water Recharge Areas, and Highlands Open Waters and Riparian Areas, but does not
172
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
include Farmland. In addition to high value resource areas the RMP considers Prime soils and lands
used for active agriculture as high value resources, but this implies there will be little land available
for growth in the Conservation Zone. The RMP must amply demonstrate to landowners that there
is sufficient land for future growth in the Conservation Zone.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development goals, policies and objectives have
been updated to include Agricultural Resource Areas as high value resources.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Chapter IV Part 6 states that zoning regulations should be
flexible to avoid negative impacts to valuable resources, but the cluster program sets minimum
setbacks and roadside vegetation requirements that are inconsistent with this goal and will fragment
habitat.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the setback requirements should be tabled and revisited as
part of flexible scenic protection guidelines, because setbacks should be applied to existing
conditions.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development Program in Chapter 5 was revised to
remove required setbacks by LUCM Zone, because these setbacks will not allow for flexibility in
cluster design to avoid Highlands’s resources and will promote added impervious cover by extending
roads and driveways to meet the setbacks. Model cluster ordinances do not establish setbacks, but
include a basic requirement that individual lots, buildings, structures, streets, and parking areas are
situated to minimize the alteration of natural features, natural vegetation, and topography. These
parameters will be clearly outlined in the Cluster Development Design Guidelines and Standards,
which will include model cluster ordinance language and examples of model ordinances.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested clarifying the provisions for clustering in the LUCM
zones, because adjustments based on site specific applications should be allowed consideration at
the time of application and issues affecting clustering in the Protection Zone will be the same as
those found in the other zones. Adjustments should be allowed if the Council finds them consistent
with the RMP goals.
COMMENT: One comment stated that it is appropriate to allow adjustments to the design of a
cluster, but the standards and criteria should not be altered unless the RMP goes through a full
public amendment process.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development Program in Chapter 5 was revised to
be arranged by the resource being protected; Cluster Design for Environmental Protection or
Cluster Design for Agricultural Preservation and the cluster design development must meet the
resource management and protection requirements of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that all farm related housing and auxiliary structures should be
grouped on non-prime soils and non-agricultural development should only occur in villages and
hamlets and the permissive requirement for “open space design” should be eliminated.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development program in Chapter 5 and goals,
policies and objectives in Chapter 4 prioritize cluster development located adjacent to existing
development and the design of the cluster development must consider existing community
character. One of the general requirements is that the most productive Important Farmland Soils
shall be given priority in determining the set aside agricultural parcel and shall be preserved to the
maximum extent possible within the cluster project area.
COMMENT: One comment encouraged the Council to make economically feasible, through
zoning or use of incentives, the inclusion of affordable housing as part of clustering development to
173
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
allow municipalities to address their constitutional affordable housing obligations.
RESPONSE: The Cluster/Conservation Design Development program and goals, policies and
objectives, specifically Objective 2K3e, has been revised to prioritize the Transfer of Development
Rights Receiving Areas, where designated, affordable housing projects, infill and redevelopment for
clustering development within the Existing Community Zone.
Redevelopment
COMMENT: One comment suggested the addition of text specific to “charitable, nonprofit
campground” for inclusion in the discussion of redevelopment.
RESPONSE: The RMP allows redevelopment opportunities based upon location (Planning Area or
Preservation Area, RMP Zone, etc.) but is not specific to the use of the potential site. Refer to the
draft Procedures for Highlands Redevelopment Area Designations which establish the process and
procedures for site(s) approval for redevelopment.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council distributed a confusing draft of
Procedures for Highlands Redevelopment Site Approval, and questioned if these procedures are
only for potential sites within the Preservation Area?
COMMENT: Several comments expressed disapproval with the changed approach to impervious
surface and suggested that the definition is too broad and will allow for too much development.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP should be clarified relative to the standards
for identifying areas that may be appropriate for the 70% impervious surface cover redevelopment
waiver.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has reviewed and evaluated the public comment received on
the Redevelopment Site Designation Procedures and released a revised draft for public comment in
June 2008. The procedures for Highlands Redevelopment Site Approval currently apply only to the
Preservation Area, and Planning Area procedures will be adopted in the future. A determination of
impervious surfaces will require a case-by-case analysis of impervious surface based on a
determination of surfaces that are paved, have a structure upon them, or are one of the specifically
listed surfaces in the definition contained in the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: Some comments suggested wording edits.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and the RMP was updated to address or
incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: A comment expressed concern that the 2007 Draft RMP allowed for redevelopment
activities to occur in more situations than in previous drafts.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and does not feel that
redevelopment opportunities have been expanded through the iterations of the RMP. In the
Planning Area, redevelopment opportunities exist in accordance with the RMP LUC Zone where
the proposed project is located. In the Preservation Area, land development is required to be in
accordance with the enhanced environmental standards of the Highlands Rules (N.J.A.C 7:38-6.6)
adopted by NJDEP. In accordance with the Highlands Act, NJDEP may grants waivers from the
Highlands rules on a case-by-case basis for several scenarios, including redevelopment in previously
developed areas and brownfields. In order to qualify for a waiver from the Highlands Rules, a
proposed redevelopment site must be designated as appropriate for redevelopment by the Highlands
Council. Only those projects that satisfy both Highlands Council’s redevelopment criteria and
174
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
NJDEP’s waiver criteria may be approved.
COMMENT: A comment expressed the hope that the Highland Council will allow for some
flexibility in the application of its RMP standards in consistency reviews in cases where flexibility will
provide an ability to achieve desirable planning goals.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP establish flexibility to provide for reasonable
and responsible development which respects the land capabilities and adjoining environment.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. The Project Review Standards Program in
Chapter 6 of the RMP outline the technical standards for project reviews of applications submitted
to or reviewed by the Highlands Council to ensure consistency with the goals, policies, objectives,
program requirements, and other provisions of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Redevelopment and Infill Tool should have been used
to inform the development of the RMP and Land Use Capability Map, not as a tool in Plan
Conformance.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and recognizes that growth in the Highlands
Region is discretionary and based on local desire and therefore is appropriate for Plan Conformance
activities.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Redevelopment Program does not contain density
standards for center-based development, and asked if these standards and other center-based
standards will be included within the community development design guidebook?
RESPONSE: The Future Land Use Programs (Chapter 5) of the RMP outline programmatic
approaches for topics including Cluster Development, Redevelopment, Smart Growth and
Community Design, and Low Impact Development. The programs outline the agenda for future
planning and contain strategies and development standards to achieve well planned growth in the
Region. The development of guidance on these topics is anticipated.
COMMENT: The inventorying, prioritization and advocacy for remediation of Classification
Exception Areas, Well Restrictions Areas, Currently Known Extent Areas and Deed Notice Areas
should be objectives of the RMP.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council, in Goal 6M, Policy 6M1, and Objectives 6M1a-c, discuss the
remediation of contaminated sites.
Housing and Community Facilities
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for potential over development in the Preservation
Area, due to COAH’s projections, redevelopment opportunities, and exemptions.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment but maintains that development
activities in the Preservation Area are limited, with the exceptions being very low density
development on septic systems, exemptions and waivers. The Highlands Act provides for seventeen
(17) exemptions from the provisions of the Act. If a project or activity falls within one of the
seventeen exemptions, the project or activity is exempt from the Highlands Act, the Highlands
Preservation Area rules adopted by the NJDEP, the Regional Master Plan, and any municipal master
plan or development regulations that are revised to conform to the Regional Master Plan. In
addition to the exemptions, the Highlands Act also provides NJDEP with the authority to grant
waivers from its Highlands rules on a case by case basis under certain circumstances. Under this
authority, NJDEP may issue waivers (a) where a project or activity is necessary in order to protect
175
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
public health and safety; (b) for redevelopment in previously developed areas as identified by the
Highlands Council, provided that the areas are either a brownfield site designated by NJDEP or a
site at which at least 70% of the area thereof is covered with impervious surface; or (c) necessary to
avoid a taking of property without just compensation.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Highlands Council, as a state agency charged with
significant land use regulatory functions usually reserved for municipalities, has an obligation to
satisfy the Mount Laurel doctrine. Another comment suggested that the obligation to provide
affordable housing in the Highlands should be removed, and believes that environmental protection
should trump the need for affordable housing.
RESPONSE: The RMP requires that conforming municipalities implement both the resource
protection requirements of the RMP along with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s doctrine, in its
Mount Laurel decisions, that every municipality in a “growth area” has a constitutional obligation to
provide through its land use regulations, sound land use, and long range planning, a realistic
opportunity for a fair share of its region's present and prospective needs for housing for low and
moderate income families. Municipalities are required to adopt a new or updated housing element,
fair share plan, and implementing ordinance(s) that incorporate affordable housing obligations and
local land use capability (consistent with the RMP). The municipal housing element should be
designed to achieve the goal of providing affordable housing to meet the fair share obligation, by
demonstrating that existing zoning or planned changes in zoning provide adequate capacity to
accommodate household and employment growth projections consistently with the resource
protection requirements of the RMP. This process will allow municipalities to find approaches for
affordable housing that are consistent with RMP resource standards.
COMMENT: One comment expressed interest in developing a parcel that would otherwise be
permitted by local zoning. The comment stated that the RMP should allow for smaller lots for
constructing least cost housing available to people in lower income brackets.
RESPONSE: The ability to develop in the Highlands Region will depend upon RMP zone,
applicable RMP standards, local zoning, and Highlands project review.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the RMP needed additional information for
municipalities regarding the COAH and Highlands process. A few asked how the Highland Council
will interact with COAH and whether affordable housing obligations can be reduced in the
Highlands Region. Others expressed concern with conforming to the RMP without an
understanding of how it will impact affordable housing obligations and where this additional
development will be directed.
RESPONSE: The RMP Housing and Community Facilities Program was revised to include
additional policies and objectives, as well as further discussion regarding affordable housing. The
Highlands Council is actively working with and coordinating with COAH to ensure the achievement
of both the resource protection requirements of the RMP and the municipal constitutional
obligation, in “growth areas,” to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of a fair share of
affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Municipalities that conform to the
RMP are required to conduct a local build out analysis, consistent with the RMP (objective 6G4c).
The Municipal Conformance Build out analysis will assist municipalities in determining household
and employment projections consistent with RMP conformance.
RMP policy has established that municipalities must adopt a new or updated housing element, fair
share plan, and implementing ordinance(s) that incorporate affordable housing obligations and local
land use capability (consistent with the RMP). The municipal housing element should be designed
176
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
to achieve the goal of providing affordable housing to meet the fair share obligation, by
demonstrating that existing zoning or planned changes in zoning provide adequate capacity to
accommodate household and employment growth projections consistently with the resource
protection requirements of the RMP. This process will allow municipalities to find approaches for
affordable housing that are consistent with RMP resource standards.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Housing section of the RMP did not provide sufficient
information to fulfill the requirements of a housing element. Another comment suggested that the
section lacked a discussion of costs associated with affordable housing, cost generative regulations
and processes produced by both the Highlands Act and the RMP. There is no discussion of the
number of housing units required to meet COAH’s projected affordable housing needs for the
region and no solutions to meeting these and the variety of other housing needs within the confines
of the new environmental restrictions or infrastructure limits.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the Housing section of the RMP did not provide
sufficient information regarding how the RMP and Highlands Council will ensure that the region’s
affordable housing needs are met.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments and has modified the RMP
Housing Program to include additional policies and objectives, as well as further discussion
regarding affordable housing. The RMP also contains a summary of the affordable housing
obligation in the region, excluding any credits, reductions, and adjustments. It also provides
COAH’s household and employment projections, to which a municipality would apply a growth
share ratio to determine the third round obligation (roughly for every five market-rate residential
units constructed from January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2014, a one-unit affordable housing obligation
is generated and for every 16 jobs resulting from new or expanded non-residential construction
within the municipality from the same time period, a one-unit affordable housing obligation is
generated). Through Plan Conformance municipal housing elements are required to be developed
(or updated) locally and should be designed to achieve the goal of providing affordable housing to
meet the fair share obligation, by demonstrating that existing zoning or planned changes in zoning
provide adequate capacity to accommodate household and employment growth projections
consistently with the resource protection requirements of the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments requested additional information regarding how the build out
model’s projections will be used relative to the COAH process in the Highlands. When will the
build out model be available to municipalities?
RESPONSE: The Highlands Build out model will be available as a component of the RMP, and is
discussed in the Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report. Municipalities that conform to the RMP
are required to conduct a local build out analysis, consistent with the RMP (objective 6G4c). The
Municipal Conformance Build out analysis will assist municipalities in determining household and
employment projections consistent with RMP conformance.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council should work with COAH to
develop revisions to the COAH rules that would enable greater flexibility and shared housing
agreements between Highland Region communities to help them meet their affordable housing
needs on a collective basis. Example approaches were provided, including allowing the sharing of
responsibilities, housing credits and developer fees, should be considered by COAH and pursued by
the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is coordinating with COAH to ensure that municipalities
meet their housing obligations and that affordable housing is planned and sites are designed to meet
177
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
the goals of the RMP. An emphasis will be placed on finding appropriate solutions for Highlands
municipalities to address both their housing obligations and resource protection standards.
Revisions to COAH’s rules are outside of the purview of the Highlands Council.
COMMENT: One comment warned of the added expenses of educating children that smart
growth developments would incur and suggested the development of age restricted housing as an
alternative.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the municipal expenses relating to
educating children, however advocates for a full range of housing options for all income ranges and
a range of housing types (such as rental housing, multi-family housing, age-restricted housing, and
supportive and special needs housing).
COMMENT: One comment suggested wording edits.
COMMENT: One comment provided additional statistics relating to housing.
RESPONSE: The RMP was modified to address or incorporate appropriate wording and data
suggestions.
COMMENT: One comment commended housing and agricultural housing policies, and suggested
that the Highlands Council must work with its partners to ensure that the Highlands does not
become a landscape of very large, exclusive properties with limited, hobby agriculture.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment; the RMP is designed to address the
concerns expressed in this comment.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council urge COAH to provide
additional time for municipalities who petition for third round certification to update housing plans.
Municipalities in the Region will have to hurry land use policy decision-making to satisfy COAH at
the expense of sound planning pursuant to the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment relating to the timing of housing plans, but
it is specific to COAH and should be directed to COAH. The Highlands Council has available
funding to assist municipalities in developing local master plan housing elements for submittal to
COAH in order to obtain substantive certification and complete third round COAH submissions.
Grants will be made available to municipalities that have yet to receive COAH substantive
certification to assist municipalities in addressing affordable housing obligations.
COMMENT: One comment was concerned with the difficulty of achieving affordable housing
goals in the Highlands Region; noting that since the Highlands Act was passed, buildable lots have
increased significantly in price and additional restrictions associated with the RMP will only increase
costs.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment regarding the challenges to achieving
affordable housing goals and has modified the RMP Housing and Community Facilities goals,
policies, objectives and program to clarify the coordinated role of the RMP and COAH statutory
requirements.
Smart Growth Manual
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Smart Growth Manual and the Community
Development Design Guidebook should be combined into one publication.
178
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The RMP has been so modified and includes a program for the development of a
combined document to be called the “Smart Growth and Community Design Handbook.”
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that when development and redevelopment activities
occur that both natural and the built resources be protected. It was suggested that the protection
mechanisms and standards be included in the Smart Growth Manual.
RESPONSE: The “Smart Growth and Community Design Handbook” will provide guidance for
development and redevelopment activities in the Highlands Region and address a broad range of
issues including but not limited to, mixed use development, green technology, community analysis,
resource efficiency and conservation practices.
Community Development Design Guidebook
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Community Development Design Guidebook
should provide guidance for the protection of both natural and built resources in development and
redevelopment projects.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Community Development Design Guidebook
should encourage innovative, creative, context and site sensitive design in the Highlands.
RESPONSE: The “Smart Growth and Community Design Handbook” will provide guidance for
development and redevelopment activities in the Highlands Region and address a broad range of
issues including but not limited to, mixed use development, green technology, community analysis,
resource efficiency and conservation practices.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Community Development Design Guidebook
should begin with site analysis techniques and site selection criteria and development and
redevelopment should be guided by the existing site and neighborhood features.
RESPONSE: The RMP’s Low Impact Development Program outlines this type of approach and
the Guidebook will expand on the techniques and implementation mechanisms.
COMMENT: A few comments recommended that development opportunities provide for
rehabilitation and restoration, as well as protection of historic, cultural and scenic resources.
RESPONSE: The RMP advocates and supports rehabilitation and restoration of existing structures,
including historic structures where appropriate.
Low Impact Development
COMMENT: One comment suggested that low impact development implementation should also
consider the impact to community character and cultural resources.
RESPONSE: Low impact development (LID) refers to a specific set of techniques designed to
reduce or prevent negative impacts of development and redevelopment particularly as related to
resource management, stormwater management, and site design. The protection of built resources,
such as cultural resources and surrounding community character, are addressed in other programs
within the RMP, including Historic Resource Protection, Scenic Resource Protection, and Housing
and Community Facilities.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP recommend a change in the definition of
impervious surface to recognize that pervious pavement allows groundwater recharge and supports
low impact development in the use of pervious paved surfaces.
179
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The definition of “impervious surface” is contained in the Highlands Act and would
require an amendment to the Act in order to change its definition. The low impact development
techniques contained in the program do support and encourage the use of pervious pavements and
increased groundwater recharge.
COMMENT: A few comments recommended the development of enforceable standards and
guidelines for land use and development projects.
RESPONSE: The Low Impact Development Program includes standards and guidelines and the
Smart Growth and Community Design Handbook will provide additional guidance for development
and redevelopment projects within the Highlands, including location and resource efficiencies, water
conservation and energy efficient practices, and innovative building techniques.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that requiring the use of pervious pavements, green roofs,
narrower roads, rain gardens, and curbless roads would be costly, impractical, and would need the
cooperation and training of code officials who are not familiar with these applications. A few
comments worried that narrower roads would pose a safety issue relative to emergency vehicle
access.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not require the use of any specific technique or material relative to
low impact development. The Low Impact Development (LID) Program in Chapter 5 offers a
sampling of LID techniques and approaches geared at protecting natural resources, managing
stormwater runoff and facilitating efficient site design. Many of these techniques are familiar to
code officials; however, the Plan Conformance process will serve to support additional introduction
and training. Safety issues will be dealt with in individual situations to maintain safe and accessible
roads. The Highlands Council, in compliance with the Highlands Act, will be examining the
Residential Site Improvement Standards to determine whether changes should be recommended to
the Site Improvement Advisory Board.
COMMENT: One comment recommended the Council maintain the green infrastructure of the
Highlands.
RESPONSE: The Low Impact Development Program includes a goal of 50% dedicated open
space, where feasible, and encourages municipalities to adopt open space development ordinances.
The RMP includes numerous policies and objectives protecting critical environmental resources.
Cluster development provisions require preservation of at least 80% of the affected property. Land
preservation for open space and agriculture and the Transfer of Development Rights program are
also priorities of the RMP. All will help achieve the protection of green infrastructure.
LANDOWNER EQUITY
COMMENT: One comment asked how the Highlands Council plans to deal with the fact that
Receiving Zones are voluntary.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act provides a number of benefits to municipalities in the Planning
Area that conform to the Regional Master Plan and establishes a Receiving Zone which provides for
a minimum density of 5 dwelling units per acre for the residential portion of the receiving zone.
Planning Area municipalities that meet these criteria may charge up to $15,000 per unit impact fee
for all new development within the voluntary receiving zone and receive up to $250,000 in an
enhanced planning grant to offset the planning and other related costs of designating and
accommodating voluntary receiving zones among other benefits. Additionally, the Highlands
180
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Council has established a TDR Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant Program that provides technical
and financial assistance to any municipality within the seven Highlands counties that wishes to
explore the feasibility of establishing a Receiving Zone in its community. Currently, three
municipalities are participating in the grant opportunity.
COMMENT: One comment contended that there should be no minimum parcel size or minimum
lost units to be eligible to participate in the TDR program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but notes that the purpose of
establishing a threshold for participation as a Sending Zone parcel is to ensure that only those
parcels that have been disproportionally affected by application of the Highlands Act are included in
the program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that any conservation restriction to be used in the Highlands
TDR Program should only restrict future development.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council agrees with the comment and will be drafting the model deed
restriction as such. However, where a landowner chooses to retain an applicable exemption, the
restriction will state where that exemption may be exercised on the property so as to minimize the
impact of developing that exempt land use on Highlands resources.
COMMENT: One comment contended that TDR receiving zones should be mandatory and should
be located both within and outside the Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act specifies that such zones are voluntary. The Highlands Council
does not see an immediate need to amend the Highlands Act to require mandatory Receiving Zones,
as the program has not yet had an opportunity to function based on the voluntary nature of the
Receiving Zones. If during the initial review of the program no significant transaction activity is
occurring, then at that time, it may be appropriate to seek a legislative change. The Highlands
Council has advocated and worked to introduce in the Legislature a bill that would expand the
potential areas where Highlands Development Credits may be used. Such a bill is currently pending
before the Legislature that would allow Highlands Development Credits to be used anywhere in the
State under a municipal TDR program.
COMMENT: One comment argued that it is a contradiction to have policies in the RMP that only
allow Sending Zones in the Planning Area upon municipal conformance but that Receiving Zones
may be established without conformance.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that this is not a contradiction. Parcels of land in the
Planning Area are not affected by local land use restrictions of the Highlands Act and the RMP until
a municipality voluntarily conforms. Absent conformance, Planning Area parcels are only subject to
municipal development regulations and State-wide environmental laws and regulations governing
development. With respect to a non-conforming municipality that wishes to establish a Receiving
Zone, it must be kept in mind that any municipality in the State may establish a TDR program under
the State TDR Act. In this situation, a non-conforming municipality must first receive designation
from the Highlands Council, which is required to find that the Receiving Zone is consistent with the
RMP. Additionally, the municipality must also satisfy the requirements for plan endorsement by the
State Planning Commission as mandated by the State TDR Act.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that it is a gross oversight that the 2007 Draft RMP
does not state that the dual appraisal method is due to expire in 2009.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the 2007 Draft RMP specifically advocates
181
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
legislation to extend the use of the dual appraisal methodology beyond the June 30, 2009 sunset
provision in Policy 1H9. This same policy is found in the RMP at Policy 1H6.
COMMENT: One comment maintained that the Highlands TDR Program is much more
overreaching that the Pinelands Commission’s Pinelands Development Credit Program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the Highlands TDR Program is modeled after the
Pinelands Development Credit Program to the extent possible consistent with the requirements of
the Highlands Act. The one significant difference between the programs is that the Pinelands
Commission was authorized to establish mandatory receiving zones. The Highlands Council was
not given this authority under the Highlands Act. Instead, any receiving zones that participate in the
Highlands TDR Program are voluntary.
Transfer of Development Rights
Likelihood of Transfer of Development Rights Program Success
COMMENT: Numerous comments held that the Transfer of Development Rights program will
never work because of the lack of mandatory receiving zones or the complexity of having a regional
Transfer of Development Rights program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but believes that the program
will work as voluntary Receiving Zones are established and the real estate market begins to recover.
COMMENT: Several comments contended that the top priority of the Highlands Council should
be a fully functional TDR program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges and supports these comments.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the TDR program is lacking concrete standards.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the TDR program is not a required element of the
RMP per the Highlands Act. However, the Highlands Council recognizes the need to include
program parameters in the RMP that guides its establishment. As such, the Council had provided a
significant discussion of TDR, including the goals, policies and objectives (Chapter 4) for the
program, as well as the program framework in Chapter 5.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Council should institute a private, marketdriven TDR program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council recognizes that establishing a viable private, market-driven
TDR program is a long-term goal for the program. However, the Highlands Council and the
Highlands Development Credit Bank will have to play significant roles at the program’s outset to
assist in establishing Receiving Zones and create markets for the use of Highlands Development
Credits.
COMMENT: A number of comments contended that the TDR program is not fully developed and
operational and that it must be fully developed and funded before it is adopted.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but believes that the Highlands
TDR Program has been formulated to the point where implementation can begin.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the TDR program is missing from the Regional Master
Plan.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that Chapter 5 of the RMP includes a discussion of the
182
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Highlands TDR Program.
COMMENT: One comment contended that the goal of the TDR program should be to preserve
outright, with no development fragmentation, the undeveloped land in the Preservation Area
outside of already developed areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that Chapter 4 of the RMP sets forth the goals, policies
and objectives of the Highlands TDR Program.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council allow municipalities to establish
intra-municipal TDR programs that transfer credits from their Preservation Area sections to their
Planning Area sections.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that Policy 7D7 allows municipalities to participate in
the Highlands TDR Program in such a manner provided that the Highlands Council determines that
the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP will be best served by a determination of conformance.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should simply admit that the TDR
program will never work because the State is bankrupt.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but does not believe that the
State’s current fiscal situation will ultimately determine the success of the Highlands TDR Program.
COMMENT: Several comments argued that the Highlands Council needs to provide adequate
funding for the TDR program to make it truly “fair compensation” for landowners.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is seeking funds from the State to capitalize the Highlands
Development Credit Bank, including seeking initial capital funds from the State Transfer of
Development Rights Bank. The ultimate purpose of the TDR program is to provide landowner
equity through market transfers based on private development within TDR receiving zones, not
public purchase of credits.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the Highlands Council include a debt-for-nature
swap objective under the TDR program. The comment argued that such a provision would provide
developers with the option of relinquishing to the State or conservation organization any land that is
in the Preservation Area in return for debt relief through the Highlands Water Protection and
Planning Trust Fund or the Highlands Development Credit Bank. These two funds can receive
monies directly from the federal government.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but does not have the authority
under the Highlands Act to establish such a program.
COMMENT: A number of comments contended that the Highlands TDR Program is not feasible
and will not be implemented due to its sheer size and lack of marketplace for receiving zones.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but believes that the program
will work as voluntary Receiving Zones are established through the grant program the Council has
created and the real estate market begins to recover. With respect to the size of the Highlands TDR
Program the Highlands Council may look to the Pinelands Development Credit Program, which is
similar in geographic size and, over the duration of the program, has preserved approximately 55,000
acres.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP must address more specifically the funding
sources that will be available to address landowner equity concerns in the Preservation Area.
183
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP at Policy 1H4
identifies a number of potential funding sources.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP must address the effects of the Highlands Act
not just on landowners of vacant property but of all landowners even those with existing single
family homes.
RESPONSE: The Highlands TDR Program is not limited to property that is undeveloped. Parcels
of land that had remaining development potential under municipal zoning and State environmental
laws and regulations at the time the Highlands Act was passed may apply for a Highlands
Development Credit allocation subject to the requirements of Policy 7B8.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the TDR program be simplified to achieve program
success.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has endeavored to develop a TDR program that is simple to
use yet recognizes the variety of real estate values and development types that exist in the Highlands
Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Transfer of Development Rights Program
should simply follow the State Transfer of Development Rights Act.
RESPONSE: In establishing the Highlands TDR program, the Highlands Act requires that the
program be “consistent with the State Transfer of Development Rights Act or any applicable
transfer of development rights program created otherwise by law, except as otherwise provided in
this section.” As such, the Highlands Council has crafted the Highlands TDR Program to be
consistent with the requirements of the State Transfer of Development Rights Act.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the Highlands Council make sure that it has a
contingency plan to address landowner equity should the Transfer of Development Rights program
fail to work. The comment suggested that the Highlands Council allow a Preservation Area
property owner to build, but that the development must be clustered to certain environmental
performance standards.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act establishes the basis for development approvals in the
Preservation Area and the adopted RMP is consistent with those requirements.
Requirements of Highlands Act Relating to Transfer of Development Rights Program
COMMENT: A number of comments argued that the Highlands Council has not presented a
defined and/or “workable” TDR program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has presented a more defined TDR program in the RMP,
which establishes the parameters by which the program will operate. The goals, policies and
objectives of the program are described at Chapter 4 of the Plan, while the program parameters are
discussed in Chapter 5.
COMMENT: One comment argued that Section 13 of the Highlands Act says that the Regional
Master Plan is supposed to include the development of a TDR program as dictated by the Highlands
Act in order to provide a means to compensate property owners for lost equity and that this
provision of the Highlands Act was ignored.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that nowhere in Section 13 of the Highlands Act does it
state that the purpose of the transferable developments rights is to compensate property owners.
Instead, Section 13.a states specifically: “The council shall use the regional master plan elements
184
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
prepared pursuant to sections 11 and 12 of this act, including the resource assessment and smart
growth component, to establish a transfer of development rights program for the Highlands Region
that further the goals of the regional master plan.” The RMP does include the framework of the
TDR program in Chapters 4 and 5. The Highlands Council has formally established the Highlands
Development Credit Bank to facilitate implementation of the program, and has provided grants to
three municipalities to investigate the feasibility of establishing TDR receiving zones.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Council has failed in its duty to identify
4% of the Planning Area as potential receiving zones.
RESPONSE: In the RMP, the Highlands Council has identified specific areas of the Planning Area
of the Highlands Region that have the potential to serve as voluntary receiving zones. A map of
these potential areas in provided in Chapter 5 of the RMP. The Highlands Council has identified
approximately 12,000 acres of the Existing Community Zone in the Planning Area. It is important
to note that Section 13.c of the Highlands Act provides that the Council should set a goal of
identifying 4% of the Planning Area as voluntary receiving zones “to the extent that the goal is
compatible with the amount and type of human development and activity that would not
compromise the integrity of the ecosystem of the planning area.” The Council has done so.
COMMENT: Several comments remarked that the Highlands Council must conduct a real estate
market analysis of the potential program before any policies related to the program are established
or the program is implemented.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment, but notes that Section 13.g of
the Highlands Act does not mandate the preparation of a regional real estate analysis prior to
adoption of any Highlands TDR Program. Instead, Section 13.g states that “the council shall
perform the real estate analysis for the Highlands Region that is required to be performed by a
municipality prior to the adoption or amendment of any development transfer ordinance” pursuant
to the State TDR Act. Consequently, the Highlands Council will conduct a real estate analysis
working in conjunction with potential voluntary receiving zone municipalities prior to their adoption
of a TDR ordinance which implements their participation in the Highlands TDR Program. It
should also be noted that the Highlands Council has examined the real estate market throughout the
Highlands Region as part of its work to develop fair and reasonable allocation methods for
residentially and non-residentially zoned property.
Sending Zones
COMMENT: One comment argued that Sending Zones should be limited to Preservation Area
properties only so that the market is not flooded with credits at the outset of the program.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern regarding the establishment of additional Sending
Zones outside of the Preservation Area, which may dilute the value of TDR credits for those
property owners in the Preservation Area that have few options.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council states in the RMP at Policy 7B2 that Sending Zones will be
limited to those parcels of land located in the Protection Zone and Conservation Zone of the
Preservation Area. The RMP then states at Policy 7B3 that parcels of land located in the Protection
Zone and Conservation Zone of the Planning Area are eligible to serve as Sending Zones when
municipalities in which those parcels are located conform voluntarily to the RMP. The RMP draws
the distinction between the Preservation Area and Planning Area with respect to the Protection and
Conservation Zones because the Council recognizes that parcels of land in the Preservation Area
may have already been affected by the Highlands Act whereas such lands in the Planning Area may
not be affected until sometime in the future.
185
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Preservation Area should be given priority for the sale
of any allocated credits.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment but notes that the Highlands
Development Credit Bank will establish the policies that will guide its decisions to purchase
allocated credits. That said, the Highlands Council notes in Chapter 5, the Highlands TDR
Program, that the Highlands Development Credit Bank may only purchase credits where such
purchase will further the goals of the adopted RMP or to alleviate a Sending Zone parcel owner’s
demonstrated unique and extenuating financial circumstances.
COMMENT: One comment contended that the Highlands Council should only permit the
establishment of Sending Zones in Planning Area municipalities if those same municipalities
establish Receiving Zones.
RESPONSE: By requiring that a municipality establish a Receiving Zone before parcels within that
municipality are eligible to participate as Sending Zones would force conforming municipalities to
designate Receiving Zones. Although the Highlands Council understands the reasoning behind
seeking such a requirement, it would conflict with the voluntary nature of Receiving Zones
mandated by the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that any Preservation Area property owner that qualifies for
participation in TDR program and who exercises an applicable exemption should move to the back
of any acquisition queue since such landowner has some reasonable economic use of his or her
property.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment but notes that the Highlands
Development Credit Bank will establish the policies that will guide its decisions to purchase
allocated credits.
COMMENT: One comment argued that Sending Zone landowners should not be allowed to
transfer development rights off of the property and still maintain one unit as an exemption.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the ability of a Sending Zone landowner to retain
an applicable Highlands Act exemption is important to ensuring that landowners are able to extract
equity from their land to the extent allowed by the Act. The TDR program can establish incentives
for the transfer of that exemption into further Highlands Development Credits.
Receiving Zones
COMMENT: Several comments contended that the only way a Highlands Transfer of
Development Rights Program will work is if the Receiving Zones are mandatory, and the Highlands
Council should seek a legislative change to this effect.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council does not see an immediate need to amend the Highlands Act
to require mandatory Receiving Zones, as the program has not yet had an opportunity to function
based on the voluntary nature of the Receiving Zones. If during the initial review of the program no
significant transaction activity is occurring, then at that time, it may be appropriate to seek a
legislative change.
COMMENT: A number of comments argued that the Highlands Council should state
unequivocally that municipalities will not be required to designate Receiving Zones.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council reiterates that the designation of Receiving Zones is
completely voluntary. Specifically, the RMP in Chapter 5 states, “Any area within the Highlands
186
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Region identified by the Highlands Council as a potential voluntary HDC Receiving Zone may not
be designated as such unless the municipality in which the zone is identified petitions the Highlands
Council for designation.” However, the Council is under an obligation to identify potential lands
within the Planning Area that may serve as Receiving Zones, which obligation the Council has
satisfied by the identification of such lands under Chapter 5 of the RMP.
COMMENT: A number of comments contended that the Highlands Council should not identify
any environmentally constrained lands as potential voluntary Receiving Zones.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has reassessed its identification of potential voluntary
Receiving Zone areas under the RMP. In the Plan, the Council has not identified any lands in the
Preservation Area or any lands in an environmentally constrained subzone. The RMP only identifies
lands in the Existing Community Zone of the Planning Area that have certain characteristics that
relate to infrastructure. The methods for identifying these lands are found in Chapter 5 of the RMP.
The lands identified by these methods are depicted on a map following that section. In total, the
Highlands Council has identified approximately 12,000 acres of the Planning Area as potential
voluntary Receiving Zones. Designation of a Receiving Zone must further show that the proposed
zone will be in conformance with RMP standards for resource protection and smart growth.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Receiving Zones should only be permitted if they are
approved by a referendum posted on a public ballot.
RESPONSE: The process of designating a Receiving Zone by a municipality will be governed by
the municipality’s local processes. Amending the municipal master plan and development
regulations to accommodate a Receiving Zone will be subject to the processes established by the
Municipal Land Use Law.
COMMENT: One comment argued that subsequent to the adoption of the RMP, the identification
of potential Receiving Zones should limited to those areas that have demonstrated water and
wastewater capacity to support an increase in development potential.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the Highlands Act does not prohibit the Council
from identifying lands for potential Receiving Zones that are not currently served by water and
wastewater infrastructure with remaining capacity. In fact, Section 11.a(6)(e) of the Highlands Act
notes that the Highlands Council shall identify potential voluntary receiving zones “. . . through the
appropriate expansion of infrastructure or the modified uses of existing infrastructure.” (N.J.S.A.
13:20-11.a(6)(e)) Consequently, the Act mandates that the Council consider lands that have no
infrastructure or are currently served by infrastructure with insufficient capacity.
COMMENT: One comment contended that the Highlands Council should identify near-term
receiving zone opportunities in the RMP, which would be those lands in the Existing Community
Zone that are privately owned, vacant and not environmentally constrained. These lands should be
the focus of the Highlands Council’s discussions with municipalities to establish the initial receiving
zones.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has reassessed its identification of potential voluntary
Receiving Zone areas under the adopted RMP. The RMP identifies lands in the Existing Community
Zone of the Planning Area that have certain characteristics that relate to infrastructure. With respect
to those types of land discussed in the comment above, the Highlands Council has identified
undeveloped lands at least 2 acres in size located in approved sewer service areas that are not
Existing Areas Served and therefore correspond to lands that municipalities likely intended for
future development served by wastewater utilities. This analysis reveals approximately 980 acres that
187
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
satisfy these criteria. The Highlands Council further evaluated these lands using the Highlands
Regional Build-Out Model and existing municipal zoning. The purpose of this additional study was
to determine which lands within these 980 acres could support development at a minimum of 5
dwelling units per acre if residentially zoned or 0.84 FAR if non-residentially zoned. The study
identifies 280 acres that have sufficient remaining wastewater capacity and water availability at the
HUC 14 subwatershed level to support this amount of development intensity. The lands identified
through this analysis will be one of two focus areas for the Council’s efforts to establish voluntary
Receiving Zones within the Highlands Region. The other area will be on designating voluntary
Receiving Zones on developed non-residential property that is currently vacant or underutilized.
Together, these two focus areas comprise approximately 12,000 acres in the Existing Community
Zone of the Planning Area.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP should state that a municipality which
establishes a lower intensity Receiving Zone is not eligible for the benefits provided by the
Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and notes that the overview of
the TDR Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant Program describes the fact that the receiving zone
incentives provided under the Highlands Act are only available to municipalities that establish a
minimum residential density of 5 dwelling units per acre. However, under Section 18.b of the
Highlands Act, the Highlands Council has separate authority to provide financial and technical
assistance to implement participation in the Highlands TDR Program, including providing financial
and technical assistance to those municipalities that choose not to satisfy the 5 dwelling units per
acre threshold and instead seek to designate a lower intensity Receiving Zone.
COMMENT: One comment asked what incentives are provided to municipalities to serve as
voluntary Receiving Zones.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act provides a number of benefits to municipalities in the Planning
Area that conform to the Regional Master Plan and establish a Receiving Zone which provides for a
minimum density of 5 dwelling units per acre for the residential portion of the Receiving Zone.
Planning Area municipalities that meet these criteria may:
• charge up to $15,000 per unit impact fee for all new development within the voluntary receiving
zone;
• receive up to $250,000 in an enhanced planning grant to offset the planning and other related costs
of designating and accommodating voluntary receiving zones;
• receive a grant to reimburse the reasonable costs of amending municipal development regulations
to accommodate voluntary receiving zones;
• receive legal representation by the State in actions challenging municipal decisions
regarding TDR, provided that certain pre-requisites are met; and
• receive priority status in for any State capital or infrastructure programs.
These benefits are discussed under the overview of the TDR Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant
Program available at the Highlands Council’s website.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP should provide specific requirements of the
Receiving Zones.
RESPONSE: Mandating specific requirements for Receiving Zones would conflict with the
voluntary nature of Receiving Zones established by the Highlands Act. The Highlands Council has
outlined where such zones may be located, has identified some potential areas where zones may be
designated and has even evaluated the potential for these areas to establish a residential density of 5
188
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
dwelling units per acre or a 0.84 FAR for non-residential development. It will be left to a
municipality’s discretion to determine the type of development and the density or intensity of use
that will be permitted in a proposed Receiving Zone.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the Highlands Council meet with municipal
officials to discuss the Council’s identification of potential Receiving Zones.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council staff has met and will continue to meet with municipal
officials to discuss the RMP, and more specifically, the identification and designation of Receiving
Zones. Highlands Council staff has already met with officials or representatives of those
municipalities that are currently conducting work under the Council’s TDR Receiving Zone
Feasibility Grant Program.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the minimum density for TDR of 5 dwelling units per acre
is too low to meet regional housing needs.
RESPONSE: While the Highlands Council notes that in certain appropriate areas residential
densities in excess of 5 dwelling units per acre would be desirable for TDR program
implementation, the 5 dwelling units per acre is the threshold established by the Highlands Act to
secure the Receiving zone incentives and could only be changed by amending the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment argued that a strict nitrate dilution standard of 2 mg/L will make the
TDR program unworkable because higher densities cannot be achieved on lots willing to meet this
standard.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment but notes that the densities to be
permitted within a voluntary Receiving Zone are left to the discretion of the municipality seeking to
establish that zone. To the extent that a municipality is seeking to achieve a higher density, the
municipality working in conjunction with the Highlands Council will have to ensure that adequate
infrastructure is provided to the zone. Exceeding the septic system yield for an area would not be in
keeping with environmental protection requirements of the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment contended that more incentives must be provided to encourage
participation in the TDR program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is limited by sections 13 and 18 of the Highlands Act to the
types of incentives that it may provide to municipalities to encourage their participation as voluntary
Receiving Zones. However, the Council has worked within this authority to establish the TDR
Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to
municipalities to assess the feasibility of designating a receiving zone or zones in their community
consistent with the requirements of the Highlands Act and the RMP.
COMMENT: A number of comments argued that the Highlands Council should not permit any
Planning Area municipality to establish a receiving zone without the municipality conforming to the
Regional Master Plan.
RESPONSE: Allowing a Planning Area municipality to participate in the Highlands TDR Program
without conforming to the RMP recognizes the true voluntary nature of receiving zones.
Additionally, allowing participation without plan conformance supports the Highlands Council’s
position that municipalities have the option of accepting aspects of the RMP that foster growth.
However, no approval for participation in the Highlands TDR Program will be permitted if it
contravenes the stated resource protection goals and standards of the RMP and the municipality
does not satisfy the State Planning Commissions guidelines for plan endorsement.
189
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that to make the program work, Receiving Zones for
Highlands Development Credits must also be permitted outside of the seven Highlands counties.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is a proponent of expanding the area in which Highlands
Development Credits may be used. The Council has worked with other State agencies on
Committee Substitute A3864, which was considered and reported out of the Assembly Environment
and Public Works Committee in June 2007. A3864 would allow Highlands Development Credits to
be used in any municipality in the State that establishes a TDR program. The Highlands Council
will continue to advocate for the expansion of areas in which Highlands Development Credits may
be used.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that any development in a Receiving Zone require the
use of Highlands Development Credits. The comment notes that the Highlands Council should
establish a requirement that a certain percentage of development within a Receiving Zone must
utilize credits.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and understands the rationale
behind it. However, mandating that all or even a specific percentage of development within a
Receiving Zone use credits to be constructed would conflict with the voluntary nature of Receiving
Zones mandating by the Highlands Act. Instead, the Act seeks to encourage a minimum residential
density of 5 dwelling units per acre or its non-residential equivalent through the ability of
municipalities to assess impact fees provided that this minimum density requirement is satisfied.
The decision regarding target densities and baseline densities in Receiving Zones must remain with
the municipalities to ensure that issues of community character are properly addressed.
COMMENT: Several comments recommended that the RMP allow opportunities for development
beyond the boundaries of existing developed areas (i.e. Existing Community Zone and designated
Redevelopment Areas), or where areas may not have the current infrastructure to support growth,
but where alternative wastewater systems could be used.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has sought to ensure flexibility in where Receiving Zones may
be located provided that there is appropriate infrastructure to support such growth. For example, as
discussed in Policy 7D2 of the adopted RMP, Receiving Zones may be located within the
Conservation Zone provided that such Receiving Zones are consistent with the RMP (e.g., occur
within clusters) and the development does not conflict with the maintenance of viable agriculture.
COMMENT: A number of comments stated that Receiving Zones should not be located in
environmentally constrained areas, including anywhere in the Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: Prohibiting completely the designation of Receiving Zones in the Preservation Area
would undermine the flexibility necessary to ensure a sufficient number of Receiving Zones. There
are areas within the Preservation Area that may be appropriate for more dense or intense
development because there is existing infrastructure capacity and limited or no environmental
constraints, potentially including some designated Redevelopment Areas. Additionally, designation
of a Receiving Zone requires Highlands Council approval, which approval determination will be
conducted in light of the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP. Despite the Highlands Council
decision to not completely prohibit designated Redevelopment Areas in the Preservation Area from
possibly serving as Receiving Zones, the Highlands Council has only identified lands within the
Planning Area in the RMP as potential areas for voluntary Receiving Zones.
COMMENT: One comment questioned whether the designation of Existing Community Zone
190
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
means that a municipality within that overlay automatically becomes a Receiving Zone if the
municipality opts into the Regional Master Plan.
RESPONSE: Similar to the 2006 Draft RMP, designation of Receiving Zones under the 2007 Draft
RMP is based on a municipal petition process. Only if the municipality voluntarily chooses to
establish a Receiving Zone will it be considered by the Highlands Council for designation. As
previously stated, establishment of Receiving Zones under the Highlands Act is strictly voluntary.
Many Existing Community Zones lack the utility and water capacity to serve as Receiving Zones,
and some have essentially no growth capacity.
COMMENT: One comment argued that for any Highlands Transfer of Development Rights
program to work effectively, any Receiving Zones identified by the Highlands Council must have
current zoning with lower densities so that there can be sufficient bonus density increases.
RESPONSE: Zoning densities within a Receiving Zone will be established by a municipality in
consultation with the Highlands Council as part of the Receiving Zone designation process. The
Highlands Council does not anticipate that the base zoning of Receiving Zones should be reduced
to create an incentive for HDC use.
COMMENT: One comment maintained that municipalities will not agree to serve as voluntary
Receiving Zones unless the Highlands Council addresses the effect that Council on Affordable
Housing rules will have on accepting more growth.
RESPONSE: Given the recent release of the new COAH rules, the Highlands Council will be
examining the potential impact of the rules on new development within the Highlands Region. All
municipalities have a constitutional obligation to provide affordable housing, but affordable housing
requirements in the Highlands Region are to consider the implications of the RMP.
Highlands Development Credit Allocation
COMMENT: One comment stated that formal allocation of Highlands Development Credits
should be premised on municipal zoning and not the Highlands Council’s composite zoning.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the allocation of Highlands Development Credits should
only consider pre-Act environmental constraints.
COMMENT: One comment argued that the allocation of Highlands Development Credits should
not be based on gross land area, but only on the net available land after removing freshwater
wetlands, C-1 streams, floodplains and other such environmental constraints.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council articulates the basis for allocation of Highlands Development
Credits for both residentially and non-residentially zoned property in Section 5.7.1 of the adopted
RMP. The basis for residential allocation is as follows, which indicates that that HDC allocation is
directly affected by the development yield as affected by all applicable regulations, including
environmental protection requirements:
UNET x KZF x KLF = HDC Allocation
UNET = Net Yield – the number of residential lots that could have been situated on a parcel of land
on August 9, 2004, taking into consideration all municipal development regulations and applicable
state and federal laws and regulations.
KZF = Zoning Factor – a regional adjustment factor to recognize that the value of the land varies
according to the end use to which the property could have been developed.
KLF = Location Factor – an adjustment factor to recognize that per unit value of land varies by
location within the Highlands Region.
191
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
The basis for non-residential allocation is as follows:
UNET ÷ KSF/USE = HDC Allocation
UNET = Permitted Square Footage – the amount of buildable area that could have been situated on
the parcel of land on August 9, 2004, taking into consideration all municipal development regulations
and applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
KSF/USE = Non-Residential Square Footage Conversion – a conversion factor between various
types of non-residential uses recognizing differences in underlying land value associated with various
non-residential uses.
COMMENT: One comment contended that Sending Zone landowners should have the ability to
submit information to the Highlands Council at the time they seek a Highlands Development Credit
allocation that presents more realistic site development results
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has clarified that provision of the Highlands TDR Program
relating to a landowners’ ability to seek reconsideration of a Highlands Development Credit
allocation determination by the Council. This provision states that “If the landowner disputes the
number of HDCs allocated to his or her parcel, the owner may seek reconsideration by the
Highlands Council only with respect to the parcel’s lot yield in the case of residential development
or permitted square footage in the case of non-residential development.” A landowner will not be
precluded from submitting information relating to parcel yield at the time the landowner submits an
application for a Highlands Development Credit allocation as opposed to waiting until after the
Council has made it formal determination. The application form itself will state the type of
information that may be submitted with respect to yield.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the allocation of Highlands Development Credits
must be described in the RMP in clear and easily understood language. According to this comment,
what was set forth in the draft RMP was insufficient.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has clarified the discussion of allocation and the formulas by
which credits are allocated for both residentially and non-residentially zoned property. Additionally,
the Highlands Council will provide an Internet-based process for landowners to understand the
allocation for their property, and will be releasing a guide book for the Highlands TDR Program,
which will provide a comprehensive overview of the program and will include relevant program
documents such as an HDC Allocation Determination application and model conservation
restriction.
COMMENT: One comment stated that an interactive computer program that provides information
regarding potential Highlands Development Credit allocation would be helpful, but that the
program must be clear about how any initial assessment is calculated.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and is working currently to
develop and implement such an interactive computer program. The program will include hyperlinks
to relevant TDR program documents for background information on the allocation methods
employed by the program.
COMMENT: One comment contended that relinquishing a Highlands Act exemption should be
described as voluntary and should add an additional credit to the HDC allocation if an exemption is
forfeited.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council states in Chapter 5 of the RMP (Highlands TDR Program)
that “In the event that a landowner voluntarily chooses not to develop an undeveloped, residentially
192
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
zoned parcel pursuant to a single family home exemption under section 28 of the Act, the Net Yield
shall be increased reflecting the parcel’s regional resource value.” In the case of parcels of land
located in high value conservation or agricultural priority areas, such parcels will receive a 25%
bonus with respect to a parcel’s net yield where a landowner voluntarily chooses not to exercise an
applicable exemption. For those parcels of land located in moderate value conservation or
agricultural priority areas, those parcels will receive a 25% bonus with respect to a parcel’s net yield.
COMMENT: One comment asked what property values are used in the allocation of Highlands
Development Credits?
RESPONSE: For the purpose of developing the location factors that adjust the number of credits
allocated to a residentially zoned parcel of land based on the municipality in which a parcel is
located, the Highlands Council used municipal tax assessment data relating to the land value portion
of a parcel’s assessed value. The Highlands Council used this information because it is readily
available for all parcels in the Highlands Region and is certified through county tax boards.
Furthermore, these data were used because the Highlands Council was only trying to ascertain the
relative differences in land value between Highlands municipalities.
COMMENT: One comment asked what the Highlands Council means by regional resource value?
RESPONSE: When the Highlands Council refers to “regional resource value” it is referring to the
analysis conducted by the Highlands Council to identify those parcels of land that are of regional
conservation value or regional agricultural value (emphasis added). These lands are identified by the
Highlands Council as the Highlands Region’s Conservation Priority Area or Agricultural Priority
Area. Within these areas, parcels of land were evaluated using a number of criteria and separated
into high value, moderate value and low value lands.
COMMENT: One comment asked what standards will govern the allocation of Highlands
Development Credits to Protection Zone and Conservation Zone lands in the Planning Area.
RESPONSE: The same methods that are used to allocate Highlands Development Credits to
parcels of land in the Preservation Area will be used to allocate credits to parcels of land in the
Planning Area that have been affected by application of the standards in the RMP where a
municipality has voluntarily conformed.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP fails to define the number of Highlands
Development Credits that may be issued to landowners and that the RMP needs to calculate the
total number of lost rights to develop as of August 2004 and translate those lost rights into
Highlands Development Credits.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will not state the number of Highlands Development Credits
that may be allocated under the Highlands TDR Program in the RMP because it has no way of
knowing how many Sending Zone landowners will actually seek an allocation and then deed restrict
their property for purposes of being able to sell their allocated credits, rather than keeping their land
off the market, selling or donating it for preservation in fee simple or through an easement, or
developing it. That said, the Highlands Council has estimated a range of the number of credits that
may be allocated under the program. Using information developed for the Highlands Council build
out analysis and using an average location factor and zoning factor, the Highlands Council estimates
that there may be anywhere from 40,000 to 80,000 credits that could be allocated under the program
for residentially and non-residentially zoned property combined. It is critical to understand that one
(1) Highlands Development Credit does not necessarily equate to one (1) housing opportunity. The
number of credits required per unit to construct in a Receiving Zone will be premised on bonus
193
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
yield, the real estate market in which the Receiving Zone is located, and the type of unit to be
developed. In many cases it may require several credits to construct a bonus TDR unit.
Highlands Development Credit Bank
COMMENT: One comment held that the Highlands Council should not establish a separate
Highlands Development Credit Bank, but instead rely on the State Transfer of Development Rights
Bank to administer the Highlands Program so that there are not duplicative administrative costs.
RESPONSE: While the Highlands Council acknowledges the need reduce State administrative
costs, the State TDR Bank is not set up to administer a regional TDR program like that for the
Highlands Region. Under its authorizing statute, the State Transfer of Development Rights Bank
Act, N.J.S.A. 4:1C-49 et seq., its primary objective is to assist in the administration of intra-municipal
TDR programs, i.e. those where sending and receiving zones are within the same municipality.
Given the State TDR Bank’s focus on local programs, the Highlands Council believes it is necessary
to have an independent TDR bank that is focused on implementing a regional TDR program.
Moreover, the Highlands Act authorizes the Highlands Council to establish its own bank at N.J.S.A.
13:20-13.i.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Development Credit Bank must be
established and funded immediately.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council established the Highlands Development Credit Bank by
resolution on June 26, 2008. The Council is now working to appoint members to the bank board of
directors, which will include four public members. After members are appointed, the board of
directors will meet and adopt by-laws and operating procedures. With respect to initial capitalization
of the bank, the Highlands Council continues to press for initial funding.
COMMENT: One comment noted that, while the concept of a credit bank is worthwhile, it should
not take the place of a private market-driven program.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and recognizes the need to
transition to a purely market-driven program as soon as possible. However, the ability to make that
transition will depend upon the time it takes to establish voluntary Receiving Zones both within the
Highlands Region and the seven Highlands counties.
COMMENT: One comment contended that the RMP does not set forth in which State agency the
Highlands Development Credit Bank will be located; who will serve on the board; and under what
rules the bank will operate.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Development Credit Bank is a creature of the Highlands Council in
that it was established by Council resolution. As stated above, the Highlands Council is currently
working to appoint members to the bank board of directors. After members are appointed, the
board of directors will meet and adopt by-laws and operating procedures that will govern operations
of the bank, including the criteria upon which the bank will make hardship purchases consistent
with the requirements set forth in Chapter 5 of the RMP regarding the bank.
COMMENT: One comment argued that the Highlands Council should limit the use of any
Highlands Development Credit Bank funds to the purchase of credits from only those municipalities
that establish Receiving Zones where the municipality is split between the Preservation and Planning
Area.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the Highlands Development Credit Bank will
establish the standards and procedures by which it will purchase Highlands Development Credits
194
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
from Sending Zone landowners.
Deed Restrictions
COMMENT: One comment maintained that a sending zone landowner should not be subject to a
deed restriction until he or she sells a credit. The same comment also stated that the conservation
restriction placed on a property must be flexible so that the property owner may adapt to changing
circumstances.
RESPONSE: As discussed on in Chapter 5 of the RMP, a Highlands Development Credit may not
be sold, transferred or conveyed until a conservation restriction has been recorded on the parcel
from which the Highlands Development Credit has been generated. This requirement is necessary to
ensure that the property is properly deed restricted from future development potential before a
transfer occurs. A Sending Zone landowner is not required to record a deed restriction to receive an
allocation of Highlands Development Credits. Such recording is only required when the landowner
wishes to sell the credits.
COMMENT: One comment contended that it is unacceptable to allow the Department of
Environmental Protection, non-profit corporations and/or the Highlands Council to monitor
preserved land easements.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council as a State agency has the authority to acquire, hold and
monitor easements under the New Jersey Conservation Restriction and Historic Preservation
Restriction Act, N.J.S.A. 13:8B. The State TDR Act at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-147 requires that the deed
restriction be specifically enforceable by the municipality and county in which the property is located
as well as the State of New Jersey. The Highlands Council has not yet finalized its model deed
restriction for purposes of the Highlands TDR Program. Where the Highlands Council requires a
conservation easement for reasons other than the TDR Program, non-profit land trusts frequently
are involved in owning and monitoring such easements, usually at the request of the landowner that
has a working relationship with that land trust. The Highlands Council will not require the use of a
specific land trust for easement monitoring, unless that land trust has a fiduciary role in the
acquisition of the easement.
COMMENT: One comment argued that the deed restriction used in the Highlands TDR Program
should not restrict anything other than the future development potential of the property.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council agrees and will be drafting the model deed restriction as such.
However, where a landowner chooses to retain an applicable exemption, the restriction will state
where that exemption may be exercised on the property so as to minimize the impact of developing
that exemption on Highlands resources.
COMMENT: One comment stated that a Highlands exemption should not be exchangeable for
Highlands Development Credits.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment but believes that offering
Highlands Development Credits in exchange for voluntarily agreeing not to exercise an applicable
Highlands Act exemption promotes the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP and the objectives
of the Highlands Act.
SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL ECONOMY
COMMENT: Several comments questioned if tourism will be able to offset the industrial,
commercial, and other employment generating development that will be stymied by the Highlands
195
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Act? The RMP should provide additional economic development strategies in order to truly provide
balance to the Region.
COMMENT: One comment asked how will jobs be attracted to the Highlands and suggested that
companies are unlikely to move to the Highlands, with the associated restrictions and regulations,
when Pennsylvania and New York are very close, and the cost of expansion in those states would be
less. The comment expressed frustration with the content of the RMP relating to economic
development.
RESPONSE: The RMP Sustainable Economic Development program outlines the RMP’s policies
regarding the promotion of appropriate, sustainable, and environmentally compatible economic
development throughout the Highlands Region. This program has been modified since the 2007
Draft RMP to provide greater clarity. The RMP policy requires that conforming municipalities
develop or update an existing economic plan element that provides strategies for achieving
sustainable and appropriate economic development consistent with local desire and identifies any
development, redevelopment and brownfield opportunities. It is recognized that these plans will
vary considerably in scope, depending on the size and composition of a municipality, its current
economic conditions and whether it chooses to grow or not. Any development, redevelopment, and
brownfield opportunities should be identified in the economic plan. Economic plans should strive
to maximize potential economic effects when locating future homes, commercial and industrial
facilities through development and redevelopment, and public facilities. It should be recognized that
the primary purpose of the Highlands Act, and therefore the RMP, is to ensure the protection of
water resources and other sensitive environmental resources. Economic development is
encouraged, primarily within the Planning Area and designated Redevelopment Areas, to the extent
that it does not conflict with the primary purpose of the Act. In addition, the Highlands Regional
Build Out Technical Report shows that zoning for non-residential development is in many cases
located in areas with high environmental sensitivity and no water or wastewater utilities, and would
result in an unsustainable ratio of jobs to housing. Therefore, the RMP will not attempt to provide
for the amount of development reflected in current zoning, as the zoning is unrealistic.
COMMENT: One comment stated that in order to increase tourism in the Highlands, additional
facilities, such as restaurants and boat launches must be constructed, but these are restricted by the
RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges that the RMP and the Highlands Preservation Area rules
will restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas and where water availability and utility
capacity is lacking; however opportunities for development exist throughout the Highlands based
upon exemptions, waivers, RMP overlay zone, local zoning, and Highlands project review.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern for the economic health of the Region, based on
the implementation of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated disagreement with the notion that piecemeal development is an
impediment to achieving a more sustainable economy and believes that the RMP will be the
impediment.
RESPONSE: The RMP advocates for smart growth approaches in the Highlands Region. Smart
growth means the strategic approach to development decisions which uses planning to guide, design,
develop, revitalize and build communities that: convey a unique sense of community and place;
preserve and enhance valuable natural and cultural resources; equitably distribute the costs and
benefits of development; make efficient use of available utility capacity; expand the range of
transportation, employment and housing choices in a fiscally responsible manner; value long-range,
regional considerations of sustainability over short term, incremental, geographically isolated actions;
196
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
and promote public health and healthy communities. The Highlands Council acknowledges that the
RMP and the Highlands Preservation Area rules will restrict development; however planning for
sustainable economic development will provide municipalities with options for building a strong
economic base.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the RMP places too high an emphasis on farming as a
significant economic factor. The comment also stated that agro-tourism is not practical for most
farmers, and suggests developing additional economic strategies.
COMMENT: One comment stated that farming operations need to be protected from
unreasonable restrictions, such as extensive buffers, in order to support the economic vitality of the
Region.
RESPONSE: The RMP considers agriculture to be a vital component of the culture and landscape
of the Highlands Region that provides economic benefits through both agricultural production and
maintaining the rural character of the Highlands communities. The RMP Sustainable Economic
Development program outlines the RMP’s policies regarding the promotion of appropriate,
sustainable, and environmentally compatible economic development throughout the Highlands
Region. This program has been modified since the 2007 Draft RMP based on public and agency
comments that were received.
COMMENT: One comment suggested additional economic indicators to include in the Economic
Monitoring program.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the indicators listed in the Economic
Tracking component of the Sustainable Economic Development program are considered to be an
initial listing, which may be enhanced or refined in the future.
COMMENT: Some comments suggested wording edits.
RESPONSE: The RMP was updated to address or incorporate appropriate wording suggestions.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the discussion of land acquisition does not provide a
specific dollar amount set aside or the timing for acquisitions.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been modified and addresses these aforementioned topics related to
land acquisition in the Analysis of the Highlands Region (Chapter 3) and in the Land Preservation
Program (Chapter 5).
COMMENT: One comment suggested that economic monitoring of Highlands agriculture must be
done with the participation of state and federal agencies that are already collecting such data,
including the latest USDA Census of Agriculture, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service,
and the New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The comment expressed concern with the ability to
extract Highlands specific agriculture economic data, and exclude surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and the RMP includes interagency
coordination as a component.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Highlands Council, the Legislature, and the
Governor's office work together to enact a water use and purveyor surcharge and/or a tax to be
levied on communities outside of the Highlands that rely on Highlands water. A reliable, stable
funding source will be extremely important to provide financial relief to Highlands communities and
to fund Highlands land preservation.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments and continues to work to secure
197
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
a dedicated funding source to assist in implementing the RMP. To that end, the Highlands Council
persists in advocating for the imposition of a water user fee.
COMMENT: One comment recommended allowing additionally flexibility in Planning Area to
allow new investment and development, which is essential to economic viability of towns
throughout the Region.
RESPONSE: The Project Review Standards Program in Chapter 6 of the RMP outline the technical
standards for project reviews of applications submitted to or reviewed by the Highlands Council to
ensure consistency with the goals, policies, objectives, program requirements, and other provisions
of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment asked whether the Highlands Council must prepare an economic
analysis of their policies.
RESPONSE: The RMP’s economic analysis primarily consists of a baseline economic data (based
on baseline economic indicators) and the Cash Flow Timetable, which is a requirement of the
Highlands Act whereby the cost to implement the Regional Master Plan and the sources of revenue
are formally accounted for over time. Economic indicators and the Cash Flow Timetable are
discussed in the Analysis of the Highlands Region (Chapter 3), the Sustainable Economic
Development program (Chapter 5), and the Financial Analysis Technical Report. The RMP
Implementation and Monitoring Programs (Chapter 6) support the fiscal evaluation of the
Highlands Region as compared to the state and the northern portion of the state.
COMMENT: One comment asked when the economic tracking program will be implemented.
RESPONSE: The Highlands economic tracking is an on-going process; initial results are presented
in the Fiscal Impact Analysis Technical Report and the data will continue to be monitored in
support of the RMP Implementation program.
AIR QUALITY
COMMENT: One comment indicated that it may be difficult for homeowners to take advantage of
alternative energy options and that it will require support from the Council in order to be
implemented.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and supports renewable energy sources and
innovative technologies in the RMP policies.
IMPLEMENTATION – CHAPTER 6
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should provide Plan Conformance Guidelines
prior to RMP adoption.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has provided Plan Conformance summary documents . The
Plan Conformance Guidelines are provided as part of the RMP implementation process.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the terms “immediate mandatory elements, long term
mandatory elements, and discretionary elements” with respect to Plan Conformance, should be
defined.
RESPONSE: These issues will be addressed in Plan Conformance Guidelines and through Plan
Conformance standards.
198
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that Plan Conformance should not be granted “conditionally,”
with completion of long term tasks a lingering concern. If this is not avoidable, then the Council
should require a binding agreement specifying the schedule and consequences of not meeting the
requirements.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is specifically authorized, in Section 14 of the Highlands Act,
to approve municipal Plan Conformance with conditions. While local jurisdictions are permitted
and encouraged to complete every requirement of Plan Conformance for submission with their
petitions, it is unrealistic to expect that this will be feasible in the case of Preservation Area
jurisdictions, since they are required (by the Highlands Act) to submit petitions for Plan
Conformance within 9-15 months of RMP adoption. In addition, the Council finds that a
conformance process with two levels – Basic Plan Conformance and full Plan Conformance – will
allow for immediate imposition of Highlands resource protections at the local level. These
protections directly advance the goals and objectives of the RMP, and the benefits relating thereto
far outweigh any concern as to the need for follow-up with local jurisdictions. To ensure
completion of all long term tasks, the Council will require adherence to a detailed Implementation
Plan inclusive of a rigorous Implementation Schedule, which will be in the form of a binding
agreement with consequences for non-performance.
COMMENT: One comment stated that if it is the Council’s intention to grant “conditional”
conformance, the applicability of the benefits relating thereto, and the funding recapture provisions
for non-performance should be clearly specified.
RESPONSE: This information will be addressed within the Plan Conformance Guidelines.
COMMENT: One comment cautioned that care must be taken to maintain a regional focus in
reducing data to the municipal level.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and agrees.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that large-scale map adjustments could undermine
the Highlands Council’s science-based mapping. The Council will need firm guidance concerning
what forms of adjustments it will permit during conformance.
RESPONSE: The Map Adjustments program in Chapter 6 has been split from the RMP Updates
Program and rewritten to better define the types of adjustments that the Council will consider, to
provide guidance as to the process and procedures, and to outline the criteria for Council
consideration and approval.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the amount of grant funding available and the procedures
for obtaining funding should be clearly specified in the Plan Conformance Guidelines.
RESPONSE: The Council will provide this information in both the Plan Conformance Guidelines
and in the Grant Program materials. A great deal of information on the Grant Programs is already
available and can be accessed through the Highlands Council website (www.highlands.state.nj.us).
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should mandate that all municipalities in the
Highlands Region form an environmental commission.
RESPONSE: The Legislature authorizes municipalities to establish environmental commissions
under N.J.S.A. 40:56A-1 et seq. While the Highlands Council recognizes the benefits of establishing
municipal environmental commissions, the Council is not requiring the establishment of a
commission and a requirement of Plan Conformance.
199
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council should consider providing technical
assistance and funding for the creation of new municipal environmental commissions and for the
training of new commissioners and periodic education of sitting commissioners. The Council
should provide funding and training to assure a basic level of literacy in environmental analysis and
the use of GIS for environmental planning.
RESPONSE: The Council anticipates providing educational and training opportunities for
municipal officials, staff and consultants and will provide grant funding for the reasonable expenses
incurred by Highlands municipalities in the activities required to evaluate and/or pursue the process
of conformance with the Regional Master Plan.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should require the preparation of digital
municipal environmental resource inventories (ERIs) incorporating Highlands data and provide
funding, minimum contents, standards and Highlands digital data.
RESPONSE: The Council will require that Highlands data be incorporated into environmental
resource inventories (ERIs). Highlands grant funding will be available to assist in development of
ERIs for Plan Conformance and Plan Conformance standards. Digital data are preferred by the
Council, and will be required where available, for all submissions. Not all information will be
available in digital form, especially regarding historic maps.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should require the adoption of the
environmental resource inventory (ERI) as an element of the municipal master plan.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the ERI is required as a component of Plan Conformance. The ERI will
be adopted as the basis for Conservation Plan Elements in municipal master plans.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should require an environmental commission
review of any project submitted to the Council as a condition of completeness.
RESPONSE: New Jersey law already requires that a duly established environmental commission be
provided an opportunity to review and comment upon development applications to the municipal
planning board and zoning board of adjustment. Environmental commissions will have the
opportunity to provide comments to the Highlands Council regarding Highlands Project Reviews
through the general public involvement process.
COMMENT: One comment urged the Council to explore the creation of County Environmental
Commissions, focused on regional issues of extra municipal scale. They can be formed by
resolution of the Board of Chosen Freeholders.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should prepare a minimum list of required
powers and duties for the county environmental commissions.
COMMENT: One Comment noted that the Council should consider providing technical assistance
and funding for the creation of county environmental commissions and for the training of new
commissioners and periodic education of sitting commissioners.
RESPONSE: The Council will work with its constituent counties in achieving Plan Conformance
and will encourage the counties to assist in coordinating municipalities. Such activities will involve
whatever board(s), commission(s), or specific individuals that the counties officially designate to
carry out that function. It is not within the Highlands Council’s purview to set forth the powers of a
county environmental commission. The Council will provide grant funding for the reasonable
expenses incurred by Highlands counties in the activities required to evaluate and/or pursue the
process of conformance with the Regional Master Plan.
200
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should require the preparation of digital
county wide environmental resource inventories accessible to municipalities that incorporate
highlands data and provide funding, standards, minimum contents, and Highlands digital data.
RESPONSE: The Council will require that Highlands data be incorporated into environmental
resource inventories (ERIs). Highlands grant funding will be available to assist in development of
ERIs for Plan Conformance and Plan Conformance Guidelines will include minimum requirements
for ERIs. Digital data are preferred by the Council, and will be required where available, for all
submissions.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should require a county environmental
commission review of any project with extra-municipal impacts, incorporating the municipal
environmental commission report from the host municipality, to be submitted to the Council as a
condition of completeness.
RESPONSE: Where a county has decided to form a county environmental commission, the Board
of Chosen Freeholders will determine the responsibilities of the commission regarding the review of
development applications to the county planning board. County environmental commissions will
have the opportunity to provide comments to the Highlands Council regarding Highlands Project
Reviews through the general public involvement process.
COMMENT: One comment was generally encouraged by the level of public participation,
however, cautioned the Council that in some circumstances municipal officials may feel too exposed
to public pressure to participate effectively or at all in the conformance process.
RESPONSE: As part Plan Conformance, the Highlands Council and local jurisdictions are required
to meet all statutory requirements as to public notice and holding of open public meetings in the
process. This process will provide adequate opportunities for public participation.
COMMENT: One comment stated that it is possible and allowable under the Act that a
municipality may want to introduce more stringent provisions than those provided for in the RMP.
Some municipalities may already have local planning and regulation that is more protective of the
environment than the provisions of the RMP. In these cases, adopting by reference could prove
counterproductive to achieving the goals of the Act. Requests that the Council clarify the impact of
extending the legal shield and other benefits of conformance where municipalities have
demonstrated that they wish to employ more stringent policies.
RESPONSE: The Plan Conformance Guidelines will provide clarity on these issues. More
stringent regulations are permissible under the Highlands Act and will be entitled to the legal shield
if: a) provided as part of a petition to the Highlands Council for Plan Conformance in satisfaction
of an RMP requirement, and b) approved by the Council as a component of Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council should more clearly articulate the
relationship between the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) and the RMP.
RESPONSE: The relevant sections of the RMP have been modified somewhat to clarify the
relationship between the SDRP and the RMP. The Highlands Council, as required by the Highlands
Act, will submit the RMP to the State Planning Commission for Plan Endorsement regarding the
Planning Area only. The RMP replaces the SDRP in the Preservation Area. Upon approval of Plan
Endorsement for the Planning Area, conforming municipalities in the Planning Area are entitled to
the same benefits as a municipality that receives Plan Endorsement from the State Planning
Commission.
201
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment pointed out that the RMP did not provide an estimate as to the cost
of implementing the plan and how it will be paid for.
RESPONSE: Discussion on implementation costs is provided in Chapter 3, Subpart 8, Sustainable
Economic Development, regarding the Cash Flow Timetable and the estimated costs of land
acquisition. Implementation will be in part, covered by Highlands Grant Program funding, which is
available to cover the reasonable costs incurred by municipalities and counties in activities required
to conform local planning programs to the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment was concerned that Chapter 6 is not specific enough and refers to
standards and guidelines that are not contained within the Plan. It needs clear implementation
strategies for carrying out the policies and objectives of the Plan. Supporting documents, standards,
and guidance documents must be expedited, vetted by the Council with meaningful public
participation, and included in the RMP.
RESPONSE: Significant revisions have been made to Chapter 6 to provide greater clarity and
guidance on Plan Implementation. Additional guidance will be made available in the Plan
Conformance Guidelines document. Plan Conformance guidance and technical documents will be
released to the public and vetted by the Council at public meetings (including public comment
sessions) as they become available.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council work collaboratively with municipal and
county officials to advance the goals of the Plan. Municipal officials will need flexibility to deal with
the Plan at the local level.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is committed to working closely with municipal and county
officials and will provide flexibility in the process of conformance to the extent that the RMP allows.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the 2007 Draft RMP is virtually unusable by local officials.
The result is the towns will be increasingly dependent on costly consultant contracts and state
grants. The Council will be receiving conformance petitions that may not reflect a full
understanding by the towns’ officials and the public. They will not be able to judge the cause and
effect of conformance on the region and the town. The Highlands Council will be faced with
petitions of such variety that staff will end up doing the planning for 88 municipalities.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been substantially revised to simplify language and to provide greater
clarity and direction to covered jurisdictions, from start to finish. As to conformance, the Plan
Conformance Guidelines will discuss the steps, details and requirements in sufficient detail to ensure
a meaningful response from local jurisdictions. In addition, model ordinance and master plan
elements will be provided with very explicit language which municipal and county officials can use to
assess the depth and quality of the submission elements that the Highlands Council will require with
petitions for Plan Conformance. The Highlands Council Grant Program will also assist in
development of substantive petitions via explanatory documents and participation by covered
entities in the gradual steps toward conformance, beginning with initial assessment.
REGIONAL MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE, CONSISTENCY, COORDINATION
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Council and staff must coordinate its
policies for agriculture with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, New Jersey
Department of Agriculture, county Soil Conservation Districts, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, the
202
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
County Agricultural Development Boards and other farm organizations to take maximum advantage
of their experience, expertise, and funding and technical assistance. The RMP also leaves out the
Soil Conservation Districts. The Highlands Council must ensure that the “other entities” that will
be involved include the county Soil Conservation Districts.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and agrees. Each of the listed entities has
been specifically referenced in the Federal, State, and Regional Agency Coordination section of
Chapter 6.
COMMENT: A few comment stated that the RMP must ensure during Plan Conformance that
municipalities create and implement municipal land use plans and regulations that support the
practice and business of agriculture to create the positive business climate required by the Highlands
Act. Currently, the RMP does contain language that is supportive of the agricultural industry
however; some language in other parts of the plan conflicts with or cancels out any potential
benefits to agriculture.
RESPONSE: Numerous revisions have been made to the RMP to provide more vigorous support
of the practice and business agriculture. Conforming municipalities will be required to adopt Right
to Farm language, where appropriate, and are encouraged to permit farm worker housing as a
permitted accessory use to farms.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that municipalities need to realize the extent of the density
they already have (see Visualizing Density by Campoli and MacLean Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy) and understand the benefits of an appropriate amount of growth, especially if they need to
solve problems such as inadequate wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, funding is needed for
municipal development education, including field trips to places like Radburn (5 units to the acre) to
reduce their reluctance to consider even a limited amount of new growth.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but emphasizes that the RMP intentionally
leaves decisions about growth completely to the discretion of the municipalities. The Council does
anticipate providing opportunities for the education and training of municipal officials, staff and
consultants in support of Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: New Jersey Farm Bureau supported the reiteration of Objectives 8A1a and 8A2a to
be addressed by the Highland Council as it works with municipalities.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges receipt of the above comment and notes that the RMP
reiterates the referenced Objectives (in Chapter 6, Subpart d.) as suggested.
RMP Updates and Map Adjustments
COMMENT: One comment strongly supported a streamlined procedure to incorporate new data
and map changes supplied through the municipal and county conformance process so long as
changes are fact or science based. After a town or county achieves Plan Conformance, however, it
should be possible to make updates and map changes, but only through a process that gives notice
to residents and includes public participation similar in intent and intensity as that of the initial
conformance process itself. If the changes, including updates of state agency data, are made with
Highlands Council review and public hearings or meetings locally, there will at least be notice and an
opportunity to support or refute the changes.
RESPONSE: The RMP Updates process will be available on an on-going basis, both before and
after Plan Conformance. Because RMP Updates represent factual corrections, the municipality or
county must provide information that can be verified for accuracy by the Highlands Council. The
203
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Council does not intend to provide a public hearing process for consideration of such updates,
however, and all changes will be catalogued and made publicly available through the Highlands
Council website and established data sharing protocols. Map Adjustments will entail a public
process, on the other hand, both before and after Plan Conformance. Map Adjustments will require
filing a petition with the Highlands Council, which must be accompanied by a duly-adopted
resolution of the affected municipal governing body. Map Adjustments will only be considered
during public hearings of the Highlands Council, which will be noticed by posting on the Highlands
Council website. Additional notice requirements will be provided in procedural guidance documents
following adoption of the RMP. The programs for RMP Updates and Map Adjustments have been
separated and rewritten for greater clarity of both, in Chapter 6.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the Council establish clear protective standards for
map adjustments to be sure that they can be evaluated for their impact on natural resources.
Petitions for changes or adjustments to the Land Use Capability Map need to be based on existing
map errors, resource protection issues, a scientific basis, or factual standards. Presently, the Plan
does not provide for same.
RESPONSE: The Map Adjustments program has been revised to provide clear and
environmentally-protective guidelines for submission, review and consideration of proposed Map
Adjustments. Factual errors and updates are addressed in the RMP Updates program, discussed
previously.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that Map Adjustments be restricted to Plan
Conformance and Council updates based on new data only and never considered in Project Review.
It must be made clear that Map Adjustments are never made as part of any negotiation.
RESPONSE: The Map Adjustments program has been revised to provide clear and
environmentally-protective guidelines for submission, review and consideration of proposed Map
Adjustments. Factual errors and updates are addressed in the RMP Updates program, discussed
previously.
COMMENT: One comment questioned if the adjustment of Protection, Conservation and Existing
Community Development zone boundaries in the Preservation Area is permitted under the
proposed RMP? If not, what is the purpose of the zone/boundary delineations in the Preservation
Area?
RESPONSE: Municipalities and counties may seek Map Adjustments with respect to any zone
boundary in any portion of the Highlands Region and all will be considered under the criteria set
forth in the Map Adjustments program of the RMP.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP does not explain how affected property
owners could amend the Land Use Capability Map if it is incorrect. There does not seem to be any
due process for property owners.
RESPONSE: Affected property owners must go through the municipal government of the
municipality in which the property is located. To ensure an orderly process based on the most
accurate information, the RMP purposely provides a framework for RMP Updates that applies to
municipalities and counties, only, with a municipal governing body resolution required in all cases,
regardless. However, the Council may identify and process RMP Updates regarding the same types
of data corrections, on its own initiative. These corrections may be identified through the process of
Highlands Project Reviews based on required information about the project site as submitted to the
Council by an applicant.
204
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment advocated that the Highlands Council fully implement the conflict
resolution mechanism that is discussed in the 2007 Draft RMP. The comment stated that it was
understood that this mechanism is designed to ensure that property owners have a forum under
which they can make property-specific appeals to the Council when there are conflicts between zone
designations that have been assigned based on the Highlands Council’s macro level review, and zone
designations that should be assigned based on a site specific review of the relevant indicators.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP Updates Program outlines the process
for making updates to the components of the RMP including the LUCM Series, other RMP maps, and
supporting base data layers. Changes to the RMP that are not appropriate for RMP Updates, however, must
be processed by Map Adjustments submitted by local governments, not by project applicants.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP needs a consistency analysis with the State Development
And Redevelopment Plan. Specifically, why is Planning Area 5 shown in the Existing Community Zone?
RESPONSE: The Land Use Capability Zones of the RMP were developed based on regional information
including many variables such as resource constraints, infrastructure capacity, existing development patterns,
and municipal zoning. The SDRP was developed using a different set of criteria. To the extent that changes
appear necessary, municipalities and counties are entitled to seek an RMP Update or a Map Adjustment.
Under the Highlands Act, the RMP will be submitted to the State Planning Commission for Plan
Endorsement regarding the Highlands Planning Area, and the SDRP must be modified to reflect the RMP in
the Preservation Area.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the approximately 93-acre property located at Block 26, Lot 33 in
Greenwich Township in the Planning Area has been inappropriately placed in the Environmentally
Constrained Conservation Subzone.
RESPONSE: Numerous recommendations of this type were submitted for consideration. The RMP was
based on a regional analysis of regional features using available data at the regional scale. To the extent that
changes appear necessary, municipalities and counties may seek an RMP Update or a Map Adjustment.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that: a. The Plan should not be amended by the request of
municipalities and counties. b. Non-profit organizations should also be given the right to petition the
Council for map adjustments. These non-profit organizations utilize teams of research scientists and
planning professionals to determine local and regional threats to water quality and quantity, natural resource
protections, and threats to ecosystem viability. They work on the ground everyday and very much should be
afforded the opportunity to harmonize their protection and preservation plans for the future with the goals
and planning of the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: As discussed above, the Map Adjustments program has been revised to provide for an orderly,
public, and appropriate process for local government petitions and Highlands Council decision-making. The
municipal and county elected governing bodies are the entities responsible and uniquely assigned with the
necessary authority to undertake such activities and the Council must rely on them.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the following bullets should be eliminated as potential criteria
for map adjustments: - Creates a meaningful opportunity for the use of Highlands Development Credits; Eliminates substandard wastewater treatment facilities; - Creates meaningful opportunities to provide
affordable housing; - Creates meaningful employment opportunities for the residents of the Highlands
Region in terms of the quantity and quality of jobs; - Improves the balance of housing and employment in a
manner which reduces the length of home/work trips within the Highlands Region; - Promotes the use of
alternative modes of transportation, including transit; or provides uses and facilities which promote ecoand/or agri-tourism.
RESPONSE: As revised in the adopted RMP, the criteria for a Map Adjustment program no longer include
205
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
the items as specifically listed. The criteria were revised to make them more focused on critical issues of “no
net loss” of resources, utility and water capacity, ensuring that the Map Adjustment is the only means to
address the local need, and is appropriate to the Zone and the RMP policies and objectives.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Council should not await Plan Conformance, map
adjustments, or policy adjustments and Plan Conformance as the procedure by which municipalities, like
Hardyston Township will be compelled to conform their existing Smart Growth Center Planning to the
Regional Master Plan. The Regional Master Plan should more carefully consider the Smart Growth policies
of the Hardyston Township Master Plan and ordinances of the Township of Hardyston and the State
Development and Redevelopment Plan. The Highlands Council should adjust its RMP in accordance with
proper professional planning techniques consistently used throughout New Jersey and the United States.
RESPONSE: To the extent that factual information presented can be verified to demonstrate errors or need
for updates, the changes will be addressed forthwith under the RMP Updates process. To the extent that the
request involves changes that affect RMP policies or more complex issues, they may be addressed under the
Map Adjustment process as previously described and specifically set forth in the Map Adjustment program of
the revised RMP. To the extent that municipalities have in place provisions that already meet the RMP
requirements, Plan Conformance may rely upon those provisions.
COMMENT: The Washington Township Planning Board endorsed the RMP Updates and Map
Adjustments Program as an essential component of the RMP for plan conformance; and municipalities that
do not Opt-In to the RMP, but may wish to correct mapping to reflect existing conditions or so that local
plans and policies are accurately reflected in the RMP.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council agrees that the program is essential and appreciates the positive input.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that policy relief is needed to address “special situations” where local
or county governments need Map Adjustments. The RMP should provide relief from the strict application of
plan policies, on the basis of hardships, or where an exception should be recognized, and/or where no
existing Highlands Act exemption provides relief to the municipal or county government facing a special
situation.
RESPONSE: The revised Map Adjustment program does provide for consideration of special situations,
hardships, and inapplicability/unavailability of any exemption, based on Objectives 6G2b and 6G2c.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the RMP should provide mechanism to eliminate RMP
potential receiving zones when municipalities don’t want them.
RESPONSE: The Council emphasizes that areas labeled as having potential to be Receiving Zones are areas
that require more study as well as a deliberate municipal decision to proceed with such study, before actual
Receiving Zone designation can even be considered. Any municipality may seek an RMP Update, through
which factual information may be provided to the Council indicating that even the label as a “potential”
Receiving Zone is inappropriate. The Plan Conformance process will provide additional opportunity for
municipalities to inform the Highlands Council of decisions regarding potential Receiving Zones, which may
also affect the mapping.
Grants and Funding
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the financial component of the RMP is weak and the cash flow
timetable is incomplete. This leaves the actual cost to implement the RMP question unanswered. Where will
the funding come from? Who will fund the Conformance process, how much money will be available for
conformance, and how much it will cost the Council to achieve all of its long term goals?
RESPONSE: The cash flow timetable in Chapter 3 has been revised with up-to-date information for final
RMP adoption. The Council acknowledges that not all implementation funding is currently in place,
206
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
however, it anticipates that funding and other sources of assistance will become available through the many
sources and opportunities identified in the RMP. In addition, sufficient grant funding is immediately available
to all Highlands municipalities and counties, to fund the reasonable costs of Plan Conformance. While
municipal and county Plan Conformance will not represent the whole of the implementation process by any
means, it will address a substantial component of the Highlands Council’s work and in meeting the goals and
objectives of the RMP.
COMMENT: Several comments were concerned with the funding and the timeline for grant funds. The
comments felt that the State should pay for all reasonable costs associated with conformance, including
professional costs. The comments stated that the grant process should begin as soon as possible and
questioned when grant funds would be made available and in what amounts. The comment also questioned
when and how municipalities would be reimbursed/compensated for the costs of opting-in.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council grant program will cover all reasonable municipal and county expenses
involved in achieving Plan Conformance requirements, including professional fees and related costs. The
Initial Assessment Grant program has been available since early May 2008 and will continue for any interested
municipal or county applicant. Under that program municipalities may seek up to $15,000 with additional
allocations to be considered, to address demonstrated need. Follow-up grants to cover the more in-depth
aspects of Plan Conformance will be announced after adoption of the RMP. Reimbursement for expenses
incurred will occur after the grantee provides copies of invoices documenting expenditures and demonstrates
completion of the work authorized by and within the parameters of the grant application.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that planning grants be provided to assist the Highlands
Communities in preparing their 2008 Third Round Housing Element Fair Share Plans. The complexity of
substantive certification is further heightened by the pending imposition of protection zones, restrictions on
growth, and TDR sending and receiving areas.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has previously, and will again provide grant funding to assist Highlands
communities in developing Third Round Housing Elements and Fair Share Plans, as these are required
components of Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment questioned whether a municipality must reimburse the Highlands Council for
planning grants, once the township determines not to opt-in and seek plan conformance.
RESPONSE: Grant reimbursement is not required if a municipality uses it to explore voluntary compliance
but ultimately decides not to opt in for its Planning Area. Reimbursement would only be considered in the
event a breach of the grantee’s responsibilities under the grant agreement. The Highlands Council also has
the right to seek grant reimbursement in the case of a conforming municipality which defaults on its
obligations under Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that implementation funding be apportioned depending on town
specifics. Costs will vary with things like size of the municipality, number of lakes, percentage of land in
preservation area, reservoirs in or bordering the municipality and C-1 water courses.
RESPONSE: Grant funding will be available for the reasonable costs of municipal Plan Conformance, so
long as they can appropriately justify the cost.
COMMENT: One comment questioned what the financial (grant) incentives are if a town opts in, and would
they be precluded from any/all if they do not opt in.
RESPONSE: Grant funding is available for the purpose of exploring the voluntary conformance option,
which need not be reimbursed even if the ultimate decision is not to conformn. If a Planning Area
jurisdiction elects to conform to the RMP, additional grant funding will be available to cover the reasonable
expenses involved in achieving Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment asked if there were any assurances that the “non-lapsing” dedicated funds
207
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
available to the Highlands Council would not fall victim to the State’s budget crisis.
RESPONSE: The non-lapsing dedicated funds available to the Highlands Council have not been affected by
State budgets, and as of FY 2009 more than $20 million has been appropriated for Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment stated that making grants available to persuade municipalities to encourage
their participation and conformance with the RMP amounts to collusion.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but respectfully disagrees. The Highlands Act
responds to the “State mandate, State pay” provisions of State law, ensuring that all reasonable costs of
meeting RMP requirements are funded by the Highlands Council. Providing funding for Plan Conformance
provides funding to implement the details of the RMP and assists local governments in making informed
decisions about the future of their communities.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the 2007 Draft RMP does not include a build out and fiscal
impact analysis. The impacts of the regional plan need to be analyzed regionally rather than in a piecemeal
fashion as stated in the draft Plan Conformance guidelines where municipal specific data will be completed
during of the Conformance process.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Regional Build Out Technical Report was released in June 2008 and was completed at
a regional scale. The cash flow table and relevant fiscal information have been updated in the adopted RMP
in Chapter 3.
COMMENT: One comment posed the following questions related to available funding:
•
The grants programs being made available would be helpful. But is there going to be enough
funding? A one million dollar Voluntary Receiving Zone Feasibility Grant Program is being established for
the TDR program. The problem is that a TDR program is nowhere being close to being established. Chapter
V. Programs, Part 7. Landowner Fairness touches on Highlands Development Credits, but no money is
available to buy the credits. Much more time and effort needs to be put into establishing a workable TDR
program than what has been done in the past.
The Highlands Council was given the task of developing new and innovative preservation programs and has
failed to do so. Only a fraction of properties are eligible for Green Acres and Farmland Preservation, and the
TDR program does not exist, nor is it likely to succeed, so other funding mechanisms are mandatory. With
the rate increases being requested by the water supply companies, a water tax is highly unlikely. Increasing
fines is not only wrong; it is insignificant for any purpose other than to support the bureaucracy that manages
them.
RESPONSE: The RMP section on Landowner Fairness, now “Landowner Equity,” has been substantially
revised, particularly with regard to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The revisions
establish the important parameters of the program and provide the basis needed to begin to implement TDR
shortly after adoption of the RMP. While funding may not yet be available, viable TDR options do exist and
will be explored at every opportunity. The Highlands Council will also continue to seek funding to support
the program and supports reauthorization of the Garden State Preservation Trust and the adoption of
legislation establishing a water use fee to help fund land acquisition programs.
Affordable Housing and COAH
COMMENT: Several comments stated that an interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
COAH is needed before conforming municipalities prepare and submit a petition for substantive
certification. This MOA must attempt to reconcile the issue of the limited growth available for municipalities
in the Preservation area compared with the new Third round Growth Share obligations for these towns.
Also, for municipalities in the Planning area that may decide to ‘opt-in’ to the Highlands RMP, the issue of
available vacant land due do environmental constraints, such as water deficits and nitrate dilution needs to be
addressed. +If the third round COAH rules will result in additional growth in the region, what coordination
efforts will be initiated with NJDOT to align future transportation improvements and transit opportunities
208
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
with anticipated growth?
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council and the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) are discussing the
terms of an interagency MOU. As to limited growth potential due to resource and infrastructure constraints,
the Highlands Act requires that COAH take these issues into account in developing housing and employment
projections for inclusion in its Third Round Rules. The Highlands Council anticipates that the Highlands
Build-Out Analysis tools, resource data, and environmental restrictions will play a role in establishing and/or
adjusting municipal growth projections.
COMMENT: Several comments asked how opting in would affect a town’s COAH requirement and how
not opting in would affect the COAH requirement.
RESPONSE: Whether a municipality opts in for its Planning Area or not, it will remain subject to the
constitutional obligation to provide for affordable housing. The Council on Affordable Housing is required
to take Highlands resource constraints into account in determining municipal projections for housing and
employment. For conforming municipalities in the Planning Area, Highlands resource constraints are
anticipated to play a significant role in establishing and/or adjusting municipal growth projections.
COMMENT: Several comments were concerned that the restrictive nature of the RMP would curtail the
provision of affordable housing in the conservation and protection zones and drive it into the ECZ. This is
not consistent with the Fair Housing Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will consider all appropriate efforts to locate affordable housing within
Highlands communities. The provisions of the Plan may give preference to the Existing Community Zone
(ECZ) for new housing, generally, as these areas are the most appropriate for denser development and for
redevelopment; however the Council does not believe that the RMP forecloses affordable housing from
consideration outside of the ECZ, though the specific methods used may be different.
NJDEP Regulations and Coordination
COMMENT: One comment pointed out that NJDEP’s rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38- 1.1(k) “requires that NJDEP
only approve a Water Quality Management Plan amendment after receiving from the Highlands Council a
determination of consistency with the Regional Master Plan.” Is this consistency required even if a
municipality does not “opt-in?” Does this consistency require consideration of the dozens of conformance
requirements set forth throughout the Regional Master Plan? How does this apply to a community with
mandatory plan conformance for Preservation Area, and voluntary conformance for Planning Area in a
community that has not petitioned for Plan Conformance? The comment requested the Council clearly state
in the RMP that voluntary compliance in the Planning Area will not be “compelled” due to the actions of
other state agencies as they “harmonize” with the RMP.
RESPONSE: The RMP was modified to clarify that the Highlands Council will provide a consistency
determination to NJDEP based on the full RMP, in both the Planning and Preservation Areas. NJDEP will
have the ultimate responsibility for of deciding what action to take after reviewing the consistency
determination. Conformance with the RMP will be required in both the Preservation Area and conforming
municipalities of the Planning Area with regard to a non-exempt development.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that it is unclear what role DEP will play in the Planning Area, but
DEP should not use the adopted plan as a guideline until Highlands programs are fully developed to respond
to all plan policies. If a town opts-in to the RMP, does it also opt-into DEP regulating this area as if it were
in the Preservation Area? Will DEP review permits differently and/or apply enhanced standards if we opt in?
RESPONSE: The NJDEP has adopted Preservation Area Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:38-1 et seq) which set forth
specific permitting procedures along with standards and requirements applicable to Preservation Area. These
do not and will not apply to development in the Planning Area, regardless of whether or not a municipality
conforms. If a municipality opts in for its Planning Area, the RMP will be the operative standard for
209
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
application to the Planning Area. The NJDEP will take RMP consistency into account, however, in its review
of applicable permit applications in the Planning Area. RMP consistency is a factor in NJDEP review of
Wastewater Management Plans and other permits and approvals, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1, as discussed
in response to the prior comment.
COMMENT: One comment stated that a continuing source of uncertainty is the lack of a Memorandum of
Understanding with the NJDEP. The comment stated that they were very gratified that the Council on
January 17 recommended that the DEP deny a sewer extension to the Huntington Knolls development in
Holland Township. The Council wisely upheld the 300-foot buffer on the Highlands Special Waters on this
property that the DEP had cut to 150 feet. The Council also properly protected the critical habitat for
Cooper’s hawks, steep slopes, forest and agricultural lands - none of which were red-flagged by the DEP. It
is uncertain whether the DEP will respect this recommendation to deny the WQMP amendment in the
absence of an MOU.
RESPONSE: The NJDEP will act on Highlands Council recommendations regarding WQMPs in
accordance with its adopted rules and regulations. An MOU between the Council and the NJDEP will not
alter the regulations. See the response to the two prior comments for more details.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP fails to adequately address overlapping compliance
areas between different divisions of the NJDEP. It adds another layer of NJDEP compliance to an already
complicated and frequently burdensome system.
RESPONSE: The RMP will be effectuated primarily by adoption of regulations at the municipal and county
levels, with review of certain applications to be conducted by the Highlands Council, itself. While the
NJDEP will take RMP consistency into account in permit reviews (see previous responses), it has not been
charged with additional enforcement responsibility by virtue of the RMP. The legislature required that the
NJDEP adopt regulations pertinent to the Preservation Area of the Highlands when it enacted the Highlands
Act. The NJDEP did so by adoption of its Highlands Preservation Area Rules, which are codified at N.J.A.C.
7:38-1 et seq. The Rules have been in effect for several years and are enforced by NJDEP. Neither the RMP
nor the Highlands Council can affect the organization or the activities of the different divisions of NJDEP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should not have approval authority over
Bureau of Water Allocation. It should not add another layer of regulation.
RESPONSE: The Council does not have such direct approval authority, however the Highlands Act
stipulates that NJDEP issuance of Water Allocation Permits must be consistent with the RMP. The Council
will coordinate with NJDEP on all such permit applications.
State Plan/Plan Endorsement
COMMENT: One comment questioned what the role of the Council would be for a Planning Area
municipality that is going to pursue “Plan Endorsement” and a “center designation.” Specifically what role
will the Highlands Council play regarding the physical limits of the proposed center, as well as the question
regarding how much growth should be accommodated within the center boundaries?
COMMENT: A few comments asked about the effects of opting in on the relationship to the State Plan.
RESPONSE: For a municipality located fully within the Planning Area, the municipality has the option to
seek voluntary Plan Conformance with the RMP. After the Highlands Council receives Plan Endorsement of
the RMP from the State Planning Commission (SPC), conforming municipalities will be eligible for the
benefits of State plan endorsement. In addition, the Highlands Council may consider and approve Planning
Area requests for Center Designation as a component of Plan Conformance as specified in the RMP. The
municipality may include its request for Center Designation within its petition for Plan Conformance. The
proposed boundaries and allowances for growth of the Center must be consistent with the RMP, particularly
as to water and wastewater treatment availability, resource constraints, and LUCM zones. So long as the
210
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
proposal is consistent with the RMP, the physical limits and growth of the center are left to the discretion of
the municipality. If the municipality does not choose to conform to the RMP, any petition to the SPC for
Center Designation will be provided to the Highlands Council for review and advisory recommendations in
accordance with the existing MOU between these agencies.
COMMENTS: One comment raised the following questions: What is the purpose for continual review of
approved Designated Centers that will expire as stated on page 290? If a Center is removed or significantly
modified due to inconsistencies with RMP will the Highlands Council compensate for public investment
including infrastructure improvements and for private property owner investments? All but 4 town centers in
the Highlands have expired expiration dates.
RESPONSE: The purpose for review of Designated Centers with imminent or past expiration dates is for
the State Planning Commission to consider their re-designation. As discussed above, municipalities seeking
Plan Conformance in the Planning Area may request Center Designation through the Highlands Council as a
component of Plan Conformance, without need to return to the SPC. All Designated Centers are located in
the Planning Area. As such, full Highlands Council jurisdiction will occur only in the case of municipalities
that conform to the RMP. The Highlands Council will not compensate public or private entities for loss of
Center Designation or in the event of significant modification of a Center.
COMMENT: One comment pointed out that local municipalities are required under the Municipal Land Use
Law to include in their master plans a specific policy statement indicating the relationship between local plan
and the plans of adjacent municipalities, the County, and the State Development and Redevelopment Plan
and County district solid waste management plan. The Highlands Council would be equally prudent to
provide a summary in the Highlands Plan of the relationship between their plan and the plans of other state
agencies with significantly overlapping land use jurisdiction (NJDEP, Office of Smart Growth/State Plan,
and COAH).
RESPONSE: The RMP includes some discussion as to the State Development and Redevelopment Plan
(SDRP), however, it must be noted that the revised SDRP has not yet been adopted. Further, the Highlands
Council will seek Plan Endorsement from the State Planning Commission with respect to the RMP
provisions applicable to the Planning Area, and will provide a more detailed discussion to the extent feasible,
at the time of the application. As to COAH, its Third Round Rules have only just been adopted, with
additional proposed amendments now in a public comment period. The Highlands Act requires that COAH
consider the resource constraints of the Highlands Region in developing its Third Round Rules. The RMP
program discussion on housing in Chapter 5 takes affordable housing obligations into consideration but
recognizes that communities may address that obligation through means other than the COAH program.
State, Federal, Regional Agency Coordination
COMMENT: One comment pointed out the Agency Coordination section includes no specific reference to
the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that
serves all the Highlands Region. A separate section should be added for this agency given the amount of
public transportation investment under the NJTPA’s jurisdiction.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council recognizes the importance and influence of the North Jersey
Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) and anticipates working closely with its representatives as the
RMP is implemented. The section has been revised to include reference to the NJTPA and to ensure that the
Highlands Council and the NJTPA successfully coordinate as to transportation activities in the Region.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the NJTPA hopes to work cooperatively with the Council on the
development of a MOU that satisfactorily addresses both agencies’ concerns.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council appreciates this sentiment from the NJTPA and looks forward to
working with NJTPA representatives on issues of common interest and concern.
211
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment strongly encourages the Council to clarify the roles of coordinating agencies
within the RMP in order to increase accountability of each entity involved in decision-making or project
review.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been revised to clarify these roles, and the Council will address this issue in
more detail as necessary after adoption of the RMP, through conformance standards, procedures, MOUs, etc.
COMMENT: One comment stated that, while the Highlands Act requires coordination between the
Highlands Council and various State Agencies, there is still uncertainty on how these entities’ plans and
programs will interact. After more than three years, the Council has only recently approved a memorandum
of understanding with the Office of Smart Growth, which addresses process but not primacy. What happens
when there is a conflict between state agencies’ programs and the Highlands Plan? Which agency has
primacy? There are already conflicts and duplicative processes that affect local government. For example,
there are differences in the standards for NJDEP wastewater management plan analysis and Highlands
wastewater management plan analysis. (Reference page 330 Water Quality Management Plan reviews in the
2007 Draft RMP.) The comment stated that it would not be appropriate for local government agencies to
develop two WMPs or go through two reviews because the NJDEP and Highlands Council have different
requirements. Detailed Memorandums of Understanding on programmatic priorities with NJDEP, DOT,
OSG and COAH are necessary to address potential conflicts and to understand the relationship between
agencies. The full implications of the RMP will not be known without these agreements. MOU’s should
include a clear indication of the primacy of agencies.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
State Planning Commission and the Office of Smart Growth and is currently discussing the terms of another
with the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). The Highlands Act provides extensive guidance as to
where the Highlands Council role regarding other agencies is advisory and where the RMP must be
considered, taken into account or conformed with by the plans and permitting decisions of other agencies.
MOUs and other methods for defining detailed roles will be developed subsequent to RMP adoption.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the only detailed steps outlined regarding Agency Coordination are
the steps the Highlands Council will take with the State Planning Commission. Similar steps should
developed for other major state agencies so there is a time schedule established and the Council is made
accountable for moving ahead with inter-agency coordination.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is currently pursuing inter-agency coordination efforts outside of the
formal RMP process through which it seeks to establish protocols for inter-agency actions. These will be
made public as they become available.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the coordination section lumps municipalities and counties together,
but there are significant statutory and regulatory differences between towns and counties. The comment
suggested that the RMP outline specific coordination steps involving both entities.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council recognizes the differences between the county and municipal levels of
government and provides more obvious separation of conformance responsibilities in the adopted RMP.
The Plan Conformance Guidelines will even more specifically detail the conformance requirements for each
entity with significantly different items applicable to each in accordance with their respective statutory
authorities.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should consult with the Greenwood Lake Commission
regarding lake management, watershed issues, and related matters.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and anticipates that such interaction will occur in the
course of RMP implementation. Objective 1L4d specifically provides for coordination with the Greenwood
Lake and Lake Hopatcong Commissions.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Highlands Act: 8(a) of the Act says that the Council should
212
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
consult with all relevant government agencies, municipalities and private groups to gather relevant
information including existing plans and regulations. Since existing master plans were clearly not
incorporated into the RMP, and there is no agreement between the Highlands Council and the State Planning
or COAH organizations, and the region has largely been designated for preservation contrary to existing
science showing very different water resources, either the consultation did not occur or it was ineffective.
Agreements with state agencies have not been completed, and the RMP simply contains language that they
will try to do so in the future. This leaves towns and property owners with uncertainty and very vulnerable to
lawsuits. The RMP also fails to note that groups such as the Technical Advisory Committees generally met
only once, and in the end, little that was recommended was considered in the plan.
RESPONSE: A great deal of information gathering and consultation with other agencies and organizations
did go into development of the RMP. The Council consulted with a wide range of municipalities, counties,
organizations and agencies. The RMP is based on the requirements of the Highlands Act, which anticipated
that the RMP would provide for a significant change of direction from existing plans and regulations. A
Memorandum of Agreement is in place with the Office of Smart Growth and the State Planning
Commission, and another is in progress with COAH. Much work does remain to ensure plan
implementation, as provided in the relevant portions of the RMP. The Council will, as needed, convene
Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) regarding RMP implementation issues, to make optimal use of the
willing expertise that the TACs have to offer.
Plan Conformance Guidelines and Model Ordinances
COMMENT: One comment stated that a “Plan Conformance Guidelines” manual outlining the procedures
and requirements for Plan Conformance along with timelines and costs should be provided before adoption
of the Regional Master Plan.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Regional Master Plan should identify all mandatory components
and tasks needed for Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment stated that municipalities need to know exactly what they are responsible for
doing before, during and after the conformance process. Local government also needs to know exactly what
the Council is responsible for doing before, during and after the conformance process.
RESPONSE: The RMP does identify all mandatory components of Plan Conformance; however these will
also be compiled and provided in a user-friendly format in the Plan Conformance Guidelines and Plan
Conformance standards and model ordinances and planning documents.
COMMENT: One comment questioned what specific ordinances will be required to meet plan
conformance? Will the ordinances the Council provides be mandatory for plan conformance? That was the
case when NJDEP required EO-109 (2000) environmental analysis as part of WMP updates. Will opting in
cause existing municipal ordinances to be superseded (i.e., by model ordinances reference)? Who will prepare
model ordinances and when will they be available?
RESPONSE: During the Plan Conformance process, the Highlands Council will provide model ordinance
templates which municipalities may use to develop their own ordinances. Alternatively, municipalities may
choose to write their own ordinances or provide existing or modified ordinances to the Council for approval.
Regardless of the option selected, Plan Conformance will require that the Highlands Council find that the
protections sought by the RMP are provided through the proposed municipal ordinances at the same level of
rigor, or with greater stringency, than that of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the NJTPA seeks clarification of the specific measures, criteria,
processes and analyses that will be used in the Plan Conformance and Highlands Project Review elements of
the Regional Master Plan. Suggest specific areas where plan conformance can be clarified:
1. What is/will be the specific sequence of steps and the process involved in conducting Plan
Conformance?
213
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
2. How will the Plan Conformance process work in relation to the Highlands Project Review process?
3. How will the modification process for projects that are deemed inconsistent with the Regional
Master Plan function?
4. What are the anticipated minimum and maximum periods envisioned for completing Plan
Conformance?
5. What costs will be associated with conducting Plan Conformance? Which agencies and/or parties
will be responsible for these costs?
6. What specific analytical tools, data sets and reviews will be applied during Plan Conformance?
Will NJTPA processes, parameters, criteria and/or other methods of evaluation be used to support and/or
perform elements of Plan Conformance?
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and agrees that the requested information is needed
to support Plan Conformance. Several of the listed items have been addressed in summary form in the RMP;
however each will be discussed in the Plan Conformance Guidelines and the Council’s release of Plan
Conformance model documents.
COMMENT: One comment asked whether there is a deadline for opt in or could it be accomplished any
time. The comment also asked whether there would be the ability to opt out at a later date or whether a
municipality could opt in for certain parts of the plan.
COMMENT: One comment asked if it would be necessary to opt in to all of the goals, policies and
objectives in the plan (and must they all be enforced).
RESPONSE: Plan Conformance is a requirement of the Highlands Act only for the Preservation Area, with
a specific deadline provided (9 to 15 months). Voluntarily conforming to the RMP for a Planning Area
municipality may be undertaken at any time; no deadline applies. Conformance must include the entirety of
the Planning Area under the local jurisdiction, for all RMP requirements. A Planning Area jurisdiction can
choose not to conform at any time prior to receipt of Plan Conformance without penalty. After receipt of
Plan Conformance, opting out before the expiration of the 6-year duration of Plan Conformance may require
reimbursement of any Highlands Council grant funding that the jurisdiction received in excess of that needed
to evaluate whether or not to conform. Plan Conformance requires consistency with all applicable Goals,
Policies, and Objectives of the RMP.
COMMENT: One municipality asked if opting in would make the township more attractive as a receiving
area or possible center?
RESPONSE: Conformance with the RMP results in several benefits for a municipality, including planning
grants, the legal shield, and any benefits that are available to municipalities with Plan Endorsement with the
State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The viability of a receiving area will depend a great deal on the
location, market demand, planning, design and appropriateness of such designations.
COMMENT: One comment asked if opting in would prohibit future community wells and/or package
wastewater plants?
RESPONSE: Plan Conformance will require that new community wells and/or package wastewater
treatment plants are constructed in accordance with the utility policies and objectives and other applicable
provisions of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment asked, if a municipality opts in, will any/all applications in the works but not
finished (e.g. water use, wastewater) be grandfathered or stopped? If stopped, at what point? How much will
this limit future requests for wells/septic/wastewater?
RESPONSE: Plan conformance will require the adoption of ordinances and plans that conform to the RMP.
Any ordinances would be applicable to development applications that have been submitted to the municipal
development review boards to the extent provided by the Municipal Land Use Law and the Highlands Act..
214
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment objected to the requirement that a town has only 9-15 months after adoption
of the RMP to have its Master Plan and development regulations conform in the Preservation Area and in the
Planning Area (if the Township opts to conform). The comment stated that the time period should be
expanded to 24-32 months at the very least.
RESPONSE: The 9- to 15-month timeframe was established by the Highlands Act and is not within the
power of the Highlands Council to change. It should be noted that it applies only to the Preservation Area.
Municipalities and counties in the Planning Area may petition for voluntary conformance at any time. To
assist those required to petition within the 9 to 15 month period, the Council will provide municipalities and
counties with model Master Plan Elements and Regulatory supplements, which may be used to quickly
develop the major required components. In addition, the Council has established a process known as Basic
Plan Conformance, under which petitioners may address immediate mandatory components at the outset,
with the more complex requirements to be addressed in accordance with an implementation plan and
schedule, to follow. Basic Plan Conformance is discussed in the RMP and will be more fully described in the
Plan Conformance Guidelines.
COMMENT: One comment stated that municipalities not consider “opting in” for the portion of their town
outside the Preservation Area and should, instead, promote legislation to have those municipalities removed
from the Highlands altogether. The comment stated that since the passage of the original legislation, the
Council has shown no intention of following the legislative intent of the Act and follows the wishes of those
groups that are committed to severely limiting agriculture and confiscating the property rights of landowners.
RESPONSE: The Council has followed the legislative intent of the Highlands Act and has endeavored to
prepare a regional master plan that meets the full range of goals given it by the Legislature in the Highlands
Act. The Council has made every effort to balance the interests of stakeholders while placing its priority
emphasis on protection, restoration, and enhancement of Highlands resources - particularly water resources,
but also including agricultural resources. The RMP includes greater emphasis on protection of agricultural
resources and agriculture-based businesses, use of Right to Farm concepts and practices, and enhancement of
the Highlands agricultural industry. As noted in the comment, the Highlands Council cannot change the
Highlands Region boundaries; doing so requires legislation.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that before the adoption of the RMP, the Highlands Council should
release community specific information on water deficits, map overlays, septic densities, build-out analysis
and other pertinent information.
RESPONSE: Most of the analyses conducted by the Highlands Council have been performed at a regional
level that must be modified and refined for community-specific application. The Council has released all of
the information requested in the comment at a regional level, with approximated “clipped” data provided in
many instances to give a general idea of the status at the municipal level. For community-specific
information, the municipalities will need to examine Highlands maps and data and provide refinements for
clear and correct representation.
COMMENT: One comment stated that instead of giving conformance grants that the State cannot afford,
municipalities should be able to incorporate conformance by reference instead of spending the money to
change master plans and ordinances.
RESPONSE: As noted above, the Highlands Council will provide model supplements for municipal master
plans and development regulations to reduce the cost of Basic Plan Conformance, but “conformance by
reference” is not a viable option for all issues. Certain components of Plan Conformance will require
municipal-specific analysis and planning program changes that must be left to the discretion of each
community. The Highlands Council anticipates that the response will vary widely in keeping with the varied
character and makeup of the communities of the Highlands Region. Simply adopting the RMP by reference
would not allow for the appropriate level of municipal planning, or the specificity of implementation of the
details of the RMP.
215
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment pointed out that the 2007 Draft RMP states that, in order to meet the
requirements and be eligible for Plan Conformance, a municipality must adopt by reference the elements of
the RMP related to critical natural resources, the Housing Element, Highlands build out analysis, water
availability, water quality, water conservation, and septic density standards. This is problematic because a
municipality cannot adopt the mandatory elements by reference without going through the entire ordinance
adoption process specified in the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). If a municipality adopts the RMP
standards by reference without amending its own plans, the municipality risks violating MLUL procedures
and will have standards conflicting with its own master plan and zoning ordinances. Furthermore, some of
the standards may be irrelevant to a particular municipality. The municipality should not be required to adopt
by reference any irrelevant standards as a precursor to plan conformance. Instead, adoption of relevant RMP
standards should be a condition of plan conformance approval. This concern applies to county conformance
as well.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has revised the RMP to reflect that adoption by
reference will not be required. In addition, it should be noted that the Council will provide model supplements
for municipal and county master plans and land development regulations, applicable only to non-exempt
development activities in conforming jurisdictions. The Council urges local governments to carefully
consider the implications to both existing development and potential Highlands exempt development before
making changes to master plans and land use regulations.
COMMENT: One comment stated that it should be made clear that the Highlands Council will maintain a
process whereby municipalities may return to the Council when new or modified ordinances that are related
to Highlands conformance requirements are adopted. No municipal ordinance that has substantial issues
with the RMP should go into effect until it is certified to be in conformance with the RMP. It should also be
made clear that development that is not in conformance with the conformed municipal ordinance will be
called up for Council review.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses each of the referenced issues. New or amended ordinances relating to
Plan Conformance are addressed in Chapter 6, Part 1, Subpart a., “Plan Conformance,” in a subsection
labeled “Compliance Component.” Call-up provisions are clearly stated in Chapter 6, Part 2, “Highlands
Project Review.”
COMMENTS: One comment asked a series of questions related to community visioning: What is the
purpose for community visioning sessions? What land use changes can be proposed in the Preservation Area
other than requiring 1 house per 25 or 88 acres? Procedures for a petition for conformance require that the
municipality conduct a “community visioning session(s) to involve the local public,” and that “The results of
the community visioning shall be included as part of the Petition for Plan Conformance.” In further stating
the procedures for the Petition for Plan Conformance (p. 290), “The Petition shall include the Municipal
Assessment Report, the community vision (if available), and all supporting documentation. . .” which
contravenes the above requirement for public involvement. In addition, in the Draft Plan Conformance
Guidelines (Jan. ‘07), there is no language requiring public involvement in municipal conformance
procedures. In contrast, the Office of Smart Growth (OSG) requires at least 3 Visioning sessions as a
component of State Plan Endorsement (including at least one held on a Saturday), with minutes taken,
conducted by a board that includes both elected and non-elected community individuals and a representative
from OSG.
RESPONSE: Procedures on municipal Plan Conformance have been revised along with the Public
Participation component of Chapter 4, Part 10. The procedures now require that municipalities comply with
all statutory requirements pertinent to notice and holding of open public meetings. Petitioners are
encouraged, but not required, to consider other opportunities for public participation in the process of Plan
Conformance. This change is in recognition of the fact that certain communities may have little to “vision”
in achieving Plan Conformance (particularly Preservation Areas), and that the Highlands Council finds it
more appropriate to leave this issue to the discretion of the municipalities. It should be noted that the
Preservation Area includes potential Redevelopment Areas and village centers, which could be the focus of
216
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
visioning sessions. Economic development planning, such as the potential for tourism improvements, and
historic and cultural resource planning also are reasonable issues for visioning sessions.
COMMENT: A few comments asked if the Highlands Council will provide technical staff to handle all the
property owner questions regarding RMP implementation.
RESPONSE: The Council will provide staff to assist in Plan Conformance and will hold information
meetings to provide information regarding the Plan and implementation. Staff will be available to respond to
questions regarding implementation during such sessions. In addition, the Council staff has provided such
information to landowners for years on a case-by-case basis.
COMMENT: One comment noted that town officials have indicated at Council meetings that they would
not want to opt into the Preservation Area because current revisions allow development along water bodies,
like the Rockaway River.
RESPONSE: Municipalities are required by law to conform with the RMP for any Preservation Area lands.
Any conforming municipality may adopt or retain more stringent regulatory provisions than those called for
by the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that in the Preservation Area and in all conforming municipalities, the
Highlands Council will be reviewing projects and wastewater management plans as to their consistency with
the RMP. The term consistency has not been defined, but should not mean that anything that does not
comply 100% with the RMP is inconsistent. This approach is unrealistic and unnecessarily narrow. With
seven counties and 88 municipalities, we hope the Council will recognize that cooperation is needed to
address varying local conditions and concerns. There will be few if any projects or plans 100% consistent
with the RMP. Fair consideration of individual situations will be needed, not rigid compliance to a set of
one-size-fits-all requirements and checklists.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council recognizes the need for fair and consistent reviews of all applications
and projects that come before it. The Council will work with municipalities and counties to achieve the
highest degree of conformance possible and will not unreasonably withhold approvals. Details regarding this
process will be provided in the conformance standards guidelines developed by the Council.
COMMENT: A few comments asked if all the same exemptions will exist in the Planning Area and in the
Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: Of the 17 exemptions, all except # 3 and #17 will apply in the Planning Area. Exemptions #3
and #17 concern “major Highlands developments” (a definition that applies only to the Highlands
Preservation Area , not to the Planning Area).
COMMENT: One comment noted that Warren County participated in and endorsed the Five County
Coalition’s recommendations concerning the Highlands when Governor McGreevey created the Highlands
Task Force in 2002. It is disappointing that many of the key recommendations found in the
recommendations failed to be considered in the Act and failed to be considered in the draft RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP was developed based on the requirements
of the Highlands Act and regional information.
COMMENT: One comment noted that early on in the RMP development process, the Highlands staff
obtained the master plans of all 88 municipalities and 7 counties in the region. It appears that the Council did
not use the local plans in any way to establish land use planning policy or to understand the unique needs of
the 88 municipalities. Using the local plans and analysis could have been conducted to project what the
future impacts on the natural and built environment (including transportation, water, and sewer) may have
been if the local plans were implemented as written. Then the RMP could have been developed to identify
where the problems relating to development could occur, identify the positive outcomes and then prepare a
plan to recommend changes to existing municipal, county, and state plans and regulations and provide
217
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
recommendations to mitigate any negative impacts.
RESPONSE: The regional nature of the RMP required that its creation take a larger scale view of the needs,
issues, and planning concerns of the Highlands Region as a whole. Rather than considering each set of
municipal and county regulations and the impacts resulting from their piecemeal implementation, the RMP
sets a standard to be achieved by the Region as a whole. To the extent that existing local regulations are
found sufficient to meet or exceed that standard, they will survive the process of Plan Conformance. A great
deal of local information has been incorporated into the data, maps, charts and analyses presented in the
RMP. Much of that information, including municipal zoning data, was integral to completion of the regional
Build-Out Analysis. That analysis considers several scenarios, including build out under conditions existing
prior to the adoption of the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment noted that many of the existing communities have homeowner associations
that are responsible for providing municipal services, such as ingress and egress to and through the
community. Neither the RMP nor any level of the State recognizes this situation and no provisions are made
for its continuation. Both the Model Tree Ordinance and the Transportation section of the RMP should
acknowledge and provide for continuation of these services by granting the same rights to home owner
associations as municipalities and utilities to maintain infrastructure.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and intends to apply all RMP provisions to the
appropriate, responsible parties. Where homeowner associations are the designated authority, the obligations
set forth in the RMP will pass on to them only to the extent permitted by law. Nothing would preclude a
homeowner association from adopting amended by-laws or other regulations to require management of trees,
roadways and other supporting infrastructure in a manner consistent with the RMP. It should be noted that
many of the RMP requirements apply to development and redevelopment, and an existing development with
no ongoing construction will have little exposure to RMP requirements.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Council should cooperate with land trusts, municipalities,
counties, and the State in the Highlands and assist in the establishment of management programs. The
Council should establish a decision-making process whereby stakeholders identified in the Highlands Act are
regularly consulted. The Council should plan and develop a permanent flow monitoring program in
cooperation with other agencies concerned with water resources in the Highlands. The Council should
establish a dynamic planning process in concert with Federal and State laws to assure clean and plentiful
water now and in the future.
RESPONSE: The RMP addresses each of these items in the sections on Federal, State, and Regional Agency
Coordination, Public Participation, and RMP Monitoring in Chapter 6.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the 2007 Draft RMP does not make clear the findings of the
Council that potentially developable areas will not be mandated for growth in either the Preservation or the
Planning Area, even if infrastructure capacity is found to be available for such growth. This lack of clarity is
obvious from the numerous public comments that promote the false idea that unbridled growth is suggested
for all portions of the Existing Community Zone. The potential for the Highlands Plan to mandate growth
in some areas, or cause growth to be mandated through another state agency is a key concern of
municipalities and counties. Additional language should be added to the RMP to clarify that the RMP and the
Act do not require growth and should not be used to require growth by any other state agency
RESPONSE: The RMP has been revised to include clear statements concerning this issue. Regardless of
available infrastructure capacity, decisions concerning growth are left to the discretion of the municipality.
The RMP does not mandate growth; rather it seeks to ensure that growth where desired is in appropriate
formats and locations where infrastructure and environmental capacity are sufficient to support it.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the municipal and county conformance process includes a
requirement for assessment of local plan analysis to be conducted by local governments to gauge
conformance with the RMP. Over three years ago, municipalities and counties provided the Highlands
218
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Council staff with all local master plans and development regulations. Since only the Council staff knows
what they will consider “conforming” or “consistent” (both still undefined), it should be the Highlands
Council that provides the initial assessment of consistency with its Plan, which can then be reviewed by local
governments and lead to productive meetings to resolve outstanding issues. Leaving this determination to 88
individual municipalities and seven counties will provide 95 different approaches and theories as to what
constitutes conformance. Ironically, if a local government petitions without engaging in this activity to the
satisfaction of the Council, the Highlands Council will only then identify a “specific listing of the actions the
municipality or county must take in order to receive a Plan Conformance approval” (page 292 of the 2007
Draft RMP). An initial assessment should be provided at the outset by the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: It is the intent of the Highlands Council to provide clear and ample direction to municipalities
and counties seeking to conform to the RMP. By doing so, the job of initial self-assessment can appropriately
be conducted by the local jurisdictions themselves. This approach is important in that it will also ensure that
local officials become familiar with the RMP and its goals, policies, and objectives and how these compare
with the plans, regulations and programs of the local government.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the RMP states that a benefit of opting in is priority given to
municipalities in state aid requests. Does this mean that municipalities that do not opt in to the RMP will
have their request for state aid denied? The RMP doesn’t reinforce the purported benefits for a municipality
to opt in and only raises more questions.
RESPONSE: Requests for State aid will continue to be considered within the parameters of the applicable
State regulations and criteria. The RMP revisions in Chapter 6 include some additional language regarding
the benefits of Plan Conformance. These will be discussed in further detail in the Plan Conformance
Guidelines document.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Local Participation Subpart d addresses the requirements of the
Highlands Act calling for “maximum feasible local government and public input into the Council’s
operations” and the RMP’s response is three separate programs: the Partnership, Technical Advisory
Committees and the Network. The comment stated that the Technical Advisory Committee structure had
not worked since the Council essentially left them out of the decision-making process. It was suggested that
if they were going to be continued, they must have a more structured role.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and will take the suggestion into consideration going
forward.
COMMENT: One comment stated that pages 308 though 311 of the 2007 Draft RMP contain a long list of
mainly educational or training programs organized by topic ranging from Resource Protection to
Transportation to Recreation and Tourism. Given the resources available to the Highlands Council and its
technical expertise, it was suggested that the Council cannot feasibly take on all of these efforts. Instead the
RMP should identify lead agencies to take on these roles.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges that the referenced list reflects a wide and varied scope
of work. The Council finds that the items are all of importance in furthering the goals, policies, and
objectives of the RMP and is committed to addressing each of them. It should be noted that the section does
not foreclose the option of seeking assistance from or working cooperatively with other agencies,
organizations, or professionals having expertise in the various areas in question.
COMMENT: One comment asked if Passaic County could use its Statement of Core Principles to fulfill its
requirement to bring its land use plan into conformance. The Statement could be adopted by the Planning
Board as an element of the County Master Plan since that is under the Planning Board’s jurisdiction. Any
addition to the Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations would have to be adopted by the Freeholders, but the
County Planning Board could adopt the core principles as a policy to use when reviewing development plans.
The Counties are supposed to incorporate by reference the goals and policies of the RMP, but it is not clear
where they should be incorporated.
219
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The County will likely need to address more components of the Master Plan than just the
Statement of Core Principles. It will also likely need to adjust development review regulations and criteria.
The Highlands Council will provide model supplements to assist the counties in the process of Plan
Conformance and further detailed guidance will be issued in the Plan Conformance Guidelines document.
COMMENTS: A few comments noted the following: Do not lean towards home rule and let counties and
towns set local land use policy rather than having the Highlands Council impose and enforce standards that
will protect our water and forests. How will the Council restore home rule for those Preservation Area
municipalities who have lost the ability to plan for their own communities?
RESPONSE: Preservation Area municipalities are required to conform to the RMP. They and conforming
Planning Area municipalities will alter their planning programs as needed to protect, enhance, and restore the
resources of the Highlands Region. The municipalities will not lose the ability to plan for their communities,
but will be required to do so in a manner that is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
RMP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that some of the required elements should be re-evaluated such as a
program for community and neighborhood design or freight planning and focus strictly on Resource
Protection.
RESPONSE: While resource protection is the clear priority of the RMP, it is a comprehensive planning
document and must include the elements necessary to ensure appropriate growth and development in the
portions of the Region where they may occur.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP should specify in more detail the make-up of the
Highlands Council Conformance Committee.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The membership of the Committee may change
based on the municipality or county being reviewed, to avoid potential conflicts. More details will be
available once Plan Conformance is underway and issues have been identified.
COMMENT: One comment noted that in addition to the benefits of Plan Conformance listed on page 292
of the 2007 Draft RMP, the Council should develop a more comprehensive listing of benefits.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been modified slightly in this regard, but greater detail on the topic will be
provided within the Plan Conformance Guidelines document.
COMMENT: One comment noted that once a county or towns receives Plan Conformance Approval they
have an obligation to maintain plans, ordinances or regulations through a mandatory quarterly status report.
It was suggested that quarterly reporting is not needed or warranted and should be changed to annual similar
to Center Designation Monitoring Requirements.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will set forth monitoring requirements as a component of Plan
Conformance. The RMP does not require quarterly status reports.
COMMENT: A few comments indicated that the RMP should be revised to provide greater clarity, minimize
use of the passive tense, and improve readability and understandability.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been substantially revised with these objectives in mind.
COMMENT: One comment provided new or re-written language for Plan Conformance Subpart a.,
including:
A. Steps in Conformance Process Conducted With Technical Assistance from HC
1.
Assessment of current plans and regulations RMP Standards and LUCM mapping
2.
Public Visioning
3.
Public Review of Document Summarizing Assessment, Visioning and Review of possible required
220
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
changes in Master Plan and Land Use Regulations.
Introduction and enactment of revised Master Plan and Land Use Regulations meeting ALL
mandatory provisions of the RMP
5.
Establishment of schedule for the pursuit of other agreed upon changes in local planning and
regulations.
RESPONSE: The referenced section in Chapter 6 has been substantially revised to include greater detail on
the steps required for Plan Conformance, and the ways in which the Highlands Council will assist.
4.
COMMENT: One comment noted the concept of implementing protections when “cost effective” is only
used in the RMP when describing projects managed by the government, but not private ventures. It was
suggested that “cost effective” is a fair standard for both public and private projects.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. Cost-effectiveness in the private sector will be
determined by the project owners.
HIGHLANDS PROJECT REVIEW
COMMENT: One comment stated that it should be mandatory that applications will not be reviewed until
the developer demonstrates that the local water purveyor has enough water allocations to meet daily firm
capacity and both monthly and annual total peak demands, and has assigned this capacity to the proposed
development.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The Project Review Standards require
demonstration of sufficient water supply to accommodate current and future development. Wherever a new
or expanded sewer service area is proposed that meets resource protection standards, the applicant must
identify water sources with sufficient capacity to supply current and expanded demands for the proposed
sewer service areas. The RMP establishes sustainable thresholds for development based on Net Water
Availability which limit future consumptive and depletive water uses.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the RMP has added technical standards, but what is really needed is
a way to make the review process more transparent.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but no change was made to the RMP. Staff project
review checklists and memos to the Council are made available to the public on the Council’s website.
Further improvements are planned to the website to assist the public with tracking the status of Highlands
Project Reviews. Further, Committee and Council reviews occur during public meetings – the review process
is quite transparent.
COMMENT: Several comments expressed concern that the requirements of the Act and resulting
regulations are burdensome.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the concerns expressed in these comments..
COMMENT: A few comments noted that if camps, especially charitable, non-profit ones, must come before
the Council for every building upgrade, replacement, or expansion, then they will be precluded from doing
many needed activities and there will be no funds to do their work after paying for engineering, surveying,
planning, environmental assessments, etc. A long-range development/growth/maintenance plan could be
provided and approved by the Council that would allow planned growth or upkeep, rather than requiring a
case by case application and approval process.
RESPONSE: Depending on the size and scale of proposed upgrades, replacements, or expansions, proposed
projects in the Preservation Area may qualify for Exemption #4 – “Reconstruction of buildings or structures
within 125% of the footprint.” The NJDEP would need to issue a Highlands Applicability Determination
(HAD) that states that a specific project is exempt. For those projects that exceed the 125% threshold in the
221
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Preservation Area, the NJDEP would need to issue a Highlands Preservation Area Approval (HPAA). Camp
owners would probably have fewer costs if projects were grouped within single applications rather than many.
With respect to conforming towns in the Planning Area, the Highlands Council will be coordinating with
municipalities during the Plan Conformance process regarding project reviews including the means to issue
exemptions from the provisions of the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Act only grants review authority to the Council for
major development projects, or over projects of a State or local government entity of greater than two acres.
Furthermore, capital, state, and local government projects of two acres or more in the Planning Area are
subject to non-binding review only.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, but no changes were made to the RMP. The
comment concerns the Act, not the RMP. The Highlands Council has call-up authority for such projects, but
may review other projects for consistency where such a process is established through Plan Conformance.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the NJDEP Highlands Act rules are cited inappropriately as giving
the Council review authority over all governmental projects and all DEP approvals, authorizations, and
approvals within the Highlands Region. The Council’s power does not flow from the NJDEP rules, but
rather from the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: It is acknowledged that the Council’s authorities flow from the Highlands Act. However, the
NJDEP rules are cited verbatim and they do specify NJDEP’s mandatory coordination with the Council for
approvals in the Planning Area. The rules also note that NJDEP shall apply the standards of the RMP in its
project reviews and that the NJDEP shall give great consideration and weight to the RMP, to be incorporated
by reference in making permit decisions. However, NJDEP’s application of the RMP will occur only to the
extent that its enabling statute allows.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Project Review section should indicate that projects
in either the Preservation Area or Planning Area that do not rise to the threshold of “Major Highlands
Development,” or that are defined as exempt activities under the Highlands Act, are not subject to the RMP
provisions or the Highland Council’s review authority.
RESPONSE: This section deals with the Highlands Project Review Process and Highlands Project Review
Standards. Its intent is not to discuss exemptions or waivers (as described in NJDEP Highlands Preservation
Rules). Exempt projects are not subject to the Highlands Act, or the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the RMP states that “Within the Planning Area, the Council shall
include as a condition of Plan Conformance procedures for the Highlands Council call-up of Local
Government Unit approvals.” The comment notes that this statement makes no mention of exempt projects
or threshold of “Major Highlands Development.” Further, the term “call-up” is not defined in the RMP or
the Highlands Act. Planning Area municipalities considering opting into the RMP need a clear understanding
of the intent of the Highlands Council with regard to this issue.
RESPONSE: With respect to the first part of the comment, the Council acknowledges that the statement
does not apply to exempt projects or projects that are not Major Highlands Developments; this is implicit.
While a definition of the specific term “call-up” is not in the Highlands Act, Section 17 of the Act states that
“Subsequent to adoption of the regional master plan, the council may review, within 15 days after any final
local government unit approval, rejection, or approval with conditions thereof, any application for
development in the preservation area.” The Council has termed this process “call-up” and as noted above,
within the Planning Area, the Council shall include as a condition of Plan Conformance, procedures for the
call-up of Local Government Unit approvals.
COMMENT: One comment felt that N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.l(k) (NJDEP Highlands Rules) does not authorize the
Council to require additional information from counties and other applicants submitting WQMP
Amendments that are not required as part of the NJDEP WQMP rules.
222
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the interpretation. However, the specific authority to review (and
therefore require information needed to review) is contained in the rules as follows: “For both the planning
area and the preservation areas, the Department shall review the Highlands Council regional master plan and
consider amending the appropriate areawide Water Quality Management Plans to maintain consistency with
the regional master plan. The Department shall approve a Water Quality Management Plan amendment only
after receiving from the Highlands Council a determination of consistency with the Regional Master Plan to
be incorporated by reference in (l) below, when adopted by the Highlands Council.” (Emphasis added). The
Council will coordinate with NJDEP to ensure that submittals for WQMP amendments include sufficient
information to allow for a complete consistency determination, and the Council will also provide applicants
with the opportunity to supplement their submittals to avoid a finding of inconsistency.
COMMENT: A comment stated that the Highlands Council should clarify how it is going to treat capital
projects that span several towns with each different Highlands RMP consistency approach. The extent to
which municipalities and counties will have to amend their local development regulations has not been
specifically defined and should be prior to the Highlands RMP adoption.
RESPONSE: This issue addressed in Chapter 6 (Highlands Project Revirew) the RMP, and will be further
addressed with counties and municipalities during Plan Conformance and through Council procedures for the
review of capital projects.
COMMENT: One comment noted that during the Highlands Council staff review of WQMP amendments
for exempt projects in the Planning Area, most were found to be inconsistent with the RMP. If a person has
municipal approvals, he/she should have reasonable surety for investment backed expectations.
RESPONSE: Council review of WQMP amendments will be based on the RMP, and provided to NJDEP
for its consideration.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the anticipated minimum and maximum periods envisioned for
completing Plan Conformance and Highlands Project Review evaluations should be provided. The costs
associated with conducting Plan Conformance and Highlands Project Review evaluations should be provided.
The agencies and/or parties responsible for these costs should be identified.
RESPONSE: This section is intended only to provide an overview and brief description of the types of
project reviews that the Council will be undertaking – it is not intended to provide detailed review
procedures; detailed review procedures will be outlined in other documents (e.g., WQMP amendments
review, Redevelopment Area Designations review, etc.). It is the goal of Council to conduct efficient and
timely project reviews.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the process, paper work, and money required for a Highlands
Preservation Area Approval (HPAA) for a deck improvement will end up costing more than the project is
worth.
RESPONSE: Improvements to a single family dwelling, like a deck improvement, would likely qualify as an
Exemption #5. NJDEP is the permitting agency for HPAAs, and the RMP does not and cannot modify this
authority.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the RMP states that the Highlands Council has the opportunity
to review and comment on all development application projects, master plans, and ordinances. The concern
is how attempts will be made to manipulate the Council into providing comments on applications that are
opposed or supported by certain individuals or groups. A clear, well defined process and criteria for Council
input needs to be in place to provide for the objective review of projects.
RESPONSE: The Council is developing detailed project review processes and criteria for specific types of
reviews (e.g., Water Quality Management Plan amendment reviews, Redevelopment Area Designation
reviews, Scenic and Cultural Nomination reviews, etc.).
223
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments noted that in the Project Review Process section, the procedures, time
frames, and criteria for Highlands Council review of the proposed project types listed on pages 314 and 315
of the 2007 Draft RMP must be provided. If municipalities defer their development review process to the
Highlands Council for applications in the Preservation Area, can applicants expect the timely review as
outlined in the Municipal Land Use Law?
RESPONSE: This section is intended only to provide an overview and brief description of the types of
project reviews that the Council will be undertaking – it is not intended to provide detailed review
procedures; detailed review procedures will be outlined in other documents (e.g., WQMP amendments
review, Redevelopment Area Designations review, etc.). It is the goal of the Council to conduct efficient and
timely project reviews.
COMMENT: One comment stated that in most, if not all project review cases, low impact design and green
design will be required. However, successfully navigating through the process and meeting all of the
requirements to obtain approval appears to be an onerous process, which may ultimately thwart development
proposals.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but no change was made to the RMP. The Council
does not intend that the requirement for low impact design and green design will result in an onerous project
review process. Detailed guidance will be provided to municipalities and applicants to help them understand
and apply these requirements.
COMMENT: One comment stated that with respect to Highlands Project Reviews, there should be no
change to the Land Use Capability Map Series as a result of project reviews unless new and definitive science
indicating increased protection is the basis. Environmental constraints must be given equal consideration and
must be applied “blind to the line,” especially in the Existing Community Zones where it is unclear what
environmental constraints will apply.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. It is noted that the goals, policies, and objectives
throughout the RMP were clarified and strengthened.
COMMENT: With respect to Highlands Project Reviews, one comment contained several questions - Which
agencies and other parties will directly participate in these evaluations? Which agency will be involved in an
indirect yet supporting role to these evaluations (e.g., contributing supporting information or
documentation)? What level of roadway facilities are subject to review through this process (i.e., municipal,
county, state and/or federal roadways)? What criteria or thresholds will be used to determine if a roadway
project is acceptable vs. unacceptable with respect to growth? Where roadway/transportation projects fulfill
a larger regional mobility need than the Highlands area alone, is this factor considered in the evaluation
process? What specific criteria/factors will be used to measure and correlate growth to “increased capacity
road improvement” projects?
RESPONSE: As noted in the RMP Implementation Programs section of Chapter 6, implementation of the
RMP will require the active assistance and support of numerous State agencies including NJDOT. State
agencies shall continue to work with the Highlands Council to establish interagency teams to provide
cooperation with regard to implementation of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that with respect to Highlands Project Reviews, the forestry community
is concerned that Forest Management Plans, which are currently approved by the New Jersey Forest Service a
branch of the NJDEP, may also be subjected to additional reviews by the Highlands Council.
RESPONSE: Text was added to the forest goals, policies and objectives which are intended to show that the
RMP gives great deference to the Forest Management Plans as approved by the New Jersey Forest Service.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that in the “Forest Review Standards” section - 1st paragraph, 1st
sentence, replace with “...in accordance with a woodland management plan or forest management plan
224
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
approved by the State Forester.”
RESPONSE: Text was modified to include woodland management plan.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the Forest Review Standards stated that “the clearing of trees in
conjunction with human development is limited to circumstances where the clearing will not diminish the
integrity of forest resources.” Is the “clearing of trees” as expressed herein the same as “clear-cutting” which
is defined in the RMP glossary? At what point is there an impact to the “integrity of forest resources?”
RESPONSE: The term clearing of trees in this context means the removal of trees for a specific human
development. Integrity in this context means that, while some trees may be removed for the human
development, the forest patch does not become fragmented or damaged as an ecosystem.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Agricultural Review Standards language should be amended to
read “resource management system plans” when a 3 or 9 percent increase in agricultural impervious cover is
proposed.
RESPONSE: The text in this section was changed to read as follows: “The RMP requires that agricultural or
horticultural development in the Preservation Area and the Planning Area which involves new agricultural
impervious cover, since enactment of the Highlands Act, to the total land area of a Farm Management Unit
(either individually or cumulatively) of greater than 3% but less than 9%, to develop and implement a Farm
Conservation Plan. Further, the RMP requires that any agricultural or horticultural development in the
Preservation Area and the Planning Area which involves new agricultural impervious cover (since enactment
of the Highlands Act), to the total land area of a Farm Management Unit (either individually or cumulatively)
of 9% or greater to develop and implement a Resource Management System Plan.”
COMMENT: One comment stated that the staff’s project review checklist includes review of “Agricultural
Resources” to “ensure consistency with... provisions of the RMP…” This review should consider other
activities that foster increased agricultural viability. This will help to reduce conflict between farm and nonfarm land uses.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but no change to the RMP was made. The comment
relates to the staff’s project review checklists – not the RMP. The comment will be taken into consideration
regarding the project review checklists.
COMMENT: One comment noted that there is nothing in the Highlands Act that requires that agriculture
be given uninhibited use of lands nor does the Act prevent the Highlands Council from making the
performance standards suggested in best management practices (BMPs) and in United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) plans mandatory.
RESPONSE: The Agriculture Review Standards in the Highlands Project Review section were amended.
The RMP permits limited development, including family and farm labor housing, in Agricultural Resource
Areas which is necessary to support the viability of the agricultural operation, in coordination with the NJDA
and the SADC, and subject to compliance with the resource management and protection requirements of the
RMP. The RMP requires that agricultural or horticultural development and agricultural or horticultural use
be addressed, through Plan Conformance, in accordance with the Right to Farm Act, N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1, and in
coordination with the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, the State Agriculture Development Committee,
and the County Agriculture Development Boards.
COMMENT: One comment stated that, with respect to Highlands Project Reviews and Agriculture
Resource Standards, the language should clearly indicate that increases for farm purposes must be allowed for
the sake of agricultural viability.
RESPONSE: The Agriculture Review Standards in the Highlands Project Review section were amended.
The RMP requires that agricultural or horticultural development in the Preservation Area and the Planning
Area which involves new agricultural impervious cover, since enactment of the Highlands Act, to the total
225
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
land area of a Farm Management Unit (either individually or cumulatively) of greater than 3% but less than
9%, to develop and implement a Farm Conservation Plan. Further, the RMP requires that any agricultural or
horticultural development in the Preservation Area and the Planning Area which involves new agricultural
impervious cover (since enactment of the Highlands Act), to the total land area of a Farm Management Unit
(either individually or cumulatively) of 9% or greater to develop and implement a Resource Management
System Plan. Both the Farm Conservation Plan and the Resource Management System Plan shall be prepared
by the USDA NRCS, TSP, appropriate agent, or NJDA staff, and approved by the local SCD.
COMMENT: One comment questioned, with respect to Highlands Project Reviews, the adequacy and
quality of the data provided by NJDEP's Landscape Version 2.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council utilized the most current version of the Landscape Project (Version 3),
provided from NJDEP-ENSP, which is now publicly available through NJDEP’s GIS webpage. All mapping
is based on species occurrence data and surrounding habitat requirements. The RMP includes the ability for
modification to critical habitat boundaries due to site habitat suitability or existing land uses, as approved by
the Highlands Council in coordination with NJDEP-ENSP.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the septic system densities section of the Project Review Standards
provides median septic densities, however the empirical data in the Technical Report does not support the
notion that the number of on-site septic systems installed from 1986 to 2002 have had a negative impact on
median nitrate levels in the sub-watersheds. The conclusion that can be made is that the new septic systems
installed since 1986 have not had any negative impact on median nitrate levels in the sub-watersheds.
Instead, the data suggest that the sub-watersheds were not in danger of too many septic systems and that
using a strict nondegradation measure to define septic system densities is unreasonable.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but no change was made to the RMP. The Council
disagrees with the commenter’s opinion. Further discussion of this issue is provided in the responses to
comments on Chapter 4.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP should prohibit the mining or disturbance of radioactive
minerals throughout the Highlands Region
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but no change was made to the RMP. The proposed
additional text was not felt to be appropriate for the RMP document.
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE REGIONAL MASTER PLAN
COMMENT: One comment stated that talented lay people at the local level will not be able to answer
questions from the existing 500-plus pages of the 2007 Draft RMP and Technical Documents. The comment
suggested the following changes to make it more user-friendly and more applicable to municipal and public
implementation: 1) Separate Chapters I-III into a Volume One and include all Basis, Background and
Technical Papers in the same volume. Place basic goals, policies, objectives and their technical backup in one
place easily referenced and cross-referenced as needed. 2) Create a Volume Two that contains the Programs
which will reiterate and reduce Policies and Objectives to implementable standards and describe the process
and requirements for all implementation by Council and County and Local Governments. 3) A process for
the Amendment and Review of Plan elements should be clearly set out in the RMP Volume Two. 4) A
manual that helps towns through the conformance process may be appropriate. 5) Standards for Project
Review should be clearly stated in the RMP Volume Two and any check lists to be used in all such reviews
should be published.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The Council will be providing counties and
municipalities with a separate Conformance Standards template for each resource and a summary Plan
Conformance matrix prior to commencing the Plan Conformance process.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council should revert to the 2006 Draft RMP as it was more
226
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
protective of water.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but has determined that the adopted RMP responds
to the Highlands Act requirements and provides for stringent environmental protection and sound smart
growth principles.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Water Resources and Ecosystems Science Agenda section of the
2007 Draft RMP discusses what needs to be done to improve the RMP, and in particular discusses the need
for a long-term science agenda for the Highlands Council. Of particular relevance to water resource issues, is
the Council’s use of the Low Flow Margin of Safety methodology. The comment suggested that while the
Low Flow Margin of Safety Method may be an appropriate method of determining water availability for
purposes of the New Jersey Water Supply Plan, it is clearly inadequate for the purpose of evaluating stream
flow needs to ensure that the ecological integrity of the streams in the Highlands is maintained. It is
inaccurate to suggest that additional research may be warranted with regard to other methodologies needed to
conclusively establish the ecological flow requirements of Highlands streams. This research is not only
warranted, but the Highlands Act requires it because absent that research the purposes of the Act simply
cannot be fulfilled.
RESPONSE: The RMP includes a commitment to “develop a program for improving estimates of ground
water capacity and availability.” Additional text indicates that a regional flow monitoring network consisting
of observation wells and stream gauges will be explored to facilitate future research. The network would
augment existing ground water level and surface water flow datasets, respectively, in strategically selected
areas. Implementation of the program will require funding.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Council should add an investigation of mine discharge water
quality to its science agenda.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment but no change was made to the RMP at this time.
The Council will take the comment under consideration for future possible addition to the science agenda.
HIGHLANDS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Grants and Funding
COMMENT: Many comments voiced concern about insufficient and/or timely funding to ensure RMP
implementation. Concern centered on the need to capitalize the TDR bank, provide funding for land
acquisition (at pre-Highlands Act land values), assist municipalities and counties with professional fees and
other costs involved in Plan conformance, and to enable the Highlands Council to fulfill the many tasks set
forth in the RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and notes that not all implementation funding is
currently in place. The Council anticipates that funding and other sources of assistance will become available
through the many sources and opportunities identified in the RMP. In addition, grant funding is immediately
available to all Highlands municipalities and counties, to fund the reasonable costs of Plan Conformance.
While municipal and county Plan Conformance will not represent the whole of the implementation process, it
will address a substantial component of the Highlands Council’s work and efforts in meeting the goals and
objectives of the RMP. In addition, the RMP section on Landowner Fairness, now “Landowner Equity,” has
been substantially revised, particularly with regard to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
The revisions establish the important parameters of the program and provide the basis needed to begin to
implement TDR shortly after adoption of the RMP. While funding may not yet be available, viable TDR
options do exist and will be explored at every opportunity. The Highlands Council will also continue to seek
funding to support the program and other land acquisition programs. Further, the Council advocates
continuation of the dual appraisal method for five years after RMP adoption.
COMMENT: One comment noted that if the RMP is implemented as written, the staff will have to be
expanded significantly. The RMP fails to discuss future Highlands staff functions and resources needed in a
227
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
detailed manner. A number of additional planners, engineers, surveyors, scientists and attorneys will need to
be hired to handle the work load.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council recognizes that its resources are limited and agrees that the work load
will expand as RMP implementation gets into full gear. It is prepared to answer the need, however, by
carefully arranging priorities and optimizing resources to ensure that the process continues to move forward
in a meaningful way.
COMMENTS: Many comments suggested that a water user fee be imposed to provide funding needed for
land acquisition, landowner equity, TDR, purchase of development rights, and so forth. A sample:
1.
New Jersey Water Supply Authority could add to its fees to pay for half the loss in land value. The
cost today is $228 per million gallons. If they floated a $7 billion bond over 30 years, payments
would be $34.66 per million gallons if paid semiannually; $58.69 per million gallons, if paid annually.
2.
If the 5 million people taking water from Highlands were charged for it, the Highlands Council could
pay what it owes landowners.
Water user fees should be assessed to offset financial sacrifice and burden placed on taxpayers of Highlands
communities, especially those entirely in the Preservation Area. The fee should be guaranteed as a direct
payment to municipalities in the Highlands and such funding should be coordinated to include an appropriate
inflation index to provide equity in future years.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council supports the concept of a Highlands water user fee, which could be
imposed by local water authorities and dedicated to purchase priority parcels and critical lands and/or the
development rights to such land in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: One comment noted that of the landowner compensation mechanisms proposed, only
funding the Highlands Development Credit Bank receives higher than last priority. Grant programs,
minimum requirements for municipal conformance, technical assistance, model ordinances and guidance
manuals, coordination with state and federal agencies, educational programs and research initiatives all have
higher priority than “Funding for On-going Highlands Programs” and “Establishment of a Highlands Water
User Fee.” The New Jersey Farm Bureau sees this as unacceptable. If this is not the intention, it must be
clarified. Water use fees must be placed on those outside of the Highlands Region who are benefiting from
the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The RMP clarifies that the priority levels set for implementation of programs do not
necessarily refer to levels of importance. The priorities are more a function of timing and the need to ensure
that programs and procedures are in place for ready access by those required to make imminent use of them.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that there will be substantial planning, legal, and possibly engineering,
as well as other professional costs associated with the conformance effort. It is understood that the
Highlands Council will provide some funding, but will the grant programs cover all of a municipality’s costs?
RESPONSE: The grants will cover all reasonable expenses incurred by municipalities and counties in
achieving Plan Conformance, including professional fees.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that ongoing funding is needed for programs that support farming,
such as USDA, Natural Resource Conservation and local Soil Conservation Districts - all are recognized in
the 2007 Draft RMP, but are not funded. Will the RMP draw funds and focus away from other agriculture
issues in the State to address issues in the Highlands? Will farmers be left without support because there are
no funds? By providing funding to these projects, the water quality will be protected and enhanced without
undue regulation.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council is not responsible for funding the referenced agricultural programs. It
supports such programs and recognizes their value in protecting water quality. The Council seeks to bolster
support for agriculture in the State, and anticipates assisting in programs that protect both farmers and the
environmental resources that allow them to flourish. The Council has used available funding to support
some agricultural assistance programs, including Integrated Pest Management.
228
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments asked if the Highlands Act provides funding for local governments for the
required review and approval of permits required under the Act by zoning and building officials.
RESPONSE: The Act does not provide such funding. The Highlands Council anticipates that local
governments will include the cost for such review into the fees normally charged for processing of permits by
zoning and building officials.
COMMENT: One comment asked if the Highlands Council will provide free educational seminars to local
officials who now are required to enforce the regulations.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council will be scheduling free educational seminars to assist local officials in
implementing the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment included the following points: Tax stabilization provisions in the RMP are
inadequate and incomplete. Complete prohibitions on growth in the Preservation Areas will affect
neighboring municipalities and the whole region. Most recent data, on even Morris County municipalities
containing Preservation Areas, shows growth has dropped to zero. How will the Council support these
communities when they can no longer support themselves? Tax stabilization aid should be restructured so
that municipalities receive permanent 100% funding for the full loss of property tax revenue – with no sunset
provisions.
RESPONSE: Tax stabilization provisions come from the Highlands Act and, as written, include sunset
provisions. The RMP cannot change the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that the RMP should call for financial assistance and annual increases
in existing watershed aid in order to guarantee a viable economy to municipalities such as West Milford who
shoulder the responsibility and expense of providing stewardship of water for millions of New Jersey
residents.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. Watershed aid provisions come from the Highlands
Act. The RMP cannot change the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment indicated that much of responsibility of the RMP falls on municipalities. How
will they find funding? How will resources be treated equally if 88 different towns do the work? If they are
doing the work, why is there a Highlands Council?
RESPONSE: Funding for the reasonable expenses involved in achieving Plan Conformance for RMP
requirements will be provided by the Highlands Council. The Highlands resources will be treated
equivalently by the many different towns by virtue of standards to be provided by the Highlands Council.
The Council is a regional agency that will coordinate a massive effort involving numerous entities in a
science-based resource protection program for the whole of the Highlands Region. The Council also has
overview authority and may review local government decisions to ensure continued conformance.
Other Comments
COMMENT: One comment noted that the implementation program should be highlighted by placing it at
the very front of the RMP. Everyone wants to know what the Highlands Council is going to do and how it is
going to do it. Project planning techniques should be used to implement the RMP and should be included in
the document. This may solve timing problems.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council understands the intent and notes that the RMP has been reorganized
to place greater emphasis on implementation, as suggested. Project management techniques likely will be
used in implementing the Plan; however, specific project plans will not be available for inclusion in the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that in regard to Subpart a., Highlands Council Technical Assistance
Documents and Guidance Manuals, Page 341 of the 2007 Draft RMP, there will be needs beyond simply
229
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
these documents. If real habitat protection, restoration and enhancement (including mitigation) are going to
take place in the Highlands, then the Council will need to establish (either internally or through partnerships)
a team of landscape ecologists. The municipalities, private landowners, county park systems and the nongovernmental organizations will all require assistance to perform these activities.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment, recognizes the concern, and will address the issue as
necessary.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
COMMENT: One comment provided suggested text edits to the Ecosystem Technical Report regarding the
term Woodland Management Plan.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has updated all technical reports where edits
were deemed appropriate and/or necessary.
COMMENT: One comment provided suggested references for the Ecosystem Technical Report.
COMMENT: One comment provided suggested references for the Historic Cultural, Scenic, Recreation, and
Tourism Technical Report.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has updated technical report references where
edits were deemed appropriate and/or necessary.
COMMENT: One comment provided suggested references for the Regional Master Plan.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment and has updated the Regional Master Plan where
edits were deemed appropriate and/or necessary.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the bibliography does not reference any of the outside consultant
reports. Were they utilized in preparing the draft the RMP?
RESPONSE: Consultant reports were integrated with Highlands Council work product and all consultants
that provided technical support were acknowledged in the Acknowledgement section of the Regional Master
Plan.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Council should amend the 2007 Draft Technical
Report Addenda to clarify how the consumptive/depletive ground water use from domestic wells and septic
systems was estimated for purposes of calculating net water availability.
RESPONSE: The Council estimated domestic use by identifying those areas served by a potable water utility
and assuming households outside such service areas were reliant on domestic wells. Population estimates
within these areas were also refined using 2000 census data and incorporating a value of 100 gallons per
person per day to account for ancillary water uses and seasonal variations. Consumptive use was estimated by
multiplying domestic use by a consumptive coefficient (29%). No depletive uses were assumed for domestic
well usage.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the maps do not contain an adequate level of detail.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council has updated and revised numerous maps in the RMP and in the
Technical Reports.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Vernal Pool Technical Addendum was written in an
unprofessional tone and marginalizes conflicting or non-complimentary studies and documents. The
comment questioned the nature of the studies reviewed and stated that the Highlands Council preferentially
dismissed various reports. The comment stated that it was inappropriate to include information in the
literature review for any vernal-pool breeding wildlife that does not occur in the Highlands Region. The
comment criticized the Highlands Council for considering habitat requirements for those amphibians and
230
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
reptiles from NJDEP’s list of vernal-pool breeding wildlife that are not threatened or endangered.
RESPONSE: The Vernal Pool Habitat Protection Technical Addendum represents a scientific literature
review of case studies regarding habitat requirements for vernal-pool breeding amphibians and reptiles. The
document offers evidence of a variety of habitat requirements for general amphibians and reptiles and for
many of those species included on NJDEP’s scientifically-defensible list of vernal-pool breeding wildlife. The
studies reviewed include numerous species that require large habitats for which the Highlands Council vernal
pool policies provide appropriate protection. Literature reviews provide synopsis of published peer-reviewed
literature and this Addendum is written as such. It does not promote or dismiss studies, but illustrates
pertinent results and presents evidence justifying the need for vernal pool protection buffers. Vernal pool
protection buffers are not meant to protect only threatened and endangered vernal pool-breeding wildlife, but
rather all species that are critically-dependent upon these rare habitats for completion of their life cycles.
COMMENT: One comment stated that policies based on Section 4.13 of the Utility Technical Report
regarding the need for future data on physical infrastructure limits, etc., should remain flexible for both water
and wastewater utilities. The comment stated that the Highlands Council did not provide firm capacity data
and questions the firm capacity estimates as related to infrastructure versus safe yields. The comment stated
that the Highlands Council oversimplified water availability.
RESPONSE: The RMP policies for utilities are aimed at the sustainable use of both water and wastewater
utility capacity, in compliance with the mandates for utilities in the Highlands Act. Policies include
coordination with NJDEP to track water use, water allocation, and to fill in critical missing data gaps. The
method used to determine water availability was based on the best available data and was reviewed by the
Highlands Council, other agencies, and the public. The Council anticipates gathering additional and updated
data through Plan Conformance and refinement of utility capacity approaches.
COMMENT: One comment stated that supporting documents, standards, and guidance documents should
be expedited and vetted by the Council with public participation.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council vets all standards and guidance documents through the Highlands
Council meetings, all of which include public participation. All documents are posted on the Council’s
website and public comments are invited.
COMMENT: One comment stated that existing highway facilities and bus routes would receive a point value
below the apparent threshold to be included in the map, which is confusing. It would be helpful for the
Council to elaborate on how it intends to apply this point system.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council developed the LUCM Baseline Transportation and Transit Data Layer
to further recognize the link between land use and transportation planning. The Baseline Transportation and
Transit Data Layer includes select county roads and all Interstate, Highway and State roads that include a
private or public commuter bus route or park and ride areas in the determination of the Existing Community
Zone Overlay Zone indicators. These areas receive a minimum score of 3 points and are recognized as
regional baseline transportation and transit features that will be evaluated at the county and local level during
Plan Conformance
GENERAL COMMENTS
Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Highlands Council should re-draw the boundary lines
between the Preservation Area and the Planning Area or remove specific lands from the jurisdiction of the
Highlands Region. A few comments suggested the lines be re-drawn along watershed boundaries.
RESPONSE: The boundaries between the Planning Area and the Preservation Area of the Highlands Region
were established by the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, and may not be revised by the
231
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Highlands Council.
COMMENT: Many comments were in general opposition to the Highlands Act and stated that the Act is
flawed, carries many conflicts, and interferes with private property rights.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments.
COMMENT: Many comments expressed support for the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges these comments.
COMMENT: Many comments stated that the RMP does not adequately meet the mandates of the Highlands
Act.
RESPONSE: The Council does believe that the adopted RMP, including revisions from the 2007 Final Draft
RMP based on public comments, meets the mandates established by the Highlands Act..
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Act has a central focus on water protection, but also
addresses other issues like scenic vistas, historic sites and other resources that are not essential to protecting
water quality. The comment stated that the degree of regulations should be proportional to the extent they
relate to the goals of protecting water quality and quantity.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Act and COAH (Council on Affordable Housing)
requirements are in conflict with each other.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments, but believes that the delivery of affordable housing
is not contrary to the mandates of the Highlands Act. RMP housing policies require that conforming
municipalities implement resource protection requirements and provide a realistic opportunity for a fair share
of its region's present and prospective needs for housing for low and moderate income families. Objective
6O1b discusses the “interagency partnership with the COAH in support of the achievement of both the
resource protection requirements of the RMP and the municipal constitutional obligation, in “growth areas,”
to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of a fair share of affordable housing for low and
moderate income households.” Further, the Highlands Act requires that COAH give consideration to the
RMP in its allocation of affordable housing responsibilities.
COMMENT: One comment expressed concern that the exemption for religious organizations had expired.
It also stated that the regulations for impervious coverage limitations are too restrictive to allow a new
congregation to locate within the Highlands. The comment called on the Highlands Council to enact
permanent exemptions for the development and/or expansion of all religious organizations within the
Highlands region.
RESPONSE: Exemption #6 contained within the Highlands Act provides for improvements to places of
worship, public and private schools, and hospitals. The exemption has not expired. Construction on a
previously undeveloped parcel of land within the Preservation Area would be subject to the NJDEP Rules, as
well as the goals, policies and objectives of the RMP. The Council cannot adopt exemptions to the Highlands
Act that are not within the Act itself.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Act undermines the fundamental system of local
government and strips municipalities and counties of their most important purpose of controlling local land
development.
RESPONSE: Municipalities that conform to the RMP will continue to have responsibility for determining
the allowable land uses, to the extent that such uses are compatible with the requirements of the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the development restrictions put in place by the Highlands Act are
232
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
unrealistic and discourage future generations from farming the land. A few comments expressed their dismay
that they were being penalized for having been good stewards of the land in the past.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. Maintenance of farming requires that land not be
developed, or be developed in a manner that maximizes the preservation of farmland. The RMP includes
support for agricultural easement acquisition programs, TDR and clustering to achieve these purposes.
Further, the RMP includes provisions as identified or supported by the Highlands Act for agricultural
development, subject to best management practices.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that details should be provided regarding the NJDEP’s authority to
grant case by case waivers pursuant to the Highlands Act, as discussed in the RMP under the heading,
“Exemptions and Waivers.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act and the NJDEP Highlands Preservation Area rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38
provide the authority and basis for NJDEP exemption and waiver determinations. Part 7 of Chapter 4 has
been significantly enhanced to clarify the relationship of exemptions and waivers to the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment questioned to what extent local authority was usurped by the seventeen
exemptions contained within the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The exemptions are listed in the NJDEP Highlands Preservation Area rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38,
which state that projects or activities are exempt from the requirements of this chapter, but are required to comply
with all other Federal, state and local requirements that may apply to the proposed project. (emphasis added).
COMMENT: Several comments stated that utility companies should not be exempt from the Highlands Act.
The comments were concerned with the use of toxic chemicals used to control vegetation around utility
infrastructure.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the exemption is provided for by the Highlands Act and
therefore any change in this provision requires legislative amendment.
COMMENT: A few comments claimed that the Highlands Act and its implementation are illegal according
to federal laws pertaining to due process and just compensation.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment. The Appellate Division of Superior
Court has held that the Highlands Act is constitutional in the case OFP, LLP v. State, decided August 10,
2007. The New Jersey Supreme Court is presently reviewing that matter. Additionally, several other recent
court decisions in Superior Court have also held that the Highlands Act as enacted is constitutional.
2007 Draft Regional Master Plan
COMMENT: Many comments expressed support for the Regional Master Plan and urged its adoption.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments.
COMMENT: Many comments were concerned that the RMP was not restrictive enough to adequately
protect the water and land resources in the Highlands Region and recommended tighter land use controls.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the quality of life is diminishing in the Highlands because of
overdevelopment.
COMMENT: Several comments expressed concern about the purity of the water resources within the
Highlands.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the RMP is too accommodating to development interests and
should be more geared toward resource protection.
RESPONSE: The goals, policies, objectives and programs of the RMP have been crafted to provide a strong
base of resource protection requirements and standards.
233
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: A few comments expressed concern that the RMP was overstepping the bounds established
by the Highlands Act, particularly in the Planning Area.
RESPONSE: While plan conformance in the Planning Area is voluntary, the Council is charged with
preparing a regional master plan for the entire Highlands Region, not just the Preservation Area. The
Highlands Act sets out a series of goals to be achieved in the Planning Area, including protection of the
essential character of the Highlands and encouragement of appropriate patterns of residential, commercial
and industrial development and redevelopment consistent with smart growth principles.
COMMENT: Many comments stated that concerns and comments submitted in the response to the 2006
Draft RMP had received no response.
RESPONSE: The comments regarding both the 2006 Draft RMP and the 2007 Draft RMP have been
considered and many amendments were made in response to those comments. Two comment response
documents have been released that contain a summary of all comments received and responses to them. One
document addresses comments to the 2006 Draft RMP including changes that are reflected in the 2007 Final
Draft RMP, and this document addresses comments to the 2007 Final Draft RMP including changes that are
reflected in the adopted RMP.
COMMENT: Many comments stated that the 2007 Draft Plan is confusing, too lengthy, too general,
repetitive and incomplete. Suggestions were made for clarifications, additions to the glossary and a
strengthening of the RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. The RMP has been amended in many instances
and has been expanded and clarified where necessary. The glossary in the RMP has been revised.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the 2007 Draft Plan was too weak, lacked consistency and
should not be released without amendments.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. Amendments were made prior to the adoption of
the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Council has done a good job of listening to concerns from all
stakeholders and incorporating their issues. The comments suggested that although the RMP is not perfect, it
is time to adopt it and move forward.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the policies and objectives are the result of thoughtful
deliberation and are good conclusions.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that there have been many improvements in the 2007 Draft Plan
compared with the 2006 Draft RMP. Comments noted that many of the revisions were consistent with
comments that had been made about the 2006 Draft RMP.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that there had been no improvement from the 2006 Draft to the
2007 Draft.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments.
COMMENT: One comment claimed that the RMP violates the Highlands Act by targeting the Preservation
Area for high density housing and allowing the extension of sewers into the Existing Community Zone in the
Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: The RMP does not target the Preservation Area for high density housing, nor does it generally
allow the extension of sewer lines into the Preservation Area. The goals, policies, and objectives in Chapter 4,
Subpart d. Sustainable Development and Water Resources address standards regarding where the extension
of infrastructure is permitted, encouraged, and prohibited. Development in the Preservation Area is
restricted to very low density uses (maximum 3% impervious surface), exempt development, and
234
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
development that qualifies for limited waivers based on site specific conditions. Only the latter two are
eligible for extension of sewers. The RMP establishes a framework for future land use which guides
development away from environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands. This framework also promotes
compact development and redevelopment in or adjacent to existing developed areas where adequate public
infrastructure are available to serve new growth and development, provided that such development and
redevelopment is compatible with existing land uses and community character.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that all development in the Highlands should be halted. A few
comments also expressed concern that support of smart growth principles would lead to too much growth.
RESPONSE: It is a stated goal of the Highlands Act to encourage in the Planning Area appropriate patterns
of residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment consistent with smart growth
principles. Nowhere does the Highlands Act grant the Highlands Council the authority to prohibit
development altogether in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that all development should not be stopped in the Highlands.
Comments also suggested that the RMP needs to be more flexible in accommodating appropriate
development.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. The RMP combines stringent resource protection
standards with smart growth provisions to allow for appropriate development in municipalities that choose to
accept growth.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that incentives be offered to entice municipalities to conform to the
RMP.
RESPONSE: Although plan conformance is mandatory for lands in the Preservation Area of the Highlands
Region, the Highlands Act created a voluntary conformance structure for the Planning Area where incentives
are used to achieve coordinated regional planning and implementation.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the map adjustment process should be made clearer and more
protective.
RESPONSE: The RMP has been modified in Chapter 6 to provide a clear distinction between RMP Updates
and Map Adjustments. Petitions for Map Adjustments can only be considered only where waivers,
exemptions, RMP Updates and other approaches have been examined and are not sufficient to address the
issue being raised.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that since the Council had not met the deadline of June 2006 for
adoption of the RMP, it was in violation of the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the date for adoption that is within the Highlands Act,
but determined that the development of a completed RMP would require more time. Among other
provisions, in section 8 of the Highlands Act, it is stated that the Council “shall not adopt the regional master
plan unless it recommends receiving zones in the planning area and capacity therefore for each receiving zone
pursuant to the transfer of development rights program authorized in section 13 of this Act.” Several
provisions of the Act are not triggered until the RMP is adopted.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the RMP must be consistent with the New Jersey Statewide Water
Supply Plan.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Act requires that NJDEP actions under the Water Supply Management Act
(which include development of the NJ Statewide Water Supply Plan) be consistent with the RMP. The RMP
is not required to be consistent with the NJ Statewide Water Supply Plan.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that water conservation methods and techniques be utilized in the
235
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
Highlands Region.
RESPONSE: The RMP requires the efficient use of water through water conservation and low impact
development best management practices. The RMP also requires minimum standards for water conservation
measures in site layout and structures, including but not limited to water efficient landscaping, rain collection
systems, use of gray water, and water-efficient landscape irrigation. These issues are addressed in Chapters 4
and 5.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the RMP should halt development around our crucial water
bodies and guide development into already developed areas.
RESPONSE: The RMP establishes a framework for future growth and economic development in or
adjacent to existing developed areas where adequate public facilities are available. Directing growth to areas
that already have some level of development, to the extent that such areas can accommodate growth, makes
more efficient use of existing infrastructure and supports the protection of environmentally sensitive areas.
Potential growth areas are represented by redevelopment areas, brownfield sites, grayfield sites, cluster
development, and infill in existing communities. Development will be limited in the Highlands Region based
on enhanced environmental standards adopted by the NJDEP and through implementation of the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that there should be an education component for the RMP and
that educating the public is an important step in bringing the public along to support the RMP.
RESPONSE: Many of the programs within the RMP contain an education and outreach component.
Additionally the council is committed to a continued outreach effort during Plan Conformance and
implantation of the goals, policies, objectives and programs of the RMP.
COMMENT: A few comments expressed concern over the potentially long and complicated application
process for development decisions in the Region.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. In the Preservation Area, the NJDEP Rules govern
permits and guide development decisions based on the restrictions contained within the Highlands Act. Plan
conformance is the process whereby municipalities and counties align their plans and regulations with the
RMP and is designed to ensure consistency at all levels of regulation and alleviate duplicative review
processes.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested that the Council should prepare a “reader’s digest” version of the
RMP that would be more succinct and easier to understand.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments and is developing guidance for use by municipalities,
counties and development applicants.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that the maps contained within the RMP are not clear enough, are
incorrect, and are not useful.
RESPONSE: A number of maps have been amended to add greater clarity and additional maps have been
included in the RMP to provide more information. Corrections to maps based on updated information will
occur through the RMP Update process.
Equity Concerns
COMMENT: Several comments expressed concern that landowners should be compensated for their lost
property rights. Comments stated that there is not sufficient funding to properly compensate landowners and
this lacking will negatively impact the Region and the implementation of the RMP.
COMMENT: Several comments stated that water usage fees should be issued to those consumers who use
Highlands water in order to help compensate landowners and preserve land in the Highlands.
236
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment stated that there should be no surcharge for water use.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments and continues to work to secure a
dedicated funding source to assist in implementing the RMP. To that end, the Highlands Council continues
to advocate for the imposition of a water user fee.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that landowners are not entitled to compensation for lost value
because property is a commodity and should be treated as such. The comments pointed out that municipal
zoning is subject to change according to changing circumstances.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comments. The Highlands Act includes specific provisions
regarding expectations for continued land acquisition, exemptions, waivers and other approaches that ensure
continuation of some level of landowner equity.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that deed restrictions on Highlands property should be legislatively
prohibited and only actual sale of rights should be allowed.
COMMENT: One comment argued that any deed restrictions used for implementation of the Highlands Act
should be legislatively prohibited.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment. The RMP supports land preservation and
stewardship to facilitate the protection of resources in the Highlands. The Land Preservation and
Stewardship goals, policies, objectives and program support acquisition of lands in fee simple and easements
from willing sellers. The RMP does not impose deed restrictions on properties except where a development
application is approved and the deed restriction applies to non-developed portions of the property, or where
Highlands Development Credits have been severed from the property. The Highlands Council as a State
agency has the authority to acquire, hold and monitor easements under the New Jersey Conservation
Restriction and Historic Preservation Restriction Act, N.J.S.A. 13:8B.
Highlands Council
COMMENT: One comment expressed frustration over the lack of progress by the Council over the past
four years.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment.
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council should be disbanded.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment.
COMMENT: Several comments suggested that the Council would benefit from a broader representation in
its membership.
COMMENT: One comment contended that Highlands Council members should be chosen and held
accountable by the region they are serving.
RESPONSE: Representation on the Highlands Council is detailed in Section 5 of the Highlands Act; the
Highlands Council is required to consist of eight residents of the counties of Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris,
Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Warren, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Five of these representatives must be municipal officials. In addition, at least four other Council members
must be property owners, business owners, or farmers in the Highlands Region.
COMMENT: A few comments stated that the Highlands Council members who are local elected officials
should remember that while serving on the Council their proper role is to represent the Highlands Region,
not individual constituencies.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment.
237
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment suggested that the Council extend the comment period for the 2007 Draft Plan.
RESPONSE: The public comment period for the 2007 Draft Plan was open for 90 days and, during that
time, the Council held three public hearings to solicit additional comments.
COMMENT: A few comments suggested the Council should hold more hearings outside the Highlands
Region, particularly in areas that consume Highlands water.
RESPONSE: The Council acknowledges the comment.
Provisions of the Highlands Act
COMMENT: Several comments argued that the Highlands Act is unconstitutional.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the opinions. The Appellate Division of Superior Court
has held that the Highlands Act is constitutional in the case OFP, LLP v. State, decided August 10, 2007.
Additionally, several other recent court decisions in Superior Court have also held that the Highlands Act as
enacted is constitutional.
COMMENT: One comment contended that the Highlands Act is flawed by virtue of being formed through
an executive order and not by a vote of representatives.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the Highlands Act is a statute that was passed by the State
Legislature and signed by Governor McGreevey on August 10, 2004.
COMMENT: One comment asked what the exemptions mean under the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: There are seventeen (17) exemptions under the Highlands Act that allow certain activities to be
undertaken on property in the Highlands Region. Where an activity is exempt it is exempt from the
Highlands Act, the Highlands rules promulgated by the Department of Environmental Protection, the
Regional Master Plan and any amendments to a master plan, development regulations, or other regulations
adopted a municipality or county to specifically conform them with the Regional Master Plan. The seventeen
exemptions are discussed in Chapter 3, Part 7, Subpart b; Chapter 4, Part 7; and Chapter 5, Part 7 of the
RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated its belief that the Highlands Council call-up of municipal approvals for
conforming municipalities in the Planning Area will make it difficult for any development application to
move forward.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council states that any projects proposed in a Planning Area municipality must
be addressed consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). Consequently, projects
that receive municipal approval prior to a Planning Area municipality conforming would be granted the same
rights under the MLUL and judicial precedent as they would in a non-conforming municipality. The
Highlands Act provides for Council review of local decisions, including denials, within a specific period. The
Council will work with municipalities through Plan Conformance to minimize the use of this review process
by ensuring that municipal decisions are in full conformance with the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Lebanon Township was entirely in the Preservation Area during
consideration of the Highlands Act and that there was a subsequent boundary change that split the
municipality.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the boundary of the Preservation Area is defined in Section
7 of the Highlands Act and that the boundary in the enacted law controls.
COMMENT: Several comments contended that the boundaries of the Highlands Region were drawn based
on political considerations and not scientifically supported boundaries related to water resources.
238
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comments but notes that, as the Superior Court,
Somerset County held in ABD Liberty, Inc. v. State, Docket No. L-557-06, State law does not require that
boundary lines for legislative purposes be drawn with mathematical precision.
COMMENT: One comment stated that Harkers Hollow Golf Club seeks to be removed from the
Preservation Area.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council reiterates that it does not have the authority to exclude or include
specific properties in the Preservation Area. The Legislature defined the boundary of the Preservation Area
in Section 7 of the Highlands Act and only the Legislature may change that boundary through an amendment
to the Act.
COMMENT: A few comments questioned how the Highlands Act differs from the powers of zoning and
stated that the Highlands Act usurps local land use authority.
COMMENT: A few comments argued that the Highlands Act undermines the fundamental system of local
government.
RESPONSE: The authority to regulate land use is granted to the Legislature through Article III of the New
Jersey Constitution of 1947. Through Article IV, section VI, paragraph 2, the Legislature has delegated this
power to municipalities under the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. The Legislature may
amend or limit this delegation of authority or confer this authority on State administrative agencies where, for
example, protection of specific resources is of State-wide importance, as it has done with the Meadowlands
Commission, the Pinelands Commission and now the Highlands Council. Because of the critical nature of
the water in the Highlands Region, the Legislature through the Highlands Act, the Highlands Council is
empowered to adopt a regional master plan for the entire Highlands Region for which municipalities in the
Preservation Area must conform their local master plans and development regulations.
COMMENT: One comment contended that the Highlands Act is in conflict with itself because it seeks to
preserve some areas and continue development in already-developed areas at higher densities.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council states that the Highlands Act is not in conflict with itself where it seeks
to protect important water resources but at the same time allow some appropriate development opportunity
in a more land efficient manner.
COMMENT: One comment expressed the belief that the RMP does not fulfill the Highlands Act goal to
“provide every conceivable opportunity for appropriate economic growth and development to advance the
quality of life of the residents of the region and the entire State.”
RESPONSE: The RMP in a number of provisions identifies areas for and processes regarding appropriate
development and redevelopment. These discussions may be found at Chapter 3, Part 6, Subpart C; Chapter
4, Parts 6 and 7; and Chapter 5, Parts 6 and 7. This provision of the Act is subject to other goals providing
for protection of natural resources and water supply. add
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Act lacks any means to protect water quality and
quantity such as the cleanup of contaminated sites.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that there are numerous provisions of the Highlands Act
regarding the protection of water resources, such as in Section 34 regarding NJDEP’s Highlands Preservation
Area rules. With respect to cleanup of contaminated sites, Section 81 of the Highlands Act requires that the
remediation standards and remedial actions involving real property in the Highlands Region be consistent
with the Highlands Act, any rules and regulations adopted under the Highlands Act and the RMP. add
COMMENT: Several comments argued that the Highlands Act should never have been passed without
financial programs in place to compensate landowners.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the opinion expressed in the comments.
239
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
COMMENT: One comment noted that the Highlands Act charges the Council to develop a regional master
plan for both the Preservation and Planning Areas that has as one of its primary goals “to protect, restore and
enhance the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater in the Highlands” and this goal is the yardstick
by which all Highlands Council actions will be judged.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the opinion expressed in the comment.
COMMENT: One comment contended that sections 79-81 of the Highlands Act refer to site remediation
requirements that the RMP does not address.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that sections 77-81 do not authorize the Highlands Council to
adopt any site remediation standards for the Highlands Region. Such standards are adopted by NJDEP.
These sections do require that the remediation standards and remedial actions involving real property in the
Highlands Region be consistent with the Highlands Act, any rules and regulations adopted under the
Highlands Act and the RMP.
COMMENT: One comment argued that the Highlands Act restricts existing religious organizations from
growing.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that Exemption 6 in Section 30 of the Highlands Act (N.J.S.A.
13:20-28) allows “any improvement, for non-residential purposes, to a place of worship owned by a nonprofit entity, society or association, or association organized primarily for religious purposes . . . in existence
on the date of enactment of this act, including but not limited to new structures, an addition to an existing
building or structure, a site improvement, or a sanitary facility.” The Highlands Council is not authorized to
change the Highlands Act exemptions.
COMMENT: One comment stated that applying Protection Zone policies in the Planning Area effectively
extends the Preservation Area to the Planning Area in clear violation of the intent of the Highlands Act.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that, under the Highlands Act, the policies developed by the
Highlands Council relating to the Protection Zone become applicable only where a Planning Area
municipality chooses to conform to the RMP. The Protection Zone policies, though protective of
environmental resources, are significantly different from the Preservation Area requirements of the Highlands
Act.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the RMP must recognize the intent of the Highlands Act to truly
exempt agriculture from the strictest oversight and resulting limitations.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment and states that the RMP is consistent with
Section 31 of the Highlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:20-29). Agricultural development is not exempt from the Act,
but rather is managed by rules adopted by the NJ Department of Agriculture instead of the NJDEP. In
addition, the Highlands Council has adopted policies in the RMP to encourage sustainable agriculture in the
Region.
COMMENT: One comment recommended that the Highlands Council establish a decision-making process
whereby stakeholders identified in the Highlands Act are regularly consulted.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that all of its meetings and committee meetings are notified and
open to the public during which the public may provide comment on any of the actions to be taken by the
Highlands Council or one of its committees. In addition, the Highlands Council has formed technical
advisory committees which have been consulted at various times.
COMMENT: One comment noted that the actions of the Highlands Council should be guided by the
provision of the Highland Act that states “protecting the Highlands environment from individual and
cumulative impacts thereof, that the maintenance of agricultural production and positive agricultural business
240
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
should be encouraged to the maximum extent possible.”
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the opinion expressed in the comment.
COMMENT: One comment asked how the Highlands Council will preserve home rule for Planning Area
municipalities that do not conform to the RMP given that the Department of Environmental Protection has
stated it will consider the RMP when making permitting decisions.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that, although the Highlands Act states that the resource
assessment, transportation component and smart growth component of the RMP are to be used for advisory
purposes only in the Planning Area that does not mean that the Department may not consider its provisions
when rendering permit decisions. In fact, the Highlands Act mandates State agency coordination with respect
to a variety of matters. For example, with respect to the provision of affordable housing, the Highlands Act
states that the Council on Affordable Housing “shall take into consideration the regional master plan prior to
making any determination regarding the allocation of the prospective fair share of the housing need in any
municipality in the Highlands Region under the “Fair Housing Act,” P.L.1985, c.222 (C.52:27D-301 et al.) for
the fair share period subsequent to 1999.” Regarding water allocation permits, the Act requires that NJDEP
decisions under the Water Supply Management Act reflect the RMP. It should be noted that it is only the act
of conformance that is voluntary under the Highlands Act. Where a municipality chooses not to conform, it
is choosing not to amend its local master plan and development regulations. That does not mean that
provisions of the RMP may not be considered by State agencies in the process of implementing their
requirements under other State laws.
COMMENT: A few comments noted that the 2007 Draft RMP fails to follow the mandate of the Highlands
Act by recognizing the distinction between the Preservation Area and the Planning Area.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the notion of “voluntary” in the Planning Area does not mean that
the standards for the Planning Area should be weaker where the objectives in the Highlands Act for the
Preservation Area and Planning Area are the same.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that in preparing the RMP, the Highlands Council is guided by
the goals set forth in Section 10 of the Highlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:20-10). Specifically, Section 10.a states that
the goal of the RMP with respect to the entire Highlands Region shall be to protect and enhance the
significant values of the resources in the Region. The distinction between the Preservation Area and the
Planning Area is enshrined with respect to application of the Department of Environmental Protection
Highlands rules at N.J.A.C. 7:38. These rules are only applicable to the Preservation Area as set forth in
paragraph c of Section 33 of the Highlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:20-31).
COMMENT: One comment requested that the Highlands Council revisit the Preservation Area rules with
respect to camps run by charitable organizations.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council acknowledges the comment but notes that the rules affecting the
development or improvements to such uses are promulgated by the NJDEP and not the Highlands Council.
COMMENT: One comment stated that the Highlands Act takes away the rightful expectations of
landowners to have sewer connections and interferes with the contractual relationship between landowners
and their municipalities.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the Highlands Act permits the extension of sewers into the
Preservation Area under Section 41 only where there is a demonstrated need to protect public health and
safety or to serve development that is exempt from the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment contended that nothing in the Highlands Act establishes assistance for the
areas of the Highlands that must protect the water for the State.
RESPONSE: Section 19 of the Highlands Act (N.J.S.A. 54:1-85) establishes a Highlands Municipal Property
Tax Stabilization Board with the authority to compensate a qualified municipality for a decline in the
241
Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan – November 2007 Comment and Response Document
aggregate true value of vacant land directly attributable to the implementation of the Highlands Act.
COMMENT: One comment asked what the justification is for allowing public utility companies to be
granted an exemption that allows them to degrade the surface of the land with no regard to the damage
caused to the region as a whole.
RESPONSE: The Highlands Council notes that the exemption is provided for by the Highlands Act and
therefore any change in this provision requires legislative amendment.
242