Zoning and Master Planning

The following is a reprint of a Record Editorial from June 6, 1997:

Watershed Battles

Ringwood's slippery slope of development....

The latest rumblings of development in Ringwood serve as stark reminders that protecting northern New Jersey's watershed from bulldozers and blacktop is a never-ending struggle.

In recent years, this sprawling borough in the Highlands - which help provide the drinking water for nearly 2 million North Jerseyans - has been home to an intense struggle between residents who want Ringwood to remain semi-rural and those who want to build a lot more houses. Three years ago, residents who sought to curb development thought they had won the day when they soundly defeated a regional sewerage plan that would have paved the way for massive new construction.

Last December [1996], however, the Borough Council approved a zoning change that will allow significantly more development in a community that's home to the Wanaque and Monksville Reservoirs, as well as New Jersey's portion of Sterling Forest. The new code allows homes to be built near the reservoirs on steep slopes and allows even steeper slopes to be regraded to create building lots.

Developers are now beginning to capitalize on the zoning change. One builder, for example, is seeking to build 37 homes on a 67-acre parcel near Skyline Drive. Only a few years ago, town planners had said that the land could support only 18 new homes because of the demands of the septic systems. The land hasn't changed, only the zoning has.

Mayor Theodore Taukus says he has seen no indication that the new rules will lead to massive construction. "Until somebody can come in and prove that there's going to be hundreds and hundreds of new homes,... the only thing we can hang our hat on are those developments that are in the works," he says adding that so far "there aren't enough to worry about."

But immediate development is not the biggest concern. Critics say that the rezoning could allow more than 2,000 acres of mountainous terrain to eventually be carved into dozens of new developments.

Former Planning Board member Jeff Tittel fears that unless local planners come to their senses, the rezoning could someday lead to 1,000 more homes, an additional 2,200 kids in the local schools, 3,000 more cars clogging the borough's two-lane arteries, and a lot of pollution seeping into the watershed.

"What happens to these lands could have a bigger impact on the reservoirs than the development of Sterling Forest," he says, "because these lands are closer to the reservoirs and are more environmentally sensitive."

The rezoning runs counter to the State's policies on protecting watersheds. Both the State Development Plan and the Department of Environmental Protection's new program for safeguarding water supplies stress the need to steer development away from watershed land.

In fact, Governor Whitman wrote the introduction for a new national study that stresses land conservation as one of the most economical and effective ways to protect our drinking water. The report, released last month by the Trust for Public Land, pointed out that New York City is spending $1.5 billion to protect its Catskills watershed, which will save $8 billion in filtration-plant construction and $300 million a year in operating costs.

According to Mrs. Whitman, "Land use planning is an absolute necessity in watershed management. Too often, land use, water quality, and water supply policies and programs are narrowly fucused or conflicting, frequently impeding broader solutions that can lead to an overall environmental benefit."

She's absolutely correct. Horrendous zoning decisions in Ringwood and elsewhere in the Highlands watershed affect not only the quality of life in those communities, but the cost and quality of the water that comes out of our spigots.

The Whitman administration deserves credit for its efforts to save the Sterling Forest watershed, and for its Green Acres purchases of tens of thousands of acres in the Highlands - the state protected 9,149 acres last year alone. But land acquisitions alone won't protect our drinking water. When necessary, the State must play a stronger role in managing development in this sensitive region.

The following is a reprint of a Record Editorial from August 24, 1999:

Ringwood's slippery slope

Council should be cautious on zoning changes

THE GREAT debate in Ringwood these days is over a proposed revision in zoning laws. As is typical in zoning debates, the lines are being drawn between those who favor development and those who advocate land conservation. But the issues resonate even louder in the northern Passaic County community because the land in question is the mountainous terrain that rims the Wanaque Reservoir.

Considering the increased concern over the quality of this region's drinking water and the growing emphasis that the state is placing on protecting our watersheds and reducing the pollution from run-off,  you might think the borough planners would take an ultra-cautious approach to permitting new construction -- and new septic tanks -- near a reservoir that helps provide the drinking water for 2 million North Jerseyans. And you might think the town planners would want to follow the guidance of the state Department of Environmental Protection, whose job it is to safeguard our water supplies. You might think that, but you'd be wrong.

Tomorrow night, the council is holding a public meeting to discuss proposed revisions in the 1996 zoning code -- including adjusting the size of building lots and allowing development on slopes as steep as 25 percent. By way of comparison, the road up Mount Washington -- the tallest peak in the Northeast -- averages 12 percent. This is nuts.
Building on steep slopes is a recipe for flooding, pollution runoff, and severe soil erosion that would affect regional drinking supplies and local trout streams.

The revised lot sizes seem to be more guesswork than science. For example, one revision would allow two-acre lots in a section west of the reservoir, even though it's questionable whether these limits would be large enough to protect local wells, streams, and the reservoir from pollutants seeping from the septic systems. To be on the safe side, the borough's 1992 master plan called for five-acre zoning in this section.

The DEP has some well-considered standards for zoning near water supplies. Rather than determine the size of building lots by acreage alone, the state advises that new zoning be based on how much nitrate can leach from a home's septic system and fertilized lawn into wells and streams. The DEP itself uses this method to review large-scale development plans.

Nitrate is regulated because of its adverse health effects. Too high a level, for example, can reduce the amount of oxygen in the blood of infants, causing "blue baby syndrome."

According to the DEP, nitrate in water emanating from a septic field is four times higher than the health safety standard. Thus, one would think it would be common sense to base zoning requirements on how much nitrate would leach from the property.

Similarly, state planners define a 15 percent grade as a steep slope, yet Ringwood is considering allowing development on grades much higher. Such a revision would encourage development in exactly the types of areas where development should be curtailed.

The council could vote on the zoning changes right after tomorrow night's hearing is over. What's the rush? When dealing with land as environmentally sensitive as steep slopes, the last thing the Borough Council should do is act precipitously.

CLEAN files legal challenge to R40-V ordinance

It is the contention of Skylands CLEAN that Ordinance 1996-18, adopted in December 1996, served to benefit local development interests.  It allowed for significantly increased densities in areas served by septic systems, allowed for steeper slopes to be regraded, and eliminated several other important environmental protections.  As such, it was contrary not only to the Master Plan, the Ordinance's stated purposes, and to State watershed policy, but also to the clear sentiment of Ringwood residents as expressed in the 1994 referendum which went 3 1/2 to 1 against extending sewers.

It is the contention of Skylands CLEAN that the stated purposes of Ordinances 1999-22 and 1999-23, adopted in August 1999, are not served, but rather are disserved, by the new ordinances.  The permitted lot sizes appear to be inadequate to achieve the stated objectives of Ringwood's Master Plan, specifically protection of groundwater recharge areas and the quality of all subsurface water in Ringwood.  The Ordinance ignores the widely recognized and accepted practice of using nitrate dilution models as an important factor in determining minimum lot sizes.  Steep slope protection is inadequate, and ridgeline protection standards are absent.  Vague wording is included for the granting of "waivers" to allow for regrading of steep slopes.

It is the further contention of Skylands CLEAN that there was a failure on the part of the Borough to provide adequate public notice as required under the State's Municipal Land Use Law.

After the 1996 revisions were made, Skylands CLEAN staff and consultants analyzed the revised ordinance, and its actual impact (such as the approximate doubling of density for several subdivisions).  We publicized what we determined were serious problems with the revised ordinance.  The Planning Board and Borough Council revisited the ordinance this year.  Skylands CLEAN staff, our consultant, and individual residents gave considerable input on ways to devise a modern, effective planning tool.  Despite this opportunity, the Council chose to adopt ordinances that are a blueprint for maximizing development rather than a zoning strategy for protecting the Borough's fragile landscape and natural resources.

Thus Skylands CLEAN felt it had no alternative, in its mission to serve the public interest, but to go to court to challenge the Council's action.

Sadly, on November 6, 2000, Judge Frank Donato ruled in favor of the Borough of Ringwood in the land use lawsuit brought against the Borough by Skylands CLEAN. For more details about the ruling, click HERE.

1999 Revision of R40-V Ordinance

In August 1999, the Ringwood Borough Council presented and enacted the final draft for a revised R40-V residential zoning ordinance.  Based on our staff analysis, and in conjunction with our planning consultant (see our
consultant's letter to the Council, below), we strongly felt that the ordinance needed a complete overhaul in order to serve its stated purpose as well as that stated in the Borough's Master Plan, and to be in accordance with the State Plan.

The previous version of this ordinance had been adopted in 1996 by the Ringwood Borough Council as a favor to a local developer, as it effectively doubled the number of building lots, ignoring significant environmental consequences (see 1996 Zone Changes, below, for more details).

Now, disregarding an opportunity to develop a modern planning tool, the Council has merely replaced the 1996 ordinance with a confusing, unpredictable version.  There is little consolation in the fact that the
councilmen were themselves unenthusiastic about the ordinance, and agree it needs rewriting.  Our planning consultant has concluded that the 1999 version "appears to be more of a blueprint for maximizing development than a zoning strategy for protecting the Borough's fragile landscape and natural resources."

Despite requesting and receiving input from Skylands CLEAN, from a respected former planning board member, and from the general public, the Council chose to omit very important provisions and related ordinances which would have protected groundwater, steep slopes and ridgelines, and helped control runoff.

In general, CLEAN recommends the following for good land use planning and regulation:

In the near future, Ringwood also needs to add new elements to the zoning regulations, some of which are already in use by other municipalities.  Elements to study for future adoption include: It is our sincere belief that the Borough urgently needs to enact modern and effective zoning regulations.  The natural environment here, the natural resources such as water that we all depend on, and the quality of life which residents deserve and cherish in Ringwood, all demand such action.  We urge the Council to enact available features now and to comprehensively revisit the entire R40-V zoning regulation for further improvements.

TOP OF PAGE

The following is our planning consultant's letter to the Council:

MEMORANDUM
To: Ringwood Borough Council
From: Francis J. Banisch, III, PP/AICP
          David J. Banisch

Date: June 23, 1999

Subject: Ringwood Borough Proposed Ordinance Amendments - R4OV Zone

We are providing the following comments regarding the proposed R4OV Ordinance amendments as revised through 4/12/99.

The entire Borough of Ringwood has received a USEPA "Critical Area" designation as a sole source aquifer recharge area of the Wanaque Reservoir. In addition, the Borough has been assigned two Planning Area designations under the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The designations include a Park and Recreation category which coincides with state lands, forest and parks and the Wanaque watershed area and Planning Area 5 (PA5), Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area, which coincides with the remainder of the Borough's land area.

The 1991 Master Plan included the following objectives among the major areas of concern in Ringwood Borough.

1. To encourage a desirable visual environment by protecting ridgelines, natural vistas and natural areas and other natural amenities.
2. To recognize and protect environmentally sensitive lands, streams and lakes.
9. To protect areas of groundwater recharge as well as the quality of all subsurface water in Ringwood in recognition of the Borough's designation as a sole source aquifer community.
10. To recognize and protect the watershed lands and the drainage basin of the reservoir lands in the Borough as an important regional source of potable water.
20. To promote and encourage the cross acceptance process in support of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, particularly with reference to areas designated as Planning Area 5 (Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area) for the Borough of Ringwood.

Each of these objectives indicates an enhanced awareness and desire to effectively protect Ringwood's fragile environmental resources including ridges, slopes, ground and surface waters, and the natural (i.e. undisturbed) environment. One of the most appropriate vehicles for achieving these objectives is the zoning ordinance through the use of effective controls regulating the Borough's land development.
The Municipal Land Use Law requires a Periodic Reexamination of the municipal Master
Plan, at least every six years. The 1998 Master Plan Reexamination Report identifies the
following under the heading "B. THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH PROBLEMS AND
OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN REDUCED OR HAVE INCREASED":

Environmental Resources

Parks and Recreation
Under the heading "C. THE DEGREE TO WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE ASSUMPTIONS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
FORMING THE BASIS FOR THE MASTER PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AS LAST REVISED," the Reexamination Report indicates the
following:

State Development And Redevelopment Plan
"in the 1992 State Plan, the Borough has beed assigned two Planning Areas, namely a park and Recreation category... and Planning Area 5 (PA5), Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area... The State Plan recommends that growth in PA5 areas be guided into well-planned centers with appropriately scaled facilities and services.
Critical Areas Ordinances
The Reexamination Report indicated that the Board sought to revise the R-40V zoning regulations (Ordinance No.1996-18) "to steer development and road construction away from steep slopes, and to assure that each lot had an appropriate area for development, and to minimize disturbance of and intrusion into environmentally sensitive lands."
 

Under the heading "D. SPECIFIC CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR THE MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS," the Planning Board has reiterated and further refined and clarified the Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan noted above in the 1998 Master Plan Reexamination Report:

Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan

1. To encourage a desirable visual environment by protecting ridgelines, natural vistas and natural areas and other natural amenities

2. To recognize and protect environmentally sensitive lands, streams and lakes.

8. To protect areas of groundwater recharge as well as the quality of all subsurface water in Ringwood in recognition of the Borough's designation as a sole source aquifer community.

9. To recognize and protect the watershed lands and the drainage basin of the reservoir lands in the Borough as an important regional source of potable water.

18. To encourage participation in the cross-acceptance process to better voice local concerns and to advance the goals of the Ringwood Master Plan.

In view of the foregoing, the proposed amendments to the R4OV Zoning Standards should be reconsidered for the following reasons. (emphasis added)

1. The 80,000 sq. ft. lot size for the non-water supply portion of the R-40V zoning district appears to be inadequate to achieve the stated objectives of the Master Plan, specifically protection of groundwater recharge areas and the quality of all subsurface water in Ringwood. In recognition of the Borough's designation as a sole source aquifer community, the Borough should calculate the appropriate minimum lot size utilizing the nitrate dilution model, taking in to account all potential sources of groundwater pollution that can result from residential development including septic systems and lawn and garden fertilizers and pesticides.

2. The proposed R-40V ordinance amendment establishes a two-tiered approach for residential development; Minimum lot sizes should be increased in both the R4OV and R8OV zoning districts to reduce the potential impact of development and associated clearing and grading on ground and surface water quality. Lot sizes should be determined after evaluating nitrate dilution impacts for single-family dwellings (for both on-site septic systems and units served by public wastewater collection system). Appropriate minimum lot sizes should be determined by seeking to maintain acceptable levels of nitrogen loading in ground and surface waters.

3. Nitrate/nitrogen loading should also be calculated for the use of common fertilizers and lawn maintenance services when determining overall impacts of groundwater degradation associated with permitted development.

4. The proposed R4OV ordinance amendment includes an Area For Development (AFD) calculation that stipulates that the "AFD rectangle shall not contain any slopes in excess of 25% as measured between any two corners based on the natural grade at each of two corners." This approach to slope protection relies upon the assumption that steep slopes (worthy of protection) are defined as those slopes 25% or greater. To better achieve the natural resource protection objectives of the Master Plan, The Board should evaluate the impacts of slope regrading, such as soil erosion and stormwater runoff impacts on surface water courses. Steep slope protection should be regulated so as to minimize such impacts resulting from slope disturbance and steep slopes should be defined and protected accordingly.
 The State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) delineation criteria for Planning Area 5 includes significant natural features such as critical slope areas." Critical Slope Areas are defined in the Plan an "area predominantly characterized by either an average change in elevation greater than 15 percent of the corresponding horizontal distance through the slope (15 percent slope), or by avery high erosion hazard as indicated by an erodibility factor "k" computed by the USDA Soil Conservation Service for soils of 0.40 or greater." The Borough's ordinance definition of steep slopes should be revised to be consistent with this delineation criteria, and lot size calculations and limits of disturbance should be reevaluated in the context of "critical slope areas" as defined in the SDRP.

5. Section 3 permits regrading of slopes in excess of 25% subject to the waiver provisions in Chapter 23, Land Subdivision. The proposed ordinance appropriately will not allow the regrading of slopes to modify the determination of an eligible AFD. Waivers to permit slope regrading should only be granted when the applicant demonstrates that the proposed regrading plan will result in the least possible slope disturbance within the limits of the Maximum Disturbed Land Area permitted in Section4 of the proposed ordinance.

In addition, the ordinance does not identify what tests the Board will utilize to determine under what conditions slope regrading waivers will be granted. The Borough should identify standards that must be achieved and appropriate procedures to guide the process of granting waivers for slope regrading. For example, slope regrading waivers should not be granted to permit steep slope disturbance of areas that could be otherwise avoided if the applicant utilized the identified AFD for the parcel to be developed. However, exceptions to this could include allowing regrading of sloped areas to protect ridgelines from development.

6. The revised Maximum Disturbed Land Area provisions of Section 4 should not be adopted as provided. The graduated standards provided in the Planning Board's March 19, 1999 draft of the R-40V ordinance are a better approach to achieving the Borough's Master Plan objectives of protecting environmentally sensitive lands.

7. The proposed ordinance does not include any ridgeline protection standards. The Borough should seek to minimize development along ridgelines and prohibit any disturbance of vegetation along ridgelines so as to encourage a desirable visual environment and to protect these important and fragile environmental attributes.

8. The proposed ordinance does not appear to identify a minimum lot size for lots that are not served by public water. Where is the minimum lot size for areas lacking public infrastructure defined in the proposed ordinance?

9. The draft resolution concerning amendments to the R-40V states that "it is concluded that the proposed R-80V Zone advances an appropriate policy of eliminating higher density..." However, the density advanced in the proposed R-40V ordinance amendment does not appear to be appropriate to achieve national, State aud local natural resource and environmental protection objectives.

10. The proposed RAOV ordinance appears to be more of a blueprint for maximizing development than zoning strategy for protecting ihe Borough’s fragile landscape and natural resources. The Borough's landscape is worthy of a far more effective approach to protecting these natural resources such as guiding growth into identified centers with an appropriate environs strategy. The proposed zoning falls short of effectively implementing these clearly stated Master Plan objectives.

TOP OF PAGE

1996 Zone Changes Still Pose Threat to Ringwood's Essential Character

The Mayor and Council have portrayed their December, 1996 revisions to Ringwood's primary residential zone as something it clearly is not. These revisions are no simple "improvement" or "clarification" of the existing zone. Rather, the truth is that the zone was substantially altered, drastically weakening or eliminating key protections for steep slopes, streams, and virtually doubling the number of building lots previously allowed.

What does this mean for residents? Over the long term, these zone changes by Ringwood's politicians will result in higher taxes and lower property values. In addition, with increased traffic and pollution, residents will experience a greatly reduced quality of life.

Despite the Mayor and Council's reassurances throughout 1997 that their changes to the R40-V residential zone would have "little impact", we have already begun to see the effect. Densities in the R40-V zone are up. For example, in February 1997, the Borough Engineer reported on the Fountain Spring Estates application, stating "the developer has filed a new application for what is actually a resubdivision in order to take advantage of the recently enacted revisions to the R40-V ordinance." The engineer also mentioned "the very generous lot yield of the revised R40-V ordinance when compared to the previous R40-V ordinance..." (emphasis added). Indeed the Fountain Spring Estates developer had sought 13 lots in 1996 under the old R40-V, then reapplied in February 1997 for 24 lots (he actually could have gotten 26) after the Council changed the R40-V zone.

Clearly the high densities rejected by residents in the 1994 sewer referendum are now being allowed thanks to the revisions to the R40-V.

With over 2,000 acres in this residential zone (known as "R40-V"), the Council's changes provide for at least 1,000  new building lots in Ringwood's various neighborhoods.   Adding many new households will mean increasing demand for municipal services, such as schools, garbage, police, etc. Studies have consistently shown that for every dollar collected in residential "ratables" (taxes), anywhere from $1.12 to $2.05 has to be spent on municipal services (e.g. it will cost an average of $8,840 per year to educate one additional child (the cost is greater for high school students), and that does not include new school construction if the population increases significantly).  Thus, new residential development means a net tax loss.

As if to make sure no one was present to see these zone changes for what they are, the changes were enacted by the 1996 Mayor and Council without any meaningful public discussion or proper notification. Indeed, any mention of zone changes was absent from the distributed "Proposed Agenda" - added at the last minute to an "Amended Agenda" handed out the same evening. And we can only conclude that these changes to the R40-V zone were meant to circumvent public opinion on sewers (see article "Back Door to Sewers" below), and to provide a holiday gift, at taxpayer expense, to the same handful of special interests who promote quarrying, sewers, heavy industry, high density housing and cellular towers as "good" for Ringwood.

Because of the real threat that these zone changes pose to Ringwood's neighborhoods and taxes, and because of the questionable procedures employed by the politicians to adopt them, Skylands CLEAN is analyzing options to challenge the changes. We are confident that the taxpayers will see through the zone changes and will recognize that the changes leave Ringwood's essential character dangerously exposed. Perhaps this explains why the changes were made without public involvement.
 

Back Door to Sewers

Dramatically compounding the threat that the R40V zone changes pose to Ringwood's taxes and essential character is how the 1996 changes will affect the issue of sewers in town. The type and scale of development which these zone changes now permit are exactly what Borough professionals have testified would only be possible with sewers. By now allowing (indeed, encouraging) double the intensity of residential development, the stage is being set for an expensive regional sewer system to be forced upon many --and paid for by all. The Mayor & Council could not have been ignorant in December 1996, of the consequences of their actions. Given Ringwood's environmental sensitivity, a large increase in housing units will threaten the integrity of the aquifer which we all rely on for pure drinking water.

Despite the overwhelming public rejection of sewers (by a 3.5 to 1 margin) in 1994, the Mayor & Council have maintained Ringwood's membership in the Regional Sewerage Authority, and at least one of Ringwood's representatives has been outspokenly and actively pro-sewer. The Borough has kept Ringwood on a State sewer priority list, to the tune of more than $12 million, and have rejected outright proposals to help residents maintain their septic systems. Then, the 1996 zone changes.

As if to add insult to injury, this scene is unfolding just as taxpayers are close to being freed of the burden of bond debt from the last sewer scheme fiasco (all of Ringwood's taxpayers are paying off millions of dollars in sewer bonds for which they got nothing!). A mandated regional sewer system will result in a new round of sewer bond indebtedness and will induce more high-density development. The special interests who have been trying for decades to bring sewers into Ringwood for high-density housing will benefit, and once again, taxpayers will foot the bill.

NEW CONSTRUCTION UNDER REVISED ZONING MARS HILLSIDE NORTH OF SKYLINE DRIVE IN RINGWOOD

TOP OF PAGE
email us at clean@skyclean.org