New regulations for coastal development fail to take the lessons of superstorm Sandy into account, advocates said during a recent state forum.
Members of environmental groups weighed in on a state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) proposal that would consolidate the Coastal Management rules and the Coastal Permit programs, aligning them with DEP permitting processes for flood hazard areas and freshwater wetlands.
The public hearing was held June 25 in Long Branch.
“This is the first rule after Sandy, and we believe the department shows that they haven’t learned any lessons from the storm,” said Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society.
“This was really an opportunity to address those policies that contributed to the destruction from the storm and to set the path to increasing our resiliency.”
Raymond Cantor, DEP chief advisor, said in an interview following the hearing that the rules would benefit small-scale development and property owners hoping to rebuild after the storm on Oct. 29, 2012.
“These rules are intended to simplify the regulatory process, to streamline our existing manner of giving permits, and to enhance marina development on our coast and make it easier for certain single-family homeowners to get their permits,” he said.
“We will go to a process where it may take someone a month or two to get a permit when these rules are adopted, [whereas] currently it may take someone a year or more.”
According to the DEP, the revised regulations are intended to eliminate paperwork and the permitting process for minor projects undertaken by homeowners and marinas.
Plans to build or rebuild private residences would be eligible for a preapproved general permit, and marina owners would be allowed to expand without going through a lengthy permitting process. Cantor said the changes would expedite the process of obtaining permits for rebuilding by individual property owners, who may not be accustomed to dealing with state agencies.
“If a homeowner has to come in and apply for an individual permit, they are going to be overwhelmed by the cost, by the bureaucracy, by the red tape that’s involved,” he said. “By giving these homeowners a general permit, they can go online, fill out the application and have the permit almost instantaneously.”
The rule changes would encourage more property owners to rebuild, resulting in more resilient coastal communities, according to the DEP’s proposal summary.
“The proposal reflects the department’s knowledge and experience concerning coastal development issues accumulated over decades, as well as specific lessons learned from the impact of — and rebuilding from — superstorm Sandy and other weather events,” Cantor said.
However, Dillingham said the proposals would lead to greater development along the beachfront, which would ultimately weaken protection for coastal communities.
“There is really change to the intensity of growth. In fact, the expansion of some of the general permits and policies will expand the allowable development, putting more development at risk,” he said.
“There are no changes to the policies to enhance the natural parts of the Shore’s natural coastal systems that would provide us with extra resiliency and protection from a storm.”
Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club’s New Jersey chapter, also said the state missed an opportunity to strengthen coastal protections with the new set of rules.
“What is even more concerning is there is nothing in these rules to help towns do better planning,” he said. “This is not about people rebuilding. … Vacant lands that are in those areas are now going to get much more intense development.
“This is not to help people get back in their homes. This is to help developers take over more of New Jersey.”
Cassandra Ornell, staff scientist for Clean Ocean Action, said during the public hearing that the rules fall short of the goal of strengthening the Shore.
“We are most concerned that the proposed streamlined rules do not capitalize on an opportunity,” she said.
Tittel said one example of how the rules weaken coastal protections is by allowing marinas to build on-site restaurants.
“We see more loopholes, less transparency, less governmental oversight, and more sprawl and more overdevelopment,” he said.
“They sound like they do something, but they do the opposite. They do not help protect our coast; they open it up for more intense development at a time when we have areas with people who are suffering.”
Tittel said the rules fall short in addressing climate change and sea level rise.
“We are deeply troubled by these rules — the fact that these rules do not even mention climate change or have proposals in here to deal with climate change or sealevel rise,” he said.
He said allowing more development in coastal areas would have a negative impact on the environment.
“They will mean more pollution of our bays, more loss of fisheries, more flooding — and it is going to hurt our $29 million tourism industry,” Tittel said. “We think that these rules should go back to the drawing board.”
Cantor said the rules were never intended to address resiliency issues, but instead were designed to make it easier for homeowners to rebuild.
“These rules were not meant to address everything. Some of those were addressed in the past, some will be addressed in the future,” he said. “These were meant to streamline existing regulations and make it easier for certain applicants to get their permits.”
Dillingham was also critical of the length of the rules and the timing of their release.
“This is extremely lengthy — it is over 1,000 pages long. And to introduce this rule in the beginning of the summer time undermines the public’s ability to really understand the consequences and the administrative aspects,” he said.
“There is a tremendous amount of potential impact to the Shore and the safety of our communities that really demands that the public have a very engaged conversation.”
Stakeholders can submit comments through Aug. 1 at www.nj.gov/dep/rules/comments.
The proposed rules are contained in a 1,055-page document available at www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/20140602a.pdf.