Mansfield Township officials hold third meeting to discuss a state plan that designates where development should go in the township.
By: William Wichert
MANSFIELD Township officials will meet for a third and possibly final time on Monday to discuss a state plan that designates where development should go in the township.
As part of a process known as "cross acceptance," members of the Township Committee and the Township Planning Board already held two joint meetings last month to prepare a response to the plan that is sent to the township every six years by the State Planning Commission.
After coming to the consensus at previous meetings that the township should respond favorably to the state plan, officials are expected to draft a preliminary response on Monday in the form of a letter to Burlington County officials that lists their own recommendations and concerns.
"I think the time for discussion is essentially over on Monday," said Township Planner Harry McVey, who said the county expects a response by the end of the year.
The discussions at the last two meetings have covered the similarities between the state plan and the township’s own plan as well as the harmful consequences of not receiving certification from the State Planning Commission.
Both plans isolate residential and commercial development in the northern section of Hedding along Route 130; the southwestern part of the township near Petticoat Bridge Road and Columbus Road; and western part between the New Jersey Turnpike and Route I-295.
But if Mansfield is not deemed to be in compliance with the state plan, the township could be at risk of not receiving funding from different state agencies as well as not getting permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection, officials said previously.
The township’s compliance could also affect its status with the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), which mandates each municipality’s required amount of affordable housing, officials have said.
While those topics have been discussed, Mr. McVey said he planned to address the question on Monday about which environmental concerns should be included in the township’s official response.
"It’s the same as anything else. If you throw too much at them, it gets confusing," he said. "To show everything that might have a habitat or (sensitive environmental feature), it loses its impact."
Mr. McVey said most areas in the township have some sort of environmental concern attached to them, including the eagle habitat in Hedding, but there are no concerns that would place additional regulations or restrictions against development in the township. The normal course of business would also require any developer to receive the appropriate DEP permits before anything is built, he said.
In addition to the environmental concerns, township officials are also expected to include a "wish list of capital improvements" in their response to the state plan, Mr. McVey said. This list would show issues that the township wants to address in the future, including new intersections, stormwater regulations, a new firehouse and a wastewater management system, he said.
"There’s no guarantees, but if you don’t put anything in there, you lose the opportunity to speak your mind," said Mr. McVey, who said the township still needs a DEP-approved wastewater management plan to go forward with its current plan. "Without the wastewater management plan, the township’s not going anywhere with any of its plan."