Court
approves of town centers
OKs designations for development, but
stresses environmental rules
Saturday, March 04, 2006
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff
A state appeals court yesterday upheld
the State Planning Commission's
designation of five development-friendly
"centers" in rural Sussex County but
made clear they serve only as "flexible
guidelines" that do not trump other
environmental regulations.
The ruling was hailed as a victory by
both the Attorney General's Office, which
defended the designations, and the Sierra
Club, which had challenged them.
Susan Kraham,
who argued the Sierra Club's case, said the ruling sends "a clear
signal" that designation as a town
center is not a "shortcut" that clears the
way for development even if it means
"environmental degradation."
"People should have the same protections
whether they live in rural, suburban or
urban areas," said Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club's
chapter. He called the ruling "a
victory for environmental justice."
Peter Aseltine,
a spokesman for Attorney General Zulima Farber, said
the office
is "pleased
the court upheld the decisions of the planning commission and
recognized the expertise of the
commission in matters involving the State Plan."
The three-judge appeals court rejected
the Sierra Club's arguments that the
State Planning Commission violated the
Open Meetings Act, conflict of interest
rules and its own regulations in
designating the centers. They are the
and Hainesville
village centers in Sandyston, and the Montague,
But the court also ruled such
designations -- like the State Plan itself --
serve merely as a "policy
guide."
"Designation of a center under the State
Plan does not mean that development can
or will occur without regard to state and
local land use, environmental
considerations, and other planning
needs," the court wrote. "Any development
that does occur in Sandyston, Montague,
meet all
terms and conditions for approval, including those generated by other
agencies with a legitimate subject
matter interest."
Kraham said
that "sends a strong signal" that designation as a town center may
not be used as "a surrogate for
environmental considerations in permitting
decisions."
"It's not enough to go to your local
planning board and say: 'I'm in a
designated center; I should be
approved,'" Kraham said.
But she said it was "unfortunate" the
court rejected the Sierra Club's argument
that none of the five centers should have
been designated because they are in
"environmentally sensitive
areas."
In its ruling, the court acknowledged the
rural character of the proposed
centers. It noted, for example, that
two-thirds of
either the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area or
"Although it is sensible to argue that
there should not be any development in
such close proximity to environmentally
protected national and state forests and
parks, the State Plan's policy goal of
encouraging tourism and promoting the
recreational use of such lands suggests
otherwise," the court wrote.
It added, "To invalidate action taken by
the agency charged by statute with the
creation, development and interpretation
of the State Plan would constitute
impermissible judicial intervention in
this highly complex and technical area."
Eileen Swan, executive director of the
state Office of Smart Growth, called the
ruling "truly a victory for the State
Plan." She said, "This reinforces the
State Planning Act's mandate to create a
vision for the future of our state."
The unsigned ruling was issued by
Appellate Division Judges Howard Kestin,
Jose
Fuentes and Naomi
Eichen.
Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He may be reached
at
rschwaneberg@starledger.com or
(609) 989-0324.
© 2006 The Star
Ledger