Monopoles - Soon To Be An "Endangered Species"?

Interesting article on the front page of the Star Ledger yesterday that municipal officials, engineers, planners and attorneys should take note of (and that wireless providers are already inquiring about).  It seems that Bell Labs in the Murray Hill section of New Providence, New Jersey has developed a hand-held cube containing multiple 2 inch sized circuit boards that one day could supplement or replace the monopoles that are now critical for connectivity of wireless service. . . .

They tower over the landscape, sometimes disguised in a way that does not fool anyone.

Big trees that look so fake, they are derided as “Frankenpines.” Flagpoles that soar higher than any flag would warrant. Or unadorned towers that offer absolutely no pretense as to their purpose.

But a day could soon come when those sky-high, unsightly cell phone towers that litter the countryside may be replaced with something no bigger than a Rubik’s cube.

Called the lightRadio cube, the new device developed by Bell Labs in Murray Hill is generating major buzz by cell phone carriers around the world.

“The lightRadio could radically transform the model for wireless networks and could actually change the way the wireless industry operates,” predicted Dan Hays, a telecommunications consultant with PRTM in Washington, D.C.

Cell phone antennas now must be large and high because they rely on sending signals down and outward like an umbrella. But officials at Alcatel-Lucent, where Bell Labs is located, said the lightCube directs cell phone signals more directly using far less power, while handling as much as 30 percent more capacity than current cell phone towers.

For the full article, click here: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/monmouth_county_inventor_says.html

The full text of the bill is below:

     1.    Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, those development regulations which are in effect on the date of submission of an application for development shall govern the review of that application for development and any decision made with regard to that application for development.  Any provisions of an ordinance, except those relating to health and public safety, that are adopted subsequent to the date of submission of an application for development, shall not be applicable to that application for development.

     2.    This act shall take effect one year next following enactment.

 STATEMENT

 This bill requires that those development regulations which are in effect on the date of submission of an application for development shall govern the review of that application for development and any decision made with regard to that application for development.  Any provisions of an ordinance, except those relating to health and public safety, that are adopted subsequent to the date of submission of an application for development, shall not be applicable to that application for development.

The League is encouraging municipal bodies to oppose this legislation and has prepared a model resolution for governing bodies to consider.  The League has also encouraged local elected officials to contact the members of the Senate Committee.

For the Assembly version of the bill (A-437), click here.

According to the Star Ledger:

The justices said a Jackson Township ordinance was valid not only because it would “ameliorate the evils of tree-cutting” but also because it would “serve general environmental goals.”

. . . .

While towns cannot force residents to plant trees on their own property, the court found they should have control over an increase in foliage.

“Because the township obviously cannot mandate that trees be replanted on other private property, its attempt to mitigate the effects of tree loss on private property by promoting replanting, wherever it can, is rational,” said the court’s decision.

For the Star Ledger article, click here.

In Shri Sai Voorhees, L.L.C. v. Township of Voorhees, (N.J. Law Div. – Decided January 9, 2009)(Approved for Publication April 21, 2009), the trial court ruled that an application to erect a principal structure exactly 10 percent higher than the zoned height limit requires a “D” variance. As a result, the applicant’s approvals before the planning board were vacated for lack of jurisdiction as the proper board to seek relief from was the zoning board of adjustment.

The full opinion is linked above.

Attendance is down at the New Jersey Builders Association’s annual trade show in Atlantic City.

AP Spokeswoman Amy Whilldin said the 2009 convention, which began today, has drawn about 10,000 attendees and 600 exhibitors. The event normally sees 15,000 attendees and 900 exhibitors.

Housing officials attribute the light turnout to the impact of the recession and falling home values. Companies are cutting costs and consolidating.

Past association president Stephen Hovnanian said there are a lot of missing faces at the annual gathering, which may be the last for some attendees.

For a link to the article on www.nj.com, click here.

For a link to the Builders Association’s home page, click here.

According to the Ledger:

That leaves the state’s vast amount of age-restricted housing in limbo. [Real estate research firm President Jeffrey] Otteau estimates there is enough age-restricted housing built and in the pipeline to meet demand for the next 15 to 20 years. Developers, planners, and townships are taking a hard look at age-restricted developments on their books and asking: will it sell?

“This boom of 55-plus housing has run its course for now in New Jersey,” said Phil Morin, special counsel in the real estate department at the law firm of Saul Ewing in Newark, which has many builders as clients.

At least some lawmakers agree. Last week, identical bills were introduced in the state Assembly and Senate aimed at addressing the state’s glut of age-restricted housing. The proposed law offers incentives in the form of reduced Council on Affordable Housing obligations for towns that remove age restrictions on developments that have not yet been built.

The recognition that stalled development and the large inventory of vacant (or approved but unbuilt) 55+ housing hurts the economy has prompted a bipartisan team of legislators to introduce bills in the State Senate and Assembly (A-3772/S-2577) which eliminate the age-restrictions in exchange for meeting certain development standards and which further provide incentives for communities to agree to lifting the restrictions — such as reduced Council on Affordable Housing obligations for the municipality.

The Statement to the bill reads as follows:

This bill would allow for the conversion of age-restricted housing units, pending approval by the local planning or zoning board and/or the Smart Growth Ombudsman.

To be eligible for conversion, a developer must agree to set aside a percentage of the units in the development, not to exceed 20 percent, for the provision of affordable housing. These units would automatically count towards fulfilling a municipality’s affordable housing obligation and neither those affordable units nor market rate units within such a development would generate an additional growth share obligation.

The bill also provides that to be eligible for conversion, preliminary or final approval for the construction of the development must have been granted prior to the bill’s effective date. Additionally, the developer must not be holding any deposits for the sale of units within the community.

Under the bill, a developer seeking to convert an age-restricted community must file an application with the local planning board or zoning board of adjustment that granted initial approval of the age-restricted development as to which conversion is to be sought.

Prior to issuing an amended approval for such a converted development, the local board must receive documentation from a developer demonstrating that the following site improvement and infrastructure requirements have been met:

· the site meets parking standards established in the Residential Site Improvement Standards;

· the recreation improvements and other amenities have been revised, as needed;

· the water supply and sanitary sewer systems are adequate for the needs of the converted development;

· if additional water supply or sewer capacity is needed and the developer is unable to obtain it, the number of dwelling units has been reduced;

· if additional parking is needed, and the developer is unable to provide it, the number of dwelling units has been reduced; and

· if additional parking is provided and increases the amount of impervious cover by more than one percent, the storm water system calculations and improvements have been revised accordingly.

The bill also provides that a converted development must conform to applicable building codes, and requirements for, and limitations on, size and square footage imposed pursuant to a preliminary approval. Additionally, it is the intent of this bill that the layout of a subdivision or site plan should not ordinarily be revised other than to accommodate parking, recreational improvements, infrastructure enhancements, a reduction in the number of units, and to accommodate the affordable units as attached housing. Similarly, the size, height, footprint, number of bedrooms and square footage of buildings must not be increased, but may be decreased. However, the number of bedrooms for the affordable units must meet Uniform Housing Affordability Controls requirements.

Finally, the bill allows for appeals to the Smart Growth Ombudsman if local approval for a converted development is denied.

For a copy of A3772, click here: Age-Restricted Housing Conversion

For the full Star Ledger article (and not just the self-serving portion with my quote), click here.

The Township Council unanimously adopted the measure after a heated debate Wednesday night: Are turbines unsightly intruders with potentially damaging health effects? Or should they be accepted as just part of the skyline of an energy-independent future?

“When you look out your back door, you don’t want to look at a nuclear power plant, you don’t want to look at a wind turbine,’’ Mayor Christopher Vergano said today. “We are protecting the values of residential properties by keeping them [at] a certain setback.’’

Wayne is not the first community to address the issue, however, and won’t be the last. Given the initial reactions of municipalities to regulating the siting of wind turbines (despite their benefits to the community), it appears that obtaining approvals for such facilities will be more like hearings on telecommunications towers and monopoles, than more esthetically “acceptable” projects.

The township isn’t the first in the state to adopt rules to keep wind turbines away from homes. Brick in Ocean County adopted an ordinance in April that allows turbines only in business and industrial zones. At least five towns in the state have adopted ordinances to set guidelines for the location of wind turbines. The regulations generally require setbacks to keep the renewable energy source away from neighbors.

Hillsborough in Somerset County allows residents, farmers and business owners to put up turbines on lots that are greater than 10 acres. Galloway Township in Atlantic County restricts turbines to one-acre residential lots, with a setback from the property line equal to the height of the structure.

Under Wayne’s ordinance, Mayor Christopher Vergano said, turbines could be permitted along sections of Routes 23 and 46 and in the industrial areas off the West Belt Parkway.

For the environmentalists’ perspective of the battle in Wayne and other communities over alternative energy technologies, see the press release entitled “It’s Not Easy Being Green,” at Environment New Jersey here.

Ms. Alexander also wrote an article entitled “Towns Start Reshaping The Landscape for Solar, Wind,” this week on the “green” movement and how municipalities are taking it into consideration in land use planning.

Planning experts say slowing global warming goes beyond putting solar panels on homes and wind turbines on industrial lots. It’s going to take a gradual — but decisive — shift in your way of life.

. . . .

A green community will position new homes near transit, parks and stores, or bring those necessities to existing neighborhoods.

Transportation is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases, and “the most important part about mixing land uses is: People tend to use their cars less, and that is what living green is all about,” said Debbie Alaimo Lawlor, chief of Sustainability and Economic Growth for the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission. The NJMC has land-use authority over parts of 14 communities in Bergen and Hudson counties.

Westwood accepted the connection years ago in zoning the heart of its downtown as a “special pedestrian environment.” The zoning bans new restaurants and sports clubs — destinations people drive to, then leave.

But it welcomes service businesses such as the camera shop, florist and dry cleaners so one walk downtown can fill several errands.

Green planning also was boosted there by another essential: a train station. Houses closest to the station are selling the fastest and holding their value in a down market.

While I’m not particularly a fan of labeling restaurants and fitness centers as “anti-green,” the article does make one re-think how “reducing our carbon footprint” interacts with zoning ordinances in older downtowns which are probably relics of the 1960s (both the downtowns and the zoning).

The article also includes discussion of how the state legislature, regional planning authorities like the Meadowlands Commission and individual municipalities are attempting to provide incentives for (or some might say, force) builders to encorporate green technologies or criteria into their projects, such as solar power or LEED standards.

For the full article, click here.

The unanimous appellate panel noted that while open space preservation is a “laudable” goal, the MLUL does not allow for such exactions in the land use approval process. The lone exception is for large, “planned developments” on at least five acres and totalling 100 units or more, for which the MLUL specifically provides for such recreational improvements.

According to the Star Ledger:

The ruling came from cases that builders’ associations brought challenging land use ordinances in Jackson Township in Ocean County and Egg Harbor Township in Atlantic County that required them to set aside land in developments for open space or recreational areas and facilities.

A Superior Court judge shot down the ordinance in Jackson Township as unenforceable last year, and the municipality appealed. Around the same time, another judge upheld Egg Harbor’s ordinance, and the builders’ association appealed.

Yesterday, the Appellate Division said the [MLUL] does not give communities the power to demand such things from developers in the name of preserving open space — a practice they had followed for nearly three decades.

. . . .

The court made a distinction between subdivisions common to New Jersey and planned developments — large-scale housing projects of at least 5 acres and 100 units, such as senior communities. Since the land use law specifically allows for open-space set-asides in the latter, the judges ruled that open-space requirements there are appropriate.

Developers who objected to set-asides, or “exactions” in planning parlance, often were given the option of paying a fee that would go toward building recreational space somewhere else in town or toward purchasing a big-ticket item, such as a fire engine, that a community would not otherwise be able to afford.

The court said yesterday those fees also are illegal if they are not limited to improvements for water, sewer, drainage and streets as provided in the Municipal Land Use Law.

Bill Dressel, the executive director of the League of Municipalities, stated that the ruling “removes a tool used by municipalities to ensure that usable open space and recreation areas are provide to serve the citizens who will be living in the developments.”

The decision will likely be attacked on two fronts: an appeal to the State Supreme Court and potential legislative amendments to the MLUL.

The Builders Association and their allies are releasing a package of bills they call an economic stimulus package. In fact, what the bills would do is overturn environmental laws, undermine good planning, promote sprawl and give tax breaks and public subsidies to wealthy developers at a time when the state of New Jersey is going broke.

This package of bills will put sprawl on steroids and allow for the paving over of half of New Jersey’s open spaces.

The bills in the package are taken from the Department of Community Affairs’ (DCA) Housing Task Force reports, which were written in secret without any input from the public or environmental or citizens’ groups. They include:

1. The Permit Extension Act — This bill would extend all permits for six years and revive those that have expired within the past two years, undermining the ability of the state to implement new environmental regulations, building codes, or local zoning ordinances and indiscriminately promoting building, regardless of whether the project is a good one or a bad one.
. . . .

For the Sierra Club’s critique of all 12 legislative proposals in an Op-Ed entitled “Builders Gone Wild” at the Asbury Park Press website, click here.

According to an article in Monday’s Home News Tribune:

A bill to extend New Jersey’s approved construction permits until the year 2012 would support smart growth, remediate contaminated sites, boost the State’s lagging economy and uphold environmental regulations, according to the Smart Growth Economic Development Coalition.

The proposed legislation before the New Jersey State Legislature has widespread support among business and industry leaders, as well as municipal officials, community groups and housing and community activists, and is receiving bi-partisan support from the Legislature, including at least 43 sponsors within the Assembly, and 15 sponsors within the Senate thus far.

. . . .

The Coalition — a collaborative group created in 2007 and consisting of statewide business and industry organizations, plus community groups and elected leaders — supports the Permit Extension Act now before both houses of the Legislature. The Permit Extension Act bill is expected to be heard before Assembly and Senate committees on June 5 and June 12, respectively.

“Unless this legislation is passed, many beneficial projects – including proposed developments on urban redevelopment, transit hub, portfield and brownfield sites – will fail to move forward, and those communities and their residents will pay the price,” said Dianne R. Brake, president of PlanSmart NJ.

However, the environmental community has rallied to fight this basic lifeline to the business community as if it were a bill to abolish the NJDEP. As it is as important to understand the rationale to objections to a proposal as it is to understand the reasons for it, here are a few less than complementary articles that debate the proposal.

From the Home News Tribune - “Just Like Old Food, Old Permits Go Bad” and State DEP Head Not A Fan of Permit Extension Act.