N.J. Assembly approves extension of town master plan requirement to 10 years

TRENTON -- New Jersey municipalities would be allowed 10 years between reviews of their master plans under a bill approved by the Assembly today. Supporters said the bill would save money for local taxpayers. Current law allows no more than six years between re-examination of the plans, which guide development in municipalities. The bill, yet to be introduced in...

Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerA March 2010 file photo of the Assembly Chamber.

TRENTON -- New Jersey municipalities would be allowed 10 years between reviews of their master plans under a bill approved by the Assembly today.

Supporters said the bill would save money for local taxpayers.

Current law allows no more than six years between re-examination of the plans, which guide development in municipalities.

The bill, yet to be introduced in the state Senate, would relax provisions in the state’s Municipal Land Use Law that requiring local officials to review their master plans to identify and consider major development issues.

Supporters of the legislation said it gives financial relief to municipalities that must spend $25,000 to $60,000 on the planning process. But it was opposed by the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club and the New Jersey Environmental Federation, which said delaying master plan reviews promotes sprawl.

“By simply extending the planning cycle by four years, we will be saving towns tens of thousands of dollars and helping them stay below the two percent property tax cap,” said Assemblyman John McKeon, (D-Essex). He said the legislation does not prevent towns from reviewing master plans earlier than every 10 years if they choose.

The bill would also allow heavily developed towns to waive the master plan re-examination if the State Planning Commission determines it is “built out” and “there have been no significant changes in development and other measurable characteristics” since the last review.

But environmental groups contend the master plan process was intended to prevent poor planning that leads to sprawl. Large, unexpected developments increase costs to taxpayers who must pay to expand the local infrastructure and schools to accommodate growth, they contend.