The comment period may be over for the state Department of Environmental Protection’s proposed Land Use rules, but the controversial regulations were an increasingly hot topic among mayors and lawmakers at the New Jersey League of Municipalities conference and in editorial pages this week.
In all, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle, a prominent New Jersey builder and NJBIA’s own Ray Cantor agreed on one thing – the DEP’s REAL rules are too extreme, will do great damage to economy, will make New Jersey less affordable and could potentially cause inequities in urban areas.
For that, they said, the rule should be greatly modified, or the DEP should go back to the drawing board.
“I think this is typical of the state, right?” said Senate Republican Leader Anthony Bucco. “We see a problem and we take the most aggressive approach as quickly as possible, instead of taking our time, thinking it out, phasing it in over time.
“We have climate change. We have issues. But we’ve got to take an educated approach to it, and it’s got to be done in a fashion in which we can afford it and is reasonable to our residents. Otherwise, we will make New Jersey more and more unaffordable. So, I think we just need a measured approach here.”
The DEP rule, at 1,057 printed pages, would create Inundation Risk Zones (IRZ) and a Climate Adjusted Flood Elevation (CAFE) where development, redevelopment and expansions would be required to be 5 feet higher than existing flood elevation standards.
The proposed standard is based on an assumed 5.1-foot rise in sea level over the next 75 years, a prediction that carries only a 17% scientific probability, according to a single Rutgers University study from 2019.
The rule would require properties in an IRZ to meet a new 3% impervious cover standard, which, by definition, makes it a no-build zone, despite the DEP’s continuing claims that the rule does not create no-build zones.
NJBIA has urged DEP to instead use a more reasonable 2-foot standard, which is more in line with current national and international sea level rise projections and adjust the standard if needed.
“A phase-in is the way to go here,” added Deputy Majority Leader Paul Sarlo. “Sometimes when these think tanks and these policy papers are put out, it’s an overreaction, right? A phase-in is important. Clearly, we need to address (flooding). But we just don’t have the ability to pay for it all in one shot.”
Assembly Minority Leader John DiMaio said a rule of this magnitude should “pass muster with elected people,” rather than one agency.
“We have unelected people doing rules and regulations that we have to live by,” DiMaio said. “I would like to see more things like this pass through our hands so we can put up guardrails.”
BUILDING MORE OPPOSITION
In an op-ed in the Asbury Park Press this past week, Anthony Zarrilli, owner and CEO of Zarrilli Homes, said he could appreciate the need for the DEP to re-evaluate land standards.
But, he added, the provisions of the proposed rules are “so extreme and stringent that companies like mine, other industry-related businesses and a greatly increased number of residents in any shore, river or bay community will face game-changing financial headwinds.
“I know the DEP says it’s not establishing ‘no build zones’ as part of the rule. But (a 3% impervious cover) standard really can’t be met. Consider that a small home with 1,000 square feet of area on a 10,000-foot lot would already account for 10% impervious cover on a property — and that’s without including a deck, patio or driveway or even a sidewalk.
“We really need the DEP to go back to the drawing board and bring some much-needed balance and practicality to these extreme rules, or the Legislature needs to get involved and stop the department from having a great impact on our way of life in the future….Extreme decision– making is never a best answer.”
To see Zarrilli’s op-ed, click here.
MAKING NJ LESS AFFORDABLE, EQUITABLE
In an op-ed in NJ.com this week, NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer Ray Cantor said the DEP rule will make New Jersey less affordable and less equitable at the same time, particularly hurting homeowners in urban areas in an IRZ.
“The rule will expand the area where owners will have to buy costly flood insurance, even if their area has never flooded or may never flood,” Cantor wrote.
“For lower-income residents and families, this is beyond an unfair burden. The inequities also emerge when you consider some shore property owners may be more able to afford to elevate – or have the property space to do so – whereas others in urban areas or on smaller lots may not.”
Cantor added: “The DEP’s proposal also changes the stormwater requirements so that a redevelopment project in an urban area would need to meet the same requirements as if it were being built in a greenfield in a rural area. This will make it even more difficult to redevelop our urban areas.
“We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: We cannot have a prosperous society and a robust economy if the residents of the state cannot afford to live here.”
To see Cantor’s full op-ed, click here.
OPPOSITION POSITIONS
The voices opposing the DEP’s PACT rules this week are in addition to other municipalities, counties and groups that have also publicly called for the DEP to alter or reverse their rules since the summer.
Links to the previous opposing statements are below:
