TOWNSHIP OF WANTAGE
888 State Route 23
Wantage, New Jersey 07461-3318
“Wantage Township contains some of the most beautiful and treasured landscapes and environmentally sensitive areas in the State of New Jersey. Our Goal is to manage appropriate development in the right places and preserve the natural landscapes, rural character and environmental resources of Wantage Township.”
The above statements express the position of the Wantage Township Land Use Board, written in the Wantage Township Master Plan back in the year 2003.
Emotions run high when we deal with our families’ futures, and rightfully so. But we owe it to our families and our community to make long term decisions in a rational, calm fashion. Some questions we have received and their answers are listed here. We ask you to read them:
Q: “Why is the Township changing its master plan so soon after the 2003 Revision?”
A: The 2003 Master Plan Revision included recommendations for Wantage Township to act upon in the coming years, and accomplish the vision of the master plan. This amendment being proposed in 2005 would accomplish one of those recommendations.
Q: “Why is the Township vision being changed so drastically?”
A: Truly, it is not. Every goal identified in the proposed 2005 amendment carries forward a goal that was written in the 2003 Master Plan. The strategy being suggested – using Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) – is a new tool introduced for consideration. But the philosophy of creating a gateway entrance to Wantage, and concentrating development in the area of Route 23 south of Sussex Borough, and meeting the Township’s COAH obligations in this area, was all part of the 2003 master plan.
Q: “Why is the Township abandoning the hamlet concept in favor of the TDR concept?”
A: We are not. Both the Hamlet concept (Beemerville, Colesville, McCoy’s corner), and the development concept for the southern entrance to Wantage, were included in the 2003 Master Plan Revision. The proposed 2005 amendment is not taking the place of the Hamlets. It is moving forward with another goal that was identified for action two years ago.
Q: “Did the Township try to sneak this past the public?”
A: No. This philosophy for developing the southern entrance to Wantage has been hiding in plain view since 2003. It has been a published position paper for Wantage Township ever since the Master Plan was adopted in that year. It has been posted on the Township website for over two years. No one came forward during that time to object, or express concerns. That does not relieve the town’s leaders from doing everything possible to discuss the matter before it is voted on. That is all we are trying to do. Let’s talk about it. There’s no harm in that.
Q: “Why didn’t we hear about this sooner?”
A: During public hearings on the 2003 Master Plan Revision, the public largely focused their attention on the issue of changing from one acre zoning to five acre zoning. This became the focal point of discussion in that year. In 2004, the public’s focus and the media’s attention shifted to school budget concerns, and in early 2005 the proposed school referendum became a public issue of major concern.
Throughout this time, the Wantage Township Land Use Board has been conducting meetings and making preparations, continuing their job – to carry out the master plan’s vision.
The master plan covers many ideas for the future of Wantage. It is appropriate that each of these ideas be given due consideration in their own time.
Q: “What about the concerns being raised about traffic, crime, drugs, overpopulation, need for police, impact on schools, impact on environment?
A: Some of the concerns are valid and deserve to be addressed. Others are based on prejudice rather than fact.
Q: What about the concern raised that Wantage Township will become a “dumping ground for the rest of the state’s low income families” if TDR is used?
A: All of the input we have from New Jersey State officials says that there is absolutely no obligation for a town to open its doors and accept other towns’ low income obligations when they use TDR as a planning strategy. We have no idea where that fear came from. If it were true, we would not be promoting consideration of TDR.
Q: What about the concern that Wantage Township will “need a police department” if this master plan amendment is adopted?
A: Whether or not Wantage Township has a local police department remains a local decision for the Wantage community to decide, just as it always has been. It is true in New Jersey that, as a town’s population gets larger, there is more likelihood that the townspeople will want a local police department. But there is no mandate that it must happen. It remains up to us to decide.
Q: What about concern that traffic will be increased?
A: Always, always a legitimate concern. The proposed amendment tries to make the village a self-contained community, which would have pretty much everything the people would need, right there. That, it is believed, would reduce the traffic impact, as would designing the villages so people could walk easily from one end to the other. But is traffic impact a legitimate concern? Absolutely. And it can be reviewed and discussed further to see if there are ways to address the concern, or if the concept needs to be changed, or abandoned.
Q: What about the concern regarding impact on schools?
A: Again, always a good point for discussion. If the proposed amendment works the way it is structured, then the development of this tract of land will take place over several decades; the impact on population will be gradual; and because we are just transferring the development from one part of Wantage Township to another part, the impact on both population and the school system would be no different than it would be if there were no gateway village present on South Route 23.
Q: What about the concern that this development would happen “overnight” if the master plan amendment is approved?
A: Wantage has been averaging 60 – 80 new construction building permits per year for the past decade, and this includes the recent housing boom. Wantage has no central sewer system. Wantage has no central water system. Our roadways are clogged with traffic, making the commute to Route 80, Route 287, Route 206 and other major highways unattractive compared to land available for development elsewhere. All of these factors have, historically, led developers to conclude that they can maximize their profits elsewhere in New Jersey for large scale, “all-at-once” developments.
But things might very well change. Because of the Highlands designation and its impact on development, concerns about large scale development in Wantage could be legitimate. If a large number of housing units get built all at once, then there could be a negative impact on school cost burden. And the impact on the Township’s ratable base deserves to be explored as well. So these are good points, and deserve further review before a decision is made.
Q: What about the concern that this proposal is being driven by Developers, and by Town Officials with “something to gain”?
A: Not true. But this vision for Wantage Township was created in 2003, before the impact of the Highlands issue took hold. That alone may be a very good reason to re-think the plan, to scale it back, or to abandon it. We won’t know unless we talk about it, and we must, by law, talk about it in full public view, while listening to your input. We’re all just trying to do what is best. We all live here and have families here. Trust is a hard thing to ask for when you work in government. New ideas can be scary, and should be considered with caution. We understand that. But we decline to spend time defending ourselves against ungrounded charges of a conspiracy. None exists. We hope you believe us. We’ll leave it at that and trust that you will judge us fairly.
Q: What about the concern that Wantage will wind up with 1200 low income housing units, which will lead to drugs and crime?
A: There is a difference between “high density housing” and “low income housing”. And there is a difference between “affordable housing” and low income housing. There are a large number of citizens in Northwest Sussex County – our neighbors’ children, and parents - who are looking for affordable housing, so they can stay in the communities they were raised in. The fact that they do not make as much money as some other people does not give any one the right to call them criminals and drug users. That is prejudice at its worst, and it is unworthy of Wantage Township.
Q: What about the concern that this proposed land use amendment will be concentrating development over one of the best aquifers in Wantage?
A: Proper land use planning demands that development should be concentrated where the water supply is good, and avoided where water supply is scarce. If we try to avoid development where water supply is scarce and where water supply is good, then that leaves no place left to develop. A great idea if it works. Unfortunately, it will not work. We cannot close the doors on future development. We can only direct it to the places where it will cause the least negative impact. The least negative impact is where water is known to be in good supply.
Q: Why does the Wantage Master Plan have to be concerned about the State Master Plan, COAH, and other state requirements? We don’t care about those things. Why can’t we just do what we think is right for Wantage?
A: The State of New Jersey has created a domino effect for controlling land use in any community of New Jersey.
Our Master Plan must fulfill the goals of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. If it does not, we do not have an approved Master Plan. Without a Master Plan, we do not have a valid Zoning Ordinance. Without a valid Zoning Ordinance, all decisions about land use wind up being decided around the town, rather than through the town.
Wantage Township does have a Master Plan. It is currently consistent with the goals of the State of New Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan. Those goals include developing a plan to satisfy COAH obligations for affordable housing. You may wish to review the NJ Herald newspaper article from Sunday, May 22, 2005 for an informative article regarding the issue of COAH.
Q: What about the alternatives mentioned by “Save Rural Wantage”. Would an Open Space Tax work instead of this plan?
A: Picture this: less than a month after the citizens of Wantage soundly defeated a proposed 20 million dollar referendum to improve the local school system, the Wantage Township government comes forward with a 33 million dollar proposal to implement a mandatory Open Space Tax. What’s wrong with that picture? Only two things: timing, and perception.
An open space tax has merit for consideration. And since it has been proposed from the people to the government instead of the other way around, it may have a better chance of solid consideration.
There are two sides to every issue. If Wantage adopts a Dedicated Open Space Tax, and approves a Bond Issue to raise money for that purpose, we are tying Wantage taxpayers into a long range added tax burden. If all of Wantage’s landowners agree to sell their development rights, then the plan will work and we come out ahead. But what if a large number of property owners say, “No thank you” to selling their development rights? We’d wind up with development and increased population any way,… and our taxes would be higher because of the open space tax. So, if the plan works, it’ll be great. If it does not, it would be a disaster for our community. That sounds vaguely familiar …
But it is definitely worth exploring to see if this is what Wantage Township wants.
Q: What statements do you consider to be misinformation? What is the correct information?
A: See below. We do not believe that the proponents of the “Save Rural Wantage” website have attempted to purposely mislead the public. They are reacting to information that was given to them by other sources. We welcome the opportunity to offer the following clarifications.
Statement made on the “Save Rural Wantage” website:
The Wantage Land Use Board is close to approving a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT in our township. .. WHAT CAN I DO TO STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT? Click Here”
The proposal being given consideration is not a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT. It is a Master Plan Amendment. Not every book gets turned into a movie, and not every Master Plan Amendment gets turned into a Development. Is it true that this Master Plan Amendment might lead to a development? Yes. Is it true to say that adopting the Master Plan Amendment would very likely lead to a development? That is a valid position to argue. But calling the Master Plan Amendment a “Major Development” is misleading because it is not true.
Statement made on the “Save Rural Wantage” website:
The cornerstone of the Land Use Board's plan is something called Transfer of Development Rights, also known as TDR. This concept has only been tried once in NJ and it turned out to be a very great disappointment. (emphasis added)
In a telephone interview with the Municipal Clerk of Chesterfield Township, New Jersey at 4:00 p.m. on May 24, 2005, we were told that the TDR program in that town is “working great” and that the community seems to be behind the concept.
In February of this year, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs announced six Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) demonstration projects across the state in Washington Township, Fanwood Borough, Berkeley Township, Montgomery Township, Woolwich Township and Hopewell Township.
The following article was posted on the USATODAY.com website:
“N.J. smart-growth plan flourishes”, By Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY
Under a smart-growth program passed in New Jersey in March, builders … can pay to preserve land that towns want to keep open — and in return build housing in areas the town wants to grow. Proponents see the program as a way to allow growth and at the same time preserve open space — and do it by tapping the deep pockets of developers rather than public money.”
Statement made on the “Save Rural Wantage” website:
We have been Warned by both High Level State and Federal officials that once a town initiates a TDR program that they can not restrict its use to within the boundaries of that town.
This means that if Wantage designates areas within our town as high density receiving areas under the TDR program we will not be able to prevent towns throughout Northern New Jersey from sending their LOW INCOME HOUSING REQUIREMENT to Wantage!
Wantage runs the possibility, even PROBABILITY, that we will become the receiving area for thousands, maybe tens of thousands of high density, low income duplexes and apartment buildings throughout our town. And at that point, we will NOT BE ABLE TO STOP IT.
High Level State and Federal Officials have said this? Name them, please. Give us the opportunity to meet with these people. They are accountable for the information they are sharing.
As stated on the web site for the New Jersey Office of Smart Growth, “Planning and implementation documents are created by the municipality that governs where and how development rights can be transferred.”
The State of New Jersey TDR Program Coordinator is named Courtenay Mercer. Her telephone number is (609) 943-9938. She tells us that a town retains all decision rights about where TDR credits come from.
In a letter dated May 17, 2005, the Executive Director of the Office of Smart Growth informs us that the TDR Act “does not require any municipalities to implement TDR if it does not voluntarily elect to do so. Furthermore, the Act does not require receiving areas in one community to receive credits from outside the community if it does not so choose.”
Here is the input we have heard from other High Level State Officials:
Acting Governor Richard J. Codey: “TDR is a good way to accommodate New Jersey’s growing populations without consuming all of our open space.”
Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Susan Bass Levin: “At its heart, the Transfer of Development Rights is an investment in our future, changing the way development occurs in a community by preserving open space and focusing development in the right places.”
Secretary of Agriculture Charles Kuperus: “There is no single approach to accomplish our goals when it comes to farmland preservation. Each town needs to be willing to explore and pursue all viable options. TDR is an important new statewide tool that complements our traditional publicly funded farmland preservation efforts.”
If evidence exists that contradicts the input from the High ranking State Officials identified above, we need to see it, and we need to speak with the people who are making these contradictory claims, so that the truth may be known.
Statement made on the “Save Rural Wantage” website:
The Land Use Board tells us that the state requires one Low Income Housing Unit to be built for every eight new houses. (i.e. a one-to-eight ratio)". For some reason, they have not required developers to follow though with this law. Now we find ourselves “owing” the state 90 Low Income Units.
Well … no. That 8-to-1 ratio involves “affordable housing”, not “low income”, and it just became a requirement last year in New Jersey. It has nothing to do with the existing COAH obligations of Wantage.
As soon as the “8-to-1” requirement was put in place by the State, Wantage took action to change our zoning ordinances to comply, at the Developer’s expense.
COAH obligations involve some “new construction” requirements, and also “rehabilitation” requirements for some existing homes and apartments. COAH has had several “rounds” over the past two decades, in which they calculated each town’s housing obligations. Those numbers, and the way the State calculates them, change with each round.
The exact COAH obligations of Wantage will be determined when Wantage Township makes its application for Substantive Certification with COAH. In order to make that application, Wantage Township must adopt a Fair Share Housing Plan. That’s what we were trying to facilitate with this Master Plan Amendment.
With respect to existing COAH requirements, The State of New Jersey gives us a simple choice, and both options leave a bad taste in all of our mouths.
Option A: meet the number of affordable housing units the State calculates for us, or
Option B: face a “can’t win” court battle against developers.
Given these choices, we have chosen Option A.
Statement made on the “Save Rural Wantage” website:
In NJ it is permissible to pay a willing town (usually in the urban areas) to take our low-income unit requirements. This costs around $35,000 per unit. The total cost to Wantage to shift our burden would be $3,150,000. For that sum, we would then NOT need to build the units and we would have 180 less children to educate in our school system.
The dollar figures are off, but the concept is valid for consideration. Wantage Township could buy our way out of providing most of the affordable housing requirements levied for our community. If we go this route, it might make sense to look at Sussex Borough, where we could pay them for credits on some of their existing high density developments before we send the money automatically to an urban city in another county.
This would require an increase in taxation for Wantage. The people would need to understand why their taxes are being raised, and they would need to agree that it is the right thing to do.
Phone (973) 875-7192
Fax (973) 875-0801
administrator@wantagetwp-nj.org