During the meeting, the board delved into the intricacies of the state cross-acceptance process, an important element for the township’s planning efforts. This process involves reviewing the draft state plan issued by the State Planning Commission to ensure consistency with Long Hill Township’s own master plan. The township has been called upon to form a subcommittee to undertake this careful review, with a looming deadline at the end of March. Members were informed that Morris County is responsible for coordinating the negotiations with the state, and the subcommittee must address a series of questions from the state designed to elicit feedback on the township’s agreements and disagreements with the state plan.

The board acknowledged the deadline challenges, noting the state’s late issuance of the draft plan and the potential need to request an extension. Despite the tight timeframe, there was an emphasis on the importance of submitting an accurate response, as the state plan has not been updated since 2001. The discussion included the necessity of public hearings, both at the county and possibly at the township level, to ensure transparency and public engagement in the process.

An equally significant topic was the fair share housing obligations imposed by the state’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The township has been assigned a prospective obligation of 102 units for the fourth round of fair share housing. This obligation results from three factors: an income factor comparing local median income to lower-income communities, a non-residential valuation factor based on previous development activity, and a land capacity factor assessing available land for development. While the first two factors rely on census data, making them difficult to contest, the land capacity factor has prompted questions about the accuracy of developable land assessments in Long Hill Township.

The board noted that most units from the previous round have been addressed, with a reduction from 220 to 102 units for the current obligation seen as positive. However, the challenge remains to incorporate this obligation into the township’s master plan housing element, governed by municipal land use law and the Fair Housing Act. The township must finalize its housing element and fair share plan by June 30, though the possibility of extensions was mentioned.

Discussion also focused on the procedural aspects of addressing objections from interested parties, which could be raised by the end of February. These objections might lead to a dispute resolution process involving retired judges. The township’s ability to zone for new developments was also scrutinized, with a need to draft concept plans for realistic zoning proposals under new regulations.

The board also considered the implications of a new regulation mandating that if a municipality reduces its housing obligation, it must still zone for 25% of that lower number. This rule requires municipalities to provide opportunities for overlay zones or redevelopment, even if their obligations are adjusted.

Beyond housing obligations, the board attended to other business, including the approval of previous meeting minutes and extension requests for minor subdivisions. The board agreed to extend deadlines for a minor subdivision on Dogwood Terrace, following previous miscommunications. A similar extension was granted for a subdivision at 20 and Pine Street, maintaining consistency with past terms.

In terms of procedural updates, the board discussed bylaws and standard operating procedures (SOPs). A proposal was made to adapt the zoning board’s bylaws for planning board use, though there was a call for deeper discussion on the SOPs, which are intended as guidance documents rather than strict policies.