Planning board hears master plan update that tightens policy on building heights, buffers and flag lots

Joe Burgess, the board planner from Burgess Associates, told the Township of Washington Planning Board on March 5 that the master plan update is being rewritten so its goals and policy statements give clearer guidance to the zoning board of adjustment and reduce ambiguous interpretations by applicants.

"It's not the planning board that uses the master plan day to day. It's the zoning board of adjustment," Burgess said, arguing that more-specific policy language will make it harder for applicants seeking use or height variances to claim an intent contrary to the town's policies.

The draft, Burgess said, currently identifies 14 goals and accompanying policy statements; the list will grow when the land-use element is finished. The draft also adds more specific guidance on issues the subcommittee flagged during its meetings: discouraging two-family development where lot and street geometry make it incompatible, discouraging new flag lots because of emergency-access concerns, stronger landscape buffers and screening instead of single rows of plantings, and more detailed aesthetic and sustainability guidance.

Burgess described technical additions that will appear in later elements of the plan: slope mapping that distinguishes 15–20%, 20–25% and 25%+ gradients; an existing land-use map that identifies vacant and oversized lots; and a separate sidewalk/walkway element that will identify priority locations and allow alternatives such as contributions to a sidewalk fund when a “sidewalk to nowhere” would be required.

On residential building form, Burgess said the plan will state policy preferences but leave detailed implementation to the land‑use element and the zoning ordinance. "We have very specific comments about how we want to provide separation between incompatible end users with greater buffers," he said, adding that the plan will describe when fencing or staggered double rows of plantings are appropriate.

Board members raised several policy questions during the discussion. One member asked whether the draft's language means the township will bar townhouses and multifamily housing; Burgess said the land‑use element will identify where multifamily may be appropriate and that the subcommittee would address affordable housing obligations in a later session. Another member urged clearer wording on the master plan's statement that the township will "continue to offer appropriate facilities and services" so it does not appear to shift the cost of developer‑generated infrastructure onto taxpayers; Burgess said site‑specific infrastructure required by development would still be required through site‑plan review.

Burgess also summarized recent changes at the state level. He noted the new State Development and Redevelopment Plan was released in mid‑December without new mapping and that state officials characterized the document as advisory. "They have now said that this is only an advisory document that you do not have to follow," Burgess said, adding he would adjust the master plan language to reflect the plan's limited weight.

Board members requested clearer phrasing in several policy statements. Burgess acknowledged a few typographical issues and said staff will submit revised text; he said photos and additional maps will be inserted when weather permits. He also outlined the project schedule: Burgess told the board the team has an 18‑month timeline to complete the full master plan, which will include multiple elements (land use, conservation/open space, community facilities, a vulnerability assessment and sustainability) and that the subcommittee is tracking the schedule closely.

On safety and facilities, board members brought up a recent project — Franklin Court — and the limits of local authority over expensive equipment. Burgess and a board member noted that the municipality cannot require acquisition of a costly ladder truck and that such constraints can be a reason to deny some higher‑rise proposals when emergency access is insufficient.

Next steps announced at the meeting: Burgess will prepare a revised draft and present a housing recommendation in coordination with the mayor at a future board meeting. The board also agreed the draft would be forwarded to the mayor and town council for their review and budget consideration.

The planning board did not vote on or adopt any part of the draft at this meeting; the session was a presentation and discussion of the draft plan and planned next steps.