Planning board debates role and timeline of master plan advisory committee

The Township of Washington Planning Board on Oct. 9 discussed how a mayor-appointed citizens advisory committee will work with the board on its master plan update, the committee's membership and a timeline that calls for the planner to deliver a phase 1 summary on Nov. 8.

Board members said the advisory committee has been formed under state law and is intended to assist the planning board, but that members of the advisory committee have no voting authority on planning board matters. Board attorney Lou Lamatina read language from the New Jersey statute, 40:55D-27, saying advisory committee members "shall have no power to vote or take other action required of the board." "That would presuppose that the citizen's advisory committee did not include" voting members of the planning board, Lamatina said when reading the statute to the meeting.

The matter matters because the composition and reporting cadence of the advisory committee will shape how public input and consultant work are funneled into the planning board's formal review and eventual votes on master plan elements.

Meeting discussion and timeline Board members said the advisory committee has been convened by the mayor and includes the mayor, Councilman Sears and the planner, Joe Burgess. A board representative told members the advisory committee held an introductory meeting the week before and that Burgess had presented a project timeline that contemplates a roughly 14-month process from Burgess's start date. The board representative said Burgess considers the project start to be early September, and that the first deliverable—phase 1 summary—was scheduled for presentation to the advisory committee on Nov. 8. The representative said, after the advisory committee provides comments, Burgess will appear before the planning board with the phase 1 deliverable for the board's feedback.

Statutory questions and membership Members raised a statutory question about whether planning board voting members may serve on the citizens advisory committee because they will later vote on the master plan. Lamatina read 40:55D-27 aloud and told the board the statute permits the mayor to appoint one or more persons as a citizens advisory committee "to assist or corroborate with the planning board and its duties, but such person or persons shall have no power to vote or take other action required of the board." Board members debated two readings: one view said the statute requires advisory members have no vote but does not bar planning board members from being on the advisory committee; another view raised the prospect that planning board voting members should not serve on the advisory committee to avoid the appearance of taking away a planning board vote.

Board practice described in the meeting was to have planning board representatives attend advisory meetings to hear Burgess's work and offer feedback so that the planning board as a whole will have the benefit of that input before voting. One board member said this phased review—advisory comment, consultant revision, then planning board review—was intended to avoid a scenario in which a final plan reaches the public without earlier board input.

What the board directed/next steps The planner's phase 1 summary remains scheduled for Nov. 8 to the advisory committee, followed by a presentation to the planning board. The board asked that any statutory references relied on in the discussion be circulated to members; a board attorney agreed to look up and share the referenced statute text with the board secretary for distribution.

Ending Board members did not take a final vote on membership rules at the Oct. 9 meeting; they agreed to continue coordinating the advisory committee's work and to review Burgess's phase deliverables as they are produced.