Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Soil Erosion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bernards Township planning board refers soil-erosion penalty language to township council
Summary
The planning board voted July 22 to ask the township council to revise penalty language in ordinance 2582 so civil penalties — not the general penalty section that can include jail exposure — apply to typical homeowner soil-disturbance violations. The ordinance otherwise shifts major enforcement to the county soil conservation service.
The Bernards Township Planning Board voted July 22 to refer language in ordinance 2582 that would change how penalties for soil erosion violations are applied, asking the township council to adopt a specific penalty schedule that would avoid leaving routine homeowner violations subject to the township’s general penalty provision.
Township planner Miss McManis told the board the amendment does not change technical soil-protection standards but shifts administrative enforcement for larger projects. “It transfers responsibility to the Somerset Union Soil Conservation Service,” she said, adding that disturbances of 5,000 square feet or more would be handled by that county-level service while sites between 2,500 and 5,000 square feet would remain administered in-house by the township. Disturbances under 2,500 square feet remain unchanged.
Board member Mr. Crane raised concerns about penalties. “So a homeowner could — the homeowner could go to jail,” he said while questioning whether removing a specific soil-erosion penalty would leave homeowners exposed to harsher township penalties. Miss McManis replied that the draft ordinance references the township’s general penalty section and that “there are much greater penalties in the proposed ordinance” because it would default to the township’s penalty provision, which the board discussed as including fines and the possibility of jail time under the general land-use penalty section.
Several board members suggested the governing body be asked to restore a specific penalty provision similar to the previous soil-erosion language (which the planner described in the memo as a $25 to $3,000 range for the ordinance-specific penalty). The board agreed the protection of typical homeowners from disproportionate criminal exposure should be clarified by the council.
Mr. Toriello moved to refer the specific penalty language to the township council for amendment and Mr. Crane seconded. A roll-call vote recorded unanimous support and the motion carried.
Planner McManis had also provided a July 10 memo and a master-plan consistency review; the board later voted to deem the ordinance "not inconsistent" with the township’s 2023 master plan. The referral to the governing body means the council will next consider whether to adopt the proposed transfer of enforcement to the soil conservation service and whether to insert a township-approved specific penalty schedule.
Next steps: the township council will receive the referral from the planning board and may accept, modify or reject the recommended penalty language; the planning board’s referral does not itself change the ordinance’s technical standards.
