Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Builders, Business Groups Tell Legislature: DEP 's Real Rules Threaten Housing and Redevelopment
Summary
Industry witnesses including the New Jersey Builders Association, NAHOP/NIOP and NJBIA told the joint committee the rules lack economic impact analysis, expand DEP authority beyond legislative intent and could make many projects infeasible, jeopardizing housing production and municipal tax bases.
Industry and business witnesses used a joint legislative hearing on April 22 to urge lawmakers to review DEP's PACT/Real Rules and to ask for a more measured, incremental approach.
Jeff Kolakowski (New Jersey Builders Association) said his group does not deny climate change but argued the rules "represent a significant expansion of regulatory authority without clear legislative authorization." He and other business witnesses described a perceived lack of meaningful stakeholder engagement and cited the rule package's length and breadth as evidence it went beyond coastal issues to alter multiple DEP permitting programs.
Commercial real-estate witnesses said redeveloping sites in smart-growth, transit-oriented urban cores could be made financially infeasible by new elevation, stormwater and substantial-improvement thresholds. Dan Kennedy (NAHOP/NIOP) warned the package could "throw the state plan into the wood chipper" by constraining projects in areas targeted for growth and transit investment.
Ray Cantor of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association and other business witnesses urged the Legislature to consider SCR 106 and recommended a regulatory standard closer to 2 feet by 2100, arguing that the DEP's selection of higher-end scenarios uses conservative assumptions that impose disproportionate near-term economic costs.
Business groups also flagged specific operational concerns they said would slow permitting and increase costs: lack of clarified hardship-exception standards, new certification requirements for general permits, a 180-day commence-construction rule tied to permits and unclear definitions for "dry access." Several witnesses suggested extending any effective date and re-opening the package for targeted revisions.
The industry testimony framed the issue as a question of balancing statewide resilience goals with housing production, municipal finances and the feasibility of redevelopment in urban centers. Several witnesses said they would support tailored, incremental updates and more transparent interagency coordination to align housing and environmental goals.
The committee accepted the testimony and indicated the transcript and supplemental materials would be circulated to all legislators for further consideration.
