Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lebanon committee tables land‑use consolidation ordinance after residents press for more review
Summary
After extended public comment, the Lebanon Township Committee voted to table Ordinance 17‑2024, which would consolidate the zoning board of adjustment into the planning board under a joint land‑use board; residents and some board members said the change needs more analysis on powers, appointments and projected savings.
Lebanon Township Committee members voted to table Ordinance 17‑2024 on Dec. 4 after more than an hour of public comment and discussion about how the change would alter local land‑use governance.
Resident Rick Webb urged caution, saying of the proposal to consolidate the two land‑use bodies: “I think this is a very very significant — and important change in the structure of the governance of the town, that requires or and deserves a very thorough analysis and discussion.” Webb and several other residents told the committee they want an opportunity for the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Board and the public to review potential unintended consequences before the ordinance is introduced.
Supporters of consolidation argued it is permitted under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) for municipalities with populations of 15,000 or less and can produce administrative savings. A member of the governing body explained the statute allows the planning board to assume the powers of the board of adjustment in certain circumstances, and legal staff described options for staggered transition dates or future effective dates to ease the change.
Planning‑board member Merrill Schmidt, who identified himself as serving on the planning board, said he favors a single board: “I’m in favor of one board. It makes sense, not only economically, but it’s what the neighboring communities are mostly doing, and they’re making it work.” Other residents countered that combining the two bodies could concentrate land‑use authority and reduce independent review.
After questions about how appointments would be made, how alternates would work and whether existing pending applications could be affected, the committee agreed not to introduce the ordinance at this meeting. The mayor asked to table the proposal for further study; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote. Committee members said they will consider forming a citizens’ subcommittee and plan further outreach and a memo from legal staff explaining statutory constraints and transition timing.
Next steps: the governing body will return to the ordinance in early January with additional analysis and, if desired, set a future introduction and public hearing date. The committee also discussed the option of a referendum or a prospective effective date that would allow pending zoning applications to be handled without disruption.
