April 6, 2016

DISCUSSION Master Plan Amendment: Complete Streets Mr. Grygiel said that in addition to the Board’s recent discussions to incorporate the Complete Street policy in to the Township’s Master Plan, he had been participating in the new Pedestrian Safety Advisory Board, which was very interested in the implementation of the policy. He stated that in 2013 the Board adopted a Complete Streets Policy and sent a recommendation to the Council; however, the Council did not act on the recommendation. He gave a brief recapitulation of the policy; he opined it was essentially a philosophy that all streets should be safe and accessible to all users — pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular drivers of all ages and ability levels. The policy standards would be incorporated in to all land development design elements. He recommended the next step would be to amend the Circulation Element of the Master Plan to incorporate the Complete Streets Policy and principles. The amendment would ensure entities such as the County and developers knew that the Township had formally adopted a plan, and should consider same when presenting applications. Once (the policy) was incorporated, the Board could send a new recommendation to the Council for their consideration. The Township could then amend the Streets and Sidewalks ordinance and then possibility a more thorough plan drafted by the Board to be incorporated in to the zoning ordinance chapter. A more detailed plan might incorporate certain elements of the Rutgers Study (Complete Streets Concept Plan, 2015). Mr. Grygiel stated the first step would be (the Board) to have a public hearing to amend the Master Plan; he described the process that included public noticing to surrounding municipalities, and formal notice to the Public. Chairman Weston stated there was a full re-examination of the Master Plan in 2010. He questioned if a more detailed recommendation could be made to Council. Mr. Grygiel opined the proposed amendment was a good start; the Rutgers Study was good; a lot of its elements and examples could be considered. Chairman Weston agreed it was important to first have the tenets of the plan in place, and then create a time-lime to have additional elements in place before the next re- examination was adopted. Councilwoman McCartney questioned if the Zoning Board incorporated the Complete Street policy when deliberating their

to have additional elements in place before the next re- examination was adopted. Councilwoman McCartney questioned if the Zoning Board incorporated the Complete Street policy when deliberating their applications. Chairman Weston stated the policy was not law; not a formal regulation. She stated many of the recommendations of the Rutgers Study were for County roads within the Township. She said the County had its own Complete Streets Plan; how would the County consider Township recommendations. Mr. Grygiel said the County has a Complete Street Policy and Transportation Plan that they were required to follow. He opined the County could be reminded of same when appearing before the Board for courtesy review hearings. He said that for the consistency of the Township’s Master Plan, the County should appear before the Board for all projects, such as those to widen roads in the Township. Mr. Eben stated that after the Board approved the (Nautical-themed) playground for the County, the County installed meandering sidewalks from the zoo along Northfield Avenue to the playground, but when renovating the playground area parking lot, the County did not follow the minimum design standards. There were no complete streets, no sidewalks or storm sewers. Pedestrians were unable to walk from one end of the reservation to the other. Additionally, the sidewalk the County installed on Walker Road from Turtle Back Rock to Northfield Avenue was not maintained. Chairman Weston stated the Planning Board did not have jurisdiction regarding those 2