In a rather quiet Maplewood Planning Board meeting, the Board heard comments from the public regarding the ongoing re-examination of the Town's master plan.

The state requires townships to review master plan documents every six years; the last Maplewood master plan was drafted in 2004.

Representatives of the Historic Preservation Commission, Board of Education, South Orange/Maplewood Bicycle Coalition and other community organizations addressed the board and Paul Grygiel, of Phillips Preiss Grygiel LLC, who gave a brief presentation on the re-examination process. Direct answers were not always given, but concerns were noted and the board pledged to take all comments and suggestions into consideration.

The master plan is a comprehensive planning document that essentially outlines the Town's vision of itself. In accordance with New Jersey's Municipal Land Use Law, the master plan provides guidance on use of community land and all related aspects, including housing availability, economic development, parking and traffic circulation, utilities infrastructure and more.

"In the last six years a lot's changed in the world and locally," said Grygiel. "The big one's the economy and some assumptions or recommendations that were made six years ago are no longer valid. The re-examination will evaluate the current status of the goals and objectives and potentially recommend changes."

"On the positive side," he continued, "sustainability is entering the mainstream. In Maplewood, we've been talking about it for a while, but in the last three or four years people are really getting the concept of green."

The current master plan does not have a sustainability or green building component.

Grygiel, a Maplewood resident, explained that the Planning Board has identified two key areas to be studied: if and how to incorporate sustainable building practices into the master plan, and an assessment of significant private and public buildings and properties that may be viable for reuse or redevelopment in the near future, such as municipal facilities.

He reminded the nearly 30 residents in attendance that the master plan "is not zoning. It doesn't have the force of law as far as set backs or heights. What the re-examination will do is it will recommend potential zoning changes."

The re-examination will be more of a "nuts and bolts process," not a complete re-visioning of the 2004 plan.

When the microphone was opened to public comment, residents voiced expected concerns.

Rich Wener, who sits on the Town transportation committee, wondered how the re-examination would affect the character of Maplewood Village.

"The last few years we've heard discussion about moving services out of the original center of town. There's obviously a lot of redevelopment going on and plans that would change density in the town," he said. "At what point do you start changing that unique quality and feel of the town?"

Beth Daugherty, chair of facilities and a vice president of the Board of Education, voiced concerns about residential building.

"It could get us into a position where we're out of space and we have to build [onto the schools]," she said. "Does this [plan] include a long-range plan for the growth of our town?"

One of the final speakers was Virginia Kurshan, chair of the Historic Preservation Commission.

"We were very proud of the master plan," said Kurshan, referring to 2009 revisions of the Historical Preservation elements in the Master Plan, "and think it's a strong statement to support preservation in this community." Kurshan continued, "Clearly, it's always a challenge, and I think people need to be reminded that it's not a negative, it's a positive."

When the board had a chance to comment, John Branigan mirrored the voice of the public.

"The aspirations for development and vision for downtown corridor, to what extent your examination can clarify the aspirations of the Village as to the density, I think would be really beneficial," said Branigan.

Board member James Nathenson asked if the consulting firm will look for patterns in Planning Board actions from the past six years. It will, said Grygiel.

Finally, Public Works Director Eric Burbank reminded everyone that the board must look objectively at change.

"Change is not always bad," he said. "We tend to always only hear from those who are not in favor."

Board Chair Tom Carlson said that the subcommittee and consulting firm will look over the public comments and develop recommendations over the next few months, after which a second public session will be hosted.

Opening the door to an unknown number of comments, Grygiel reminded everyone in attendance that he lives in town and welcomes all to approach him with additional recommendations.