HOWELL — Planning Board officials have recommended that the Howell Township Council remedy conflicts between buffer restrictions within the township's land use ordinance.

Councilman Curtis Vislocky initiated discussion about the inconsistencies during an Aug. 11 meeting and deemed the language in the ordinance to be vague and confusing.

"A lot of applicants have been coming to us and saying our buffer ordinance is just not clear at all," said Vislocky, who is the council's liaison to the Planning Board.

According to Township Engineer William Nunziato, there are two sections in the ordinance that conflict.

Code section 188-7 states that "a minimum of half the length of a required buffer should be at least 30 feet wide and designed, planted, graded, landscaped and developed to obscure the activities of the site from view."

Aside from that requirement, playgrounds, park and farm buffers must be at least 30 feet wide and a buffer between a residential development and a commercial project should be at least 50 feet wide.

But code section 188-63 states that "a minimum of a 50-foot buffer shall be provided around the perimeter of all major subdivisions and all site plans in excess of 1 acre." Nothing in this section of the ordinance allows for any buffer under 50 feet.

The discrepancy caught the eye of Vislocky, who consulted with the Planning Board's planner, Mark Muraczewski, about the issue in June.

In a letter to Vislocky, Muraczewski suggested that the council repeal section 188-7 and revise section 188-63.

"It is in my opinion that the 50-foot perimeter buffer will provide more screening than that of a minimum buffer with half the length consisting of a 30- foot wide buffer," Muraczewski wrote.

Nunziato agreed with Vislocky's concern and Muraczewski's recommendation.

"Most of my concerns are how they're recorded as far as the mapping, deeds, enforcement and language because there might be six, seven, eight types of buffers," Nunziato said. "It's difficult for the Engineering Department to get the maps clarified. And for code enforcement, in terms of summonses and violations, it was very vague."

After reviewing the letter, Nunziato recommended additional changes to clarify the ordinance's section on easements.

"We want to put a little more in there so buffers can be applied and enforced after board approval," he said.

Other revisions include labeling for wetlands, riparian, farmland, perimeter and stream corridor easements and deeding all easements to the township.

Vislocky said he would like to clearly stipulate that buffer maintenance is strictly

the responsibility of the property owner.

"My only concern is when you ask to memorialize the buffers. I just don't want the township to have ownership of the buffers so they'll maintain them. Those buffers are part of the subdivision [and the responsibility of the] property owners," he said.

The other members of the council supported Vislocky's efforts to clarify the ordinance.

However, Deputy Mayor Angela Dalton wanted to confirm that the changes would have no negative effects on residents or cause further problems with planning.

"I want to know about how the majority of other municipalities handle buffer requirements, because I'm concerned about putting on a layer," Dalton said. "It may start as a developer's problem, but it becomes the people's problem."

Township Attorney McKenna Kingdon agreed to survey other municipalities that share Howell's more rural characteristics in order to determine feasible buffer arrangements and compare them to Howell's proposed amended ordinance.

Contact Lauren Ciraulo at howell@gmnews.com.