MINUTES
OF THE
TOWNSHIP
OF
MENDHAM
PLANNING BOARD
WORKSHOP
MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 4, 2008
Chairman Giordano called the meeting to order at 7:36
p.m. and asked for roll call. Upon
roll call:
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Mr. Tolley, Mayor Florek, Mr. Krieg, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Chairman
Giordano
ABSENT:
Mr. Pierson, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. D’Emidio
Others present:
Tom Lemanowicz, P.E., John Aubin, Environmentalist, Ed Buzak, Esq.,
Duggan Kimball, P.P.
Chairman Giordano led the flag salute and announced
that adequate notice of the meeting had been given.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Draft of Master Plan Amendment of the Land Use
Element “Zoning Regulations” and Recommendation for Zoning Change for
Sisters of
St. John
the Baptist Proposal
Mr. Kimball began the
discussion explaining the reason for the Master Plan amendment. When
the zoning ordinance is introduced to the Township Committee and sent back to
the Planning Board, it will need to be reviewed for consistency with the Master
Plan. At this point, it is not
possible to say it is consistent and that, in fact, it is actually inconsistent.
The Master Plan amendment is to set the groundwork for the necessary
consistency of the rezoning for the Sisters of St. John the Baptist property.
He went on to explain
that presently at the St. John the Baptist site Mendham Township is actively
trying to preserve a large portion of the property as open space and solicit
partners in that effort. However,
the major issue concerns the ultimate disposition of the existing facilities.
The planning issue for the Township is to permit the perspective buyers
to have sufficient flexibility in the uses of the existing facilities and at the
same time to maintain control over the overall intensity of use consistent with
the Township’s planning goals of preserving the rural residential character of
the area.
Mr. Kimball continued to
say that as a result, the draft amendment is a performance-based approach to
this problem. Since the key is to control the overall intensity of reuse of the
existing buildings, the draft ordinance utilizes parking standards as a
surrogate for intensity. Under the
terms of the draft ordinance, any combination of the uses is permitted as long
as such use will not exceed 200 parking spaces.
These standards are not intended to simply regulate parking as one does
in a site plan ordinance. These
standards are being inserted into the zoning ordinance for the purpose of
limiting the actual intensity of activity in the existing buildings.
Mr. Kimball went on to
remind the Board that the Master Plan is intended to be a flexible, overall
policy document, and the Land Use Amendment is not too specific in order to
allow for possible changes that can arise through the hearing before the
governing body. The governing body
can thus make the judgments that may need to be made but within the overall
context of what the policy has set forth in the Master Plan Amendment.
Chairman Giordano began
the discussion regarding the permitted uses of the existing buildings as stated
in the Draft Conditional Use Ordinance. To
begin, he asked Mr. Lemanowicz the size of a standard parking space, which Mr.
Lemanowicz stated was 10 x 20. He
then inquired about parking standards for gymnasium use of the existing
buildings. Mr. Lemanowicz said the
IT manual gave a range between 1 ½ to almost 7 ½ spaces per thousand square
feet, which is a dramatic range. Although
there is a pre-existing gymnasium, Chairman Giordano expressed concern not so
much with the current uses, which are probably going to be abandoned at some
point. The main concern voiced is on
the listed permitted uses on this site in the future and the impact on the
surrounding community and the traffic flow through the residential area.
He posed the question of what could be envisioned if the use were a
“commercial (e.g., unassociated with a school but taking on a third
membership) gymnasium.
Mr. Buzak said that it
was difficult to come up with a definition of a gymnasium. Since
this is an existing use, the immediate focus was to legitimatize the uses that
were already present. He went on to
say that he thought, for instance, if the gymnastics classes take place in a
gymnasium, then this could be a use that would be permitted.
He opined that there are a wide variety of uses that are possible, if it
were used as a gymnasium. The
municipality is currently using it for after school events, so there is some
traffic currently there associated with the gymnasium.
It was also noted that there did not seem to be any complaints from this
type of activity up to this point.
Mr. Tolley said that
other parts of the building, such as the classroom could feasibly used for
physical activity type of uses such a karate class or aerobic program.
The building and rooms are very solidly built.
In terms of traditional basketball, however, this would be limited to the
gymnasium because of the height of the ceilings.
Mr. Lemanowicz addressed
the issue of impervious surface. By
increasing the parking spaces to 200, the impervious surface would be about
218,000 square feet. Mr. Krieg went
on to say that the implications of a gymnasium would depend on the square
footage of the building. The average
amount of spaces per thousand square feet is 3.83.
Mr. Krieg suggested it would be to our advantage to use the higher number
of spaces per thousand square feet since this would reduce intensity that would
be permitted.
Mr. Mountain asked Mr.
Buzak if under the draft ordinance, is it conceivable that someone could submit
a site plan that poses the elimination of the existing buildings and replacement
in the amount of square footage equal to what is there currently, but all for
gymnasium and public assembly use. It
is the assumption that the existing gymnasium will be reused, which is favorable
to the town; however, presuming the elimination of the existing buildings could
be done, it may be more beneficial by making the gymnasium use and the public
assembly hall theater use accessory to the primary.
In other words, there are assumed uses as part of the school facility
that one who owns the school facility utilizes as that part of it; however, the
question remains whether the school facility could be removed and replaced with
a large cultural/recreation facility that was not envisioned.
Mr. Buzak said he was not
sure this could be done. Mr. Tolley
said that this is strictly a conditional use for existing buildings.
It would not be consistent with the ordinance.
This is specifically written to permit the reuse of the existing
buildings. Mr. Mountain went on to
inquire whether it would be feasible, within the boundaries of parking and other
requirements, to leave the footprint but reuse the structure by making the
application a conditional use and then seek approval for one of the conditions
on the list. He went on to say
whether it is possible for someone to build a business as the primary user, in
which case this was not the original intention. The
intention is to use the gymnasium and the public theater space that exists
currently but not with the mindset of allowing someone to create a
recreation/cultural center. Mr.
Buzak said that in theory this would be feasible but would be limited by the
intensity of use restriction that is described on Page 4 of the Draft
Conditional Use Ordinance.
After Mr. Mountain asked
if it is possible to ensure that any future property owner is limited to the
uses within the facility that are presently set aside, Mr. Buzak stated that he
suspects that this could be done but thought this would complicate the manner in
which the ordinance would have to be drafted because then it would have to be
broken down into principal uses and accessory uses.
The idea here is to just have a series of uses, which people are allowed,
subject to the number of parking spaces required pursuant to the ordinance.
Mr. Mountain asked if the
language in the ordinance could be read to say that the use in regards to the
gymnasium and theater is restricted to the parts of the facility that are
currently so used. The gymnasium can be used and even be renovated within its
existing shell, but the main living quarters cannot also be turned into a
gymnasium/theater. The gymnasium
size can be reduced, and the outstanding space used for one of the other uses.
Mr. Buzak felt this was a
fairly reasonable approach. Mr.
Krieg supported this idea since it will prevent any future owner from putting a
theater in as a public assembly, where if it is limited to the space that is
there, it will prevent that type of usage, which was not the Board’s
intention. It would be contained
uses within the existing structure.
It was suggested to add
to Page 2, Section 4, 21-5B-1 a – Principal Permitted Uses – Number 11 –
Gymnasium use. This should read
“Gymnasium use in the existing gymnasium space”.
Mr. Krieg raised another
concern, which he felt needed to be addressed.
He asked if the 200 space parking limitation is total usage or at a
specific time usage, and if this would be a problem.
Mr. Lemanowicz said that if this issue does arise, the Board probably
would want this addressed for approval at that point because times would need to
be set for the operations. Mr. Krieg
continued to explain that during the day a certain amount of spots are used, but
at night time there is another use that may utilize the same amount of spots for
the gymnasium, theater etc. This
reaffirms the question whether the number is at a time usage or an all-inclusive
usage.
Mr. Kimball said the
answer is how this will be administered. When
this is proposed to be reused, the perspective owner must approach the Planning
Board for approval as long as all the conditions are met.
If the owner does not meet the conditions, then it goes to the zoning
board, and it will be a use variance. When
the site plan is submitted, all the buildings and improvements will have to be
shown, and the ordinance will require that the use, which is proposed, is
labeled for all of the space in the buildings.
This will be added up as a cumulative total with the exception that the
future owner is allowed to have an extra credit for the gymnasium, church and
theater to allow them to utilize those spaces after 5:00 pm and on weekends.
These uses in this regard are out of the formula if it meets those time
limitations.
Mr. Buzak asked Mr.
Lemanowicz if his recommendation is the average of 5 spaces.
Mr. Lemanowicz said the average is 3.8.
So the average is more like
4, with 5 spaces being a little more conservative.
Mr. Krieg again raised
the concern of parking and traffic after 5:00 pm.
He noted that the goal is to restrict usage after this time and prevent a
way from getting around the restriction. This
concern is to try and preclude problems from the neighbors.
Chairman Giordano stated
that it seems the reason to leave gymnasium use in the ordinance is not as an
ancillary use to one of the other uses such as the school, but because it is a
pre existing condition.
There was some discussion
regarding the current uses of the gymnasium.
Mr. Mountain said that currently the uses are not heavy, and it is
limited since it has only one full sized basketball court.
From a recreational standpoint, the use is limited.
Mr. Kimball reiterated
that this is not a matter of limiting the parking.
It is a gauge of intensity. When
the site plan is labeled as a gymnasium use, and the standard states five
parking spaces per 1000 square feet as opposed to three, for example, it means
that the overall intensity will be lowered because a lot more of the overall 200
allotted spaces are being used.
Mr. Lemanowicz paralleled
the parking spaces to counting points. If,
for instance, 200 points are allowed on the property, the gymnasium will then be
5 points for every 1000 square feet.
Mr. Krieg thought that it
is better to be more conservative with the amount of parking spaces per 1000
square feet and then negotiate with the buyer, if necessary.
At this point in time it is not known how the future owner will react to
the ordinance. They may take
exceptions to part of it, and the Board should be confident of being in a strong
position for negotiation. He went on
to say that if the gymnasium is being used as an auxiliary part of the school,
then there is no issue. The concerns
addressed during the meeting arise only if it is being used with its own
distinct purposes.
Mr. Mountain went on to
say that the existing space is so small it is difficult to imagine it being an
issue, even as an ancillary use. A
building of this size would not generate the type of traffic that would be of
concern. The public assembly space
is not listed as a conditional use, and it could only be used as ancillary
space, which is its current use. The
public assembly and church space are not permitted uses of the ordinance.
The only reason it is being listed on Page 4 of the ordinance is because
of its use as ancillary space. The
gymnasium is a little different, but with the added caveat of the parking
limiting the existing space, the control mechanism for the gymnasium is set in
place. What can be explained to the
residents is that the space currently allowed now will continue to be used in
its existing capacity.
Mr. Buzak answered Mayor
Florek’s question regarding the restriction of religious uses.
He said that religious uses would be restricted the same way similar uses
are restricted. Actually, it is not
a restriction but a measurement of intensity.
The ordinance as presently drafted would qualify for that.
Mr. Buzak asked if the
perspective buyers have seen the draft of this ordinance, and Mr. Mountain
answered that they had seen an earlier version, but the sub committee felt there
could be further changes, which could cause confusion, so this draft was not
shown to them.
Mr. Tolley recommended a
public hearing be set for a change to the Master Plan for February 20, 2008.
Mr. Kimball stated that if the Township Committee is satisfied with the
draft once it is sent to them, it will be introduced and then come back to the
Planning Board for formal action and consistency for the Master Plan review.
Mr. Tolley recommended we go forward with the public hearing and pass the
draft onto the Township Committee so they can send it back to us.
Chairman Giordano said
that Mr. Kimball would draft the changes to the ordinance so it can be sent to
the Township Committee for discussion at their next meeting on February 11,
2008. Notice of the public hearing
will published ten days prior to the public hearing on February 20, 2008 in the
Daily Record for adoption of an amendment to the Land Use Plan element of the
Master Plan. In addition to publication, the notice will be sent to the
adjoining municipalities, including the Morris County Planning Board.
Mr. Buzak said that by February 20th, the Planning Board would
have done everything it needs to do assuming the Township Committee would like
to move forward.
Mrs. Link asked that on
Page 3. Section 5, Number 3, the following be changed:
The word “additions”
should be changed to “alterations”.
Mr. Kimball stated that
he listed the new lot number, which only becomes official with the map, and Mr.
Lemanowicz added that the tax assessor needs to issue that number on the new
map. Mr. Buzak clarified that this
would not have to be done until the Township Committee introduced the ordinance.
Highlands
Master Plan
Mr. Kimball drafted a
letter to the Highlands Council in response to the Highlands Master Plan
changes. The deadline to respond is
February 28, 2008.
Mr. Mountain displayed
the Land Use Capability map with overlays. There
was some discussion regarding the map. Mr.
Kimball indicated the sub zones on the map, which was one of the major changes
in the revised Master Plan. The new
sub zones are the lake community, conservation constrained area of the
conservation zone, and the existing community constrained area within the
existing community zone.
Mr. Aubin went on to say
that there is an assumption in the draft Highlands Master Plan that
infrastructure could be extended into an area labeled as an existing community.
Mr. Kimball said that infrastructure is also one of the criteria for
designating the existing community zone where water or sewer infrastructures
exist. If there is infrastructure,
then it is intended that future development be limited in these areas.
Mr. Aubin added that the
historic district should exempt a section of the Township from the existing
developed zone, and presently this is incorrectly mapped.
Some of the historic areas are included in their existing community areas
without the designation of an historic area.
Mr. Tolley suggested that this should be raised in the response letter to
the Highlands Council. In the end
the Highlands Master Plan has essentially documented the same amount of
development for the Township as the Township is already zoned for.
Mr. Krieg said that the
letter states there are 200 potential lots as a build out.
He had a number of 85. Mr.
Aubin said that this was based on the 2000 census.
The difference between the 2000 census number and the build out was 203
units. However, the 203 units do not
take into consideration any environmental constraints.
So in reality the number is closer to 80.
Mr. Lemanowicz indicated that a build out analysis being performed by
Maser is close to being completed. The
changes to be considered involve the Conti property, the Sister’s property and
the new riparian buffers. Also, the
latest analysis will impose 150 foot buffers on all the wetlands.
Once this is done, there will be a better indication of how many
properties are truly left in
Mendham
Township
.
Mr. Aubin discussed the
300-foot riparian buffer and the regulations under the flood hazard control
rules within that riparian buffer. He
said that he did not think that the 300-foot riparian zone is really going to
stop any type of development; however, certainly the 150-foot wetland transition
area does make a huge difference. He
suggested that the riparian buffer should not be addressed in the letter, and
there was discussion of how to perhaps address the riparian buffer in the
letter.
It was decided that in
the first paragraph of the draft letter, Mr. Kimball would add the word
“historic”, and in the second paragraph, based upon Mr. Lemanowicz’s
comments, the future build out number would be modified.
Motion to adjourn the
meeting was duly made by Mr. Tolley and seconded at 8:51 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Foley
Board Secretary
| 
