COURT HOUSE – The Middle Township Planning Board Nov. 10 made use of the municipality’s Performing Arts Center to hold a socially distant indoor public hearing on the 2020 master plan reexamination report.
The meeting was not broadcast for remote attendance, which may help explain why those motivated by aspects of the plan attended in strong numbers, as the county’s COVID-19 case count continues to climb. Most of the bottom part of the auditorium was populated with appropriately distant citizens.
A master plan represents a sketch of a municipality’s vision for its growth and development, in terms of the use of one of its most precious commodities, its land. The plan touches on development objectives and conservation aims.
The master plan was adopted in 2003. Changes, additions and deletions to that plan were part of the last reexamination report in 2010.
Since state regulations require a reexamination at least every 10 years, the 2020 report, its timeframe for public presentation compressed by the pandemic restrictions, was running out of time for the required public hearing that must precede any vote to adopt the report.
What Does the Report Say?
The report is organized in a way that meets the technical requirements set by the state.
At its heart, the report maintains the 2010 emphasis on regional centers in Rio Grande and Court House to which most commercial and commercial/residential development is directed.
The 2020 update of the master plan expands the geographic reach of each of those two centers, providing new opportunities for economic development.
One goal is to promote and sustain a year-round economy amid the county’s overarching seasonal economy.
The report supports “sustainable development” in the municipality, while continuing to protect the integrity of distinct communities.
The municipal vision seeks to balance the needs of “residential, commercial, light industrial, recreational, public and conservation” land use.
The reintroduction of light industrial use – wholesale distribution centers, warehousing, and manufacturing, as examples – is a marked change from the 2010 reexamination report, which removed the light industrial category from all zoning districts.
The report commits the municipality to environmental efforts to ensure the protection of critical resources, including wetlands and groundwater. It acknowledges that a new plan for managing stormwater runoff is needed in the near term.
The report also states that the municipality must remain committed to the conservation of areas of fragile natural resources, protecting open spaces, and encouraging renewable energy systems.
Recognizing that the municipality’s economic goals depend on its ability to provide the necessary infrastructure for growth, the report sets a framework for infrastructure planning that is “adequate to promote sustainable development in the centers.”
Concerning housing, the report commits the municipality to a goal of a full range of housing opportunities, including market-based affordable housing options. In a departure with 2010, the 2020 plan seeks to encourage the transfer of mixed housing development to the centers.
The plan sets out goals to encourage public transportation and to continue the promotion of bicycle-friendly paths throughout the municipality.
In terms of recreation, the plan calls for efforts to meet future recreation needs within the framework of municipal growth.
Not forgotten in the plan was a stated need to preserve the municipality’s historic, cultural, and aesthetic assets.
Where Does Controversy Arise?
Having laid out a blueprint for land use development, the plan specifically identified actions that the Planning Board recommends to Middle Township Committee. Three plan proposals served as the motivation for most of the public comment at the hearing.
The report calls on the municipality to define and regulate the rapid rise in short-term rentals, many of which relate to online apps, like Airbnb. Recognizing that such rentals have evolved as a means for municipal residents to seek added revenue, the Planning Board seeks to encourage a municipal ordinance that would better define this subset of rental activity, while establishing minimum stay requirements, a need for rental licenses, inspection requirements, and penalties for an ordinance violation.
With such regulation in place, the report calls for permitting such short-term rentals in all zoning districts.
The hearing saw comments on both sides of the issue, with some residents not agreeing with the report’s perceived need for regulation of the activity, while others support the recommendation.
A second issue that drew comment was the report’s attempt to define two types of marinas that might exist within municipal boundaries.
Seeking to “encourage compatibility” of a marina with surrounding uses, the report defines one type of marina as “light industrial,” where the “loading and unloading of material associated with marine construction and related activities” would be permitted. It then defines a more conventional marina, where such light industrial use would not occur.
This was a significant issue for property owners in Avalon Manor, where a stated goal of the Avalon Manor Association is making the Avalon Marine Center, an embedded marina in the community, “a better and desired neighbor.”
In 2012, the marina began an evolution from a pleasure-craft marina, which it remains, to a marine center, with warehousing and support for other marine industry uses.
Other than seeking an expanded definition of a marina in zoning ordinances, the reexamination report does not specifically state what the change in definitions would mean for existing marinas.
A prominent aspect of the changes recommended in the 2020 report involves nine recommended zoning changes, which would require the committee’s concurrence. Three of these proposed changes are in Rio Grande, known as Middle Township South, and six are in Court House, Middle Township North.
The only one to draw comment at the public hearing was one that would change the zoning for a 4.5-acre parcel off the northbound entrance ramp of the Garden State Parkway (GSP), at Exit 10, on Stone Harbor Boulevard.
The recommended change is from a rural conservation zone, which would prohibit most development to a municipal center designation, expanding the Court House municipal center area across the GSP.
Property owners of a residential community behind the designated parcel object to the zoning change, which would allow a developer, Cape May Hospitality, to proceed with site planning for a 100-room, four-story Hilton Hampton Inn hotel, costing about $16 million.
Two of those property owners, Ryan Schmid and Mary Ann Alulis, spoke at the meeting, arguing that the change should not happen and that the public’s ability to speak about the issue was limited beyond reason, essentially forced into a public hearing where the vote to adopt the report would be taken.
They said after the meeting that while the letter of the law respecting public comment was followed, they were never given a realistic opportunity to comment at a point where the Planning Board might have time to consider and react to their comments.
One part of the response on this specific zoning change is that the previous owner of the land parcel won a Superior Court judgment, allowing a convenience store and gas station on the property, which demonstrates that maintaining a rural conservation zoning designation is incompatible with the court ruling.
The evening ended with the Planning Board voting to adopt the report.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.
