Washington planning board flags ambiguity in draft demolition ordinance, asks staff to tighten '50% demolition' language

The Township of Washington Planning Board reviewed draft Ordinance 2025-20 and Resolution 25-307 on Sept. 17, 2025, and asked staff to tighten language that determines when a demolition triggers planning-board review.

Board members, staff and consultants focused on the ordinance’s 50% demolition threshold. Paul Azelina, identified in the meeting record as an engineer in attendance, told the board the draft does not clearly specify how the 50% is calculated and warned the ambiguity could produce inconsistent interpretations. "I think you need to define surface area. It is probably the key to this ordinance," Azelina said, urging a clearer calculation method for applicants and enforcement staff.

The draft currently describes the trigger as "demolition of 50% or more of an existing residence . . . as calculated by surface area of any visible facade, exterior wall and/or architectural element," and adds language that it "may or may not include the foundation." Board members said that phrase is confusing in practice and invited applicants to claim they met the 50% threshold by leaving only foundation elements in place.

Mayor Kalamari said the ordinance should be explicit: "If the intent is to include the above-ground portion of the foundation, let's just say that instead of saying 'which may or may not.'" Members debated alternatives: define "surface area" as a two-dimensional measurement (length × width), switch to a square-footage metric excluding basements, or explicitly state whether above‑ground foundation sections count. Several members suggested adding a short calculation example to the ordinance to give applicants practical guidance.

Lenny, participating by phone, summarized the drafting history: the township attorney prepared the draft at the mayor’s recommendation after prior zoning and planning discussions, and the construction official and township engineer reviewed it. The board discussed process trade-offs: routing some determinations first to the construction official could speed reviews and reduce applicant costs, while reserving more complex decisions for engineer review or board consideration.

After discussion the board asked staff to prepare concrete language options and to consult with Township Engineer Glenn Beckmeier and Uniform Construction Code official Darius Pecoy before returning a revised draft to the planning board. Mark (project staff) said he would email stakeholders to begin the revision process.

The board did not adopt substantive changes at the meeting; instead it approved forwarding suggested edits and a recommended clarifying example to the mayor and council for consideration before final council action. A separate procedural motion to approve the July 16, 2025 minutes passed by roll call during the same meeting.

What’s next: Staff will draft proposed wording that (at minimum) defines how the 50% threshold is calculated, clarifies whether and which parts of a foundation count, and proposes either a surface-area or square-footage method (with an illustrative calculation). The planning board expects to review the revised language at a future planning-board meeting before the council takes final action.