Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ed Pdrm Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sparta planning board finds proposed zoning rewrite inconsistent with master plan
Summary
After extended debate, Sparta Township Planning Board voted that proposed amendments cutting maximum warehouse size from 175,000 to 75,000 square feet (Ord. 26-12) are not consistent with the 1984 master plan and reexamination reports, citing concerns about traffic, operational intensity and lost tax ratables.
The Sparta Township Planning Board on June 23 voted that a package of zoning amendments affecting the ED, PDRM-1 and PDRM-2 districts is inconsistent with the township’s master plan.
Township planner Lindsay presented a written consistency review and told the board the proposed ordinance’s flat cap on maximum building size — reducing allowed building coverage from 175,000 square feet to 75,000 — focuses on footprint rather than the "operational intensity" that actually drives traffic and other impacts. "By strictly limiting the size of the building, you're not limiting the intensity of the use," Lindsay said, arguing smaller buildings can still generate heavy truck traffic if their operations demand it.
Board members discussed the trade-offs at length. Several said a lower cap could encourage subdivision of lots into multiple smaller buildings with more tenant turnovers and vehicles, increasing rather than reducing suburban traffic and infrastructure strain. Others warned the 75,000-square-foot limit could reduce future tax ratables by roughly the amount of the former allowance and thereby limit economic opportunities in the ED district.
Some members urged distinguishing rail-adjacent parcels, where larger, rail-serving warehouses may be appropriate, from other sites. Planner Lindsay recommended alternatives including tiered site-design standards, mandatory traffic-impact studies tied to use and intensity, and higher environmental thresholds for sensitive areas rather than a single blanket size cap.
Board member Joan Foreman made a motion to find the ordinance consistent; after roll call the board recorded two yes votes, six no votes and one abstention and declared the ordinance not consistent with the master plan, relying on the planner's Negley report "and the record" for the reasons cited.
The finding does not enact the ordinance; it is the board's consistency advice under New Jersey statute 40:55D-26 and will be part of the record the mayor and council may consider as they decide whether to adopt, revise or reject the proposed zoning changes. The planner and several board members said the master plan reexamination process planned by the township will revisit these issues and could produce more targeted language and study before final adoption.
What’s next: the board said its findings and the planner’s recommendations (tiered standards, targeted traffic studies and environmental buffers) will be included in the record for the governing body and revisited as part of the ongoing master plan update.
