CRANFORD — The Cranford Planning Board met Thursday to review architectural plans for a proposed gym expansion at Union County College in Cranford, and to vote on whether or not the designs align with the township’s Master Plan.Although the college is required to present proposals to the planning board, countyand state-owned lands are not subject to local zoning laws, and any recommendations made are non-binding. The college was represented by Matthew Tavares of the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA), along with architect Vincent Myers and engineer Jessica Hauber.
The 33,000-square-foot renovation and expansion includes space for coaching and athletic training, locker rooms, multipurpose rooms, and class space. Roughly half of the space will be taken up by a new, 1,000-seat NJCAA regulation-size gymnasium. Mr. Myers told the board that without the expansion, the college is stuck with “an elementary [school]-size basketball court.” The new court would not only provide a better place for hardwood sports like basketball and volleyball, but would let the college host its commencement ceremonies indoors.
Mr. Tavares said the new gym will “function as a vital nexus between the college and the community, becoming a destination for Union County residents.” However, when asked about the school’s plans to host outside events like tournaments, UCC Associate Vice President of Operations Vincent Lotano said that the college has no plans to host largescale events at the venue other than its own games and graduations. When asked by board member Michael Callahan if the township or public will be allowed to host events in the space, Mr. Lotano said, “there is a process for access to our facilities today … And I would say anyone is [welcome] to approach about any program they might have.”
Preliminary designs showed the gymnasium facing south towards the parking lot, which would lose 119 of its existing 1,430 parking spaces. Vice Chair Juan Carlos Nordelo asked Mr. Lotano if the parking lot would still have adequate space to accommodate student enrollment in addition to the increased spectator crowd sizes, to which he said yes.
The board’s main concerns were connected to loss of permeable land and the additional potential for flooding in the Springfield Avenue and Nomahegan Park areas. Ms. Hauber explained that the expansion would only increase impervious ground cover by 2,600 square feet. The size of the roofline also requires installation of a stormwater retention basin below the parking lot, which Ms. Hauber said will slowly release into existing drainage systems. Board Chair Molly Kellett questioned the size of the retention basin, asking what level of storm it will be built to withstand. Ms. Hauber said that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection requires any development over one acre to build for a 100-Year Storm.
Roughly 30 people attended the meeting after the UCIA sent notice to school community members. Master Plan review sessions do not typically include public comment, and Board Attorney Jonathan Drill told attendees “the board doesn’t have to do this. The board has never done this, but because the notice went out to the public, the chair and her discretion is allowing other questions of the witnesses.” Mr. Taveres told the board that the UCIA sent notices “in an effort to be transparent and forthcoming for the community at large.”
The improvised public-comment session became chaotic at times, with Ms. Kellett and Mr. Drill interjecting to keep commenters from providing personal testimony and to direct questions to the UCIA. At one point, Mr. Drill asked a resident, “Can you pretend you’re on ‘Jeopardy’ and make these things into a question?” Ms. Kellett also reminded attendees that the Master Plan review is not the same as a siteplan review, and that, in accordance with land-management laws, the planning board has no authority over approving or denying the project.
Concerns from residents generally mirrored those of the board, with multiple people asking Mr. Lotano and Mr. Tavares to address issues related to parking and flooding in the neighborhood. A majority of the attendees, however, were students and faculty at the college who are in favor of the expansion.
Board Planner Nicholas Dickerson of Topology gave his assessment of the designs in connection to the township’s Master Plan, highlighting multiple consistent goals. Mr Dickerson said that, “the larger gym space would help to provide a climate-controlled area for commencement, which would allow them to do so at reduced costs.” He assessed that the new space would help the township’s goal of providing facilities in a “convenient and cost-effective manner.” By turning a portion of the parking lot into recreation space, Mr. Dickerson said the college is promoting the township’s goal “to cooperate with public and quasi public institutions, to utilize and maintain their undeveloped and underdeveloped land for open space or recreation.”
Mr. Dickerson noted that without expanding public access to the facility, the proposal is not fully aligned with other goals in the Master Plan, which lists increased cooperation with surrounding communities and open recreation spaces for all residents as priorities.
The board ultimately unanimously voted to deem the project “not inconsistent” with the township’s Master Plan, largely based on a lack of additional programming aimed at the overall public. Board member David Leber shared his opinion that, “to be consistent, it has to advance the goals of the township. It advances the goals of the university, but doesn’t enhance the town.” Board member Dennis Geier mirrored Mr. Leber’s opinion, stating that, “Looking at the facilities and utilities goal [of the Master Plan], I don’t know that it’s addressing any existing or future township needs. I’m not saying that it’s harming them, but I don’t think it’s addressing anything specifically.”
