|
|
|
LAND USE
BOARD MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 2007
PDF Version
MINUTES
OXFORD TOWNSHIP
LAND USE BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2007
Chairman D. Niece called the meeting to order at
7:35 p.m.
ADEQUATE NOTICE was given as follows: Notice was
sent to the Star Gazette
and Express Times. Notice was posted on the
Municipal bulletin board in the Township
administration building in Oxford Township, New
Jersey and notice was filed with the Township Clerk.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mayor Lazorisak, Mr. Niece, Dr.
Yeager, Ms. Smorzaniuk,
Mr. Accetturo, Mr. Cratch, Ms. Accetturo, Mr.
Calabrese, Mr. Ischinger, Mr. Williams
Also Present: Attorney M. Garofalo, Engineer M.
Finelli, Planner D. Roberts
COMMUNICATIONS: A list was provided to the Land Use
Board members
MINUTES: Minutes from the July 9, 2007 and September
10, 2007 meeting.
A motion to approve the minutes from the July 9,
2007 meeting as written was made by Dr. Yeager,
seconded by Ms. Smorzaniuk, Vote: Yeager, Smorzaniuk,
Mr. Accetturo,
Cratch, Ms. Accetturo,
Ischinger - Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain, motion
carried.
A motion to approve the minutes from the September
10, 2007 meeting as written
was made by Ms. Smorzaniuk, seconded by Dr. Yeager,
Vote: Yeager, Smorzaniuk,
Lazorisak, Niece, Mr.
Accetturo, Cratch, Ms. Accetturo, Ischinger - Ayes,
0 - Nay,
0 - Abstain, motion carried.
ZONING OFFICER’S REPORT: September 2007 zoning
report.
The zoning officer submitted his report for
September 2007. Zero permits were denied, five
permits were approved, multiple calls and questions.
RESOLUTIONS:
1. N. Campbell - Resolution granting a one year
extension for a variance application for block 24
lot 48.01. The etension was granted on September 10,
2007 meeting.
Eligible to Vote: Mr. Accetturo, Mr. Ischinger, Mr.
Niece, Ms. Smorzaniuk, Dr. Yeager
A motion to approve the resolution as written was
made by Mr. Ischinger seconded
by Mr. Smorzaniuk, Vote: Accetturo, Ischinger,
Niece, Smorzaniuk, Yeager - Ayes,
0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain, motion carried.
2. Oxford Textile Inc. - Resolution for a minor
subdivision application for block 33 lots
4,37,38,39,40 & 41. Approval was granted on
September 10, 2007.
Eligible to Vote: Ms. Smorzaniuk, Mayor Lazorisak,
Mr. Niece, Mr. Cratch, Dr. Yeager,
Ms. Accetturo, Mr. Ischinger.
A motion to approve the resolution as written was
made by Mayor Lazorisak,
seconded
Mr. Calabrese, Vote: Lazorisak, Calabrese, Niece,
Yeager, Smorzaniuk, Cratch,
Ms. Accetturo, Williams - Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 -
Abstain, motion carried.
3. C. Dianas - Resolution for a minor subdivision
application with variance relief for
block 2 Lots 13 & 13.03. This application received
approval on August 13, 2007.
Eligible to Vote: Mayor Lazorisak, Mr. Niece, Dr.
Yeager, Ms. Smorzaniuk, Mr. Cratch,
Ms. Accetturo, Mr. Calbrese, Mr. Williams. Engineer
M. Finelli stated the zoning
violation has been rectified.
A motion to approve the resolution as written was
made by Mayor Lazorisak,
seconded by Mr. Calabrese, Vote: Lazorisak,
Calabrese, Niece, Yeager, Smorzaniuk, Cratch, Ms.
Accetturo, Williams - Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain,
motion carried.
COMPLETENESS ITEMS:
1. John & Lucy Browne - Completeness review for a
site plan application with variance
relief for block 25 lots 18 and 19.
A motion to deem the application incomplete per the
Engineer’s report was made by
Mr. Niece, seconded by Dr. Yeager, Vote: Niece,
Yeager, Lazorisak, Smorzaniuk,
Mr. Accetturo, Calabrese, Ischinger, Ms. Accetturo,
Williams - Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain, motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING & DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Oxtech Industries - Public hearing on the Oxtech
Industries site redevelopment
investigation for block 45 lot 1 and block 42 lot
13. This application has been rescheduled from the
August 13, 2007 meeting with no testimony given and
no further notice required. Attorney M. Garofalo
explained the process and Stated the board is acting
as an advisory decision the township committee can
either adopt or ignore your decision. Attorney M.
Garofalo asked Mayor
Lazorisak and Deputy Mayor Accetturo to step down
for the application because they serve on the
township committee. Applicant Attorney T. Delaney
objected to them remaining in the room. Attorney
Garofalo introduced professionals both for the town
and the applicant.
Planner D. Roberts was sworn in by Attorney M.
Garofalo.
Mr. Roberts briefly reviewed his credentials for the
board and his firm CMX
formerly Schoor DePalma. Mr. Roberts briefly
reviewed what the township has done in the last four
years not only for redevelopment but for
rehabilitation.
Mr. Roberts reviewed redevelopment areas one, two
and three.
Mr. Roberts gave a power point presentation dated
October 8, 2007 exhibit A-1.
Mr. Roberts explained there are two separate owners
of the properties which are located in the town
center rehabilitation area. Mr. Roberts stated the
building
they were hoping to rehabilitate had been lost by
fire. Mr. Roberts explained the
process the township has taken to date. Mr. Roberts
stated the redevelopment
plan is done by ordinance and is a little bit more
involved than rehabilitation,
he explained. Mr. Roberts reviewed letter A thru H
criteria for the proposed redevelopment area and how
they apply.
Mr. Roberts stated the governing body has to
authorize the study by resolution.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the entire process for the
redevelopment process.
Mr. Roberts addressed the downtown rehabilitation
area including Wall St.
Ox-Tech, Furnace brook and the Textile Mill site.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the Historic portion of the
site which was part of the redevelopment plan.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the recommendations for the
downtown and the vision statement which would
include a pedestrian crossing. Mr. Roberts reviewed
exhibit Map A-2 dated 1934 & exhibit Map A-3 dated
1946.
Mr. Roberts reviewed criteria “b” & “d” showing the
remaining one-story building showing the dilapidated
physical condition of the building and the
detrimental visual impact on the image of Oxford
from Route 31.
Mr. Roberts briefly reviewed structural conditions
showing outer wall cracks making the building
structurally unsound and the permit activity per
NJDCA construction office. Mr. Roberts reviewed
criteria “c” showing vacant land a foundation and
walls. Mr. Roberts concluded the most valuable
building was destroyed by fire, the remaining
building is in dilapidated condition, the remaining
building has been vacant more then ten years and is
not tenantable due to structural condition. Mr.
Roberts the overall condition of the site has a
detrimental blighting impact on the rest of the
downtown.
Mr. Roberts stated there is also the possibility of
soil contamination at the site from a prior
industrial use and other issues with the site that
it would qualify.
Board Questions: Mr. Ischinger asked if there was a
treatment plant on the Site, Mr. Roberts stated it
was hard to determine.
Mr. Roberts provided the electronic version for the
file record and exhibit A-5 June 8, 2007 report.
Public Questions: Mr. W. Bray of 5 Upper Denmark
Road.
Mr. Bray asked if the board could vote not to
recommend and how would it impact the township
committee. Mr. Roberts explained it would be a
little unusual for a township committee to go
against its own planning board but it has happened,
Mr. Roberts further explained clearly it is a much
stronger position when both the planning board and
committee agree but it doesn’t have to be that way.
Mr. Roberts briefly reviewed the process for
rehabilitation versus redevelopment
for Mr. Bray.
Mr. Bray asked Mr. Roberts if he was familiar with
the redevelopment plan time line and process with
the land use board, Mr. Roberts explained.
Mr. Bray asked was the township aware that the
property was going to be sold when they adopted the
original rehabilitation plan with the five year
timetable attached to it., Mr. Roberts replied he
was retained by the township right about that time.
Mr. Roberts addressed Mr. Bray’s questions regarding
the rehabilitation designation and incentive and
what was in place when his firm was retained. Mr.
Roberts reviewed for Mr. Bray steps the property
owner could have taken with the property including
safety issues.
Mr. Roberts reviewed building permit activity for
Mr. Bray and historic registry.
Mr. Bray asked if there were any other mechanisms
outside of redevelopment,
Mr. Roberts replied there really not much else that
the township can do.
Attorney M. Garofalo reminded Mr. Roberts not to
answer anything that he
was not directly involved with.
Mr. Bray asked if there were any investigation of
wetlands, Mr. Roberts stated
he did not do that type of investigation.
Ms. L. May of 39 Green Street.
Ms. May asked Mr. Roberts how would changing from
redevelopment to
rehabilitation effect town center designation Mr.
Roberts replied it will not.
BREAK: 9:30 - 9:40 P.M.
Attorney J. Delaney asked Mr. Roberts how he came to
be hired, Mr. Roberts
explained his contract with Oxford Township on an as
needed basis.
Exhibit A-6 was presented a report by Mr. Roberts
dated 2004 with an amendment which was adopted in
2006. Mr. Delaney asked if at the time the report
was done did the original plan call for five years,
Mr. Roberts replied yes.
Attorney Delaney asked Mr. Roberts to explain
eminent domain, Mr. Roberts
explained a lot would have to happen first before
Mr. Delaney’s client would loose
his property. Mr. Delaney asked why Mr. Roberts name
was not on the June 2007
report, Mr. Roberts explained a member of his staff
helped prepare the report.
Mr. Delaney asked how often did you walk the site,
Mr. Roberts explained many
times. Mr. Roberts explained the print out of the
power point presentation.
Mr. Roberts explained the differences in the
conclusions.
Mr. Roberts explained the process before the board.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Roberts if my client was
prepared to have everything
removed would that change your mind about it being
an area in need of redevelopment.
Mr. Roberts explained he would have to see after all
of that has taken place but the
conditions today are as I described in my
presentation.
Mr. Roberts briefly addressed permits pulled with
the DCA for the site.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Roberts if he has spoke with a
developer regarding the property,
Mr. Roberts replied no.
Mr. Delaney stated his client has secured the
property with a fence around the site.
Mr. Roberts stated there had been problems on the
site with a trespass.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Roberts if I told you this
property is under contract with a
developer would this change your conclusion, Mr.
Roberts replied no, until there
is money invested in the property and there is
change in the property.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Roberts if he was aware there
was machinery on the site to
remove debree, Mr. Roberts replied he presumed he
must have hired somebody by
the order of the municipality.
Mr. Roberts reviewed a C-1 stream, buffer and a
review by the DEP which may impact development on
lot 13.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Roberts what if I told you the
two owners were partners to
develop this property, would that change your
conclusion. Mr. Roberts replied no I
haven’t seen any evidence that there is any
arrangement between the two or that they
made any arrangement with the township. Mr. Delaney
asked if we have two willing
property owners who are willing to spend money to
clean it up isn’t that better than having the
Municipality take over, Mr. Roberts explained.
Mr. Roberts addressed the summons issued from the
Police department.
Mr. Delaney asked what the recommendations are for
lot 13, Mr. Roberts explained. Mr. Roberts briefly
addressed the historic district.
Mr. Delaney asked how many properties have you in
your career have been in need of redevelopment, Mr.
Roberts replied in excess of thirty.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Roberts if he has ever had
just two lots be declared in a redevelopment zone,
Mr. Roberts replied yes explained and provided
examples. Mr. Delaney reviewed the uniqueness of the
site and requested Mr. Roberts show similarities at
the next hearing.
Mr. Roberts provided examples for similar situations
in other towns
his firm has dealt with.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the dates for the various plans
presented, October 8, 2007 powerpoint, June 8, 2007,
Investigation report,
Mr. Delaney stated he had no further questions for
this witness.
Mr. Delaney requested his planner be heard at the
next meeting.
Attorney Garofalo requested any reports be handed
out ahead of time
not at the meeting.
Attorney Garofalo suggested Mr. Bray ask his
questions at the next meeting.
This application will be continued at the November
12, 2007 meeting.
2. A. Accetturo - Request for an extension for a
previously approved Preliminary
Major Subdivision application with Variance relief
for block 24 lot 19 & 13.01 located on Zulauf Lane.
This request has been rescheduled to the November
12,
2007 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No further public comment was
offered.
MAYOR’S REPORT: None at this time.
VOUCHERS: A motion to approve the vouchers submitted
for payment was made by
Ms. Smorzaniuk, seconded by Mr. Calabrese, all ayes,
motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margaret Housman, Secretary |
|
