|
|
|
LAND
USE MEETING MINUTES
November 12, 2007
PDF
Version
MINUTES
OXFORD TOWNSHIP
LAND USE BOARD MEETING
November 12, 2007
Chairman D. Niece called the meeting to order at
7:30 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.
Attorney M. Garofalo swore in new board member
Laraine May to the position of
Alternate #2 .
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mayor Lazorisak, Mr. Niece, Dr.
Yeager, Ms. Smorzaniuk, Mr. Accetturo, Mr.
Calabrese, Mr. Ischinger, Ms. May
Members Absent: Mr. Williams, Ms. Accetturo
Also Present: Attorney M. Garofalo, Engineer M.
Finelli, Planner D. Roberts, Attorney K. Decie
COMMUNICATIONS: A list was provided to the Land Use
Board members
MINUTES: Minutes from the October 8, 2007 meeting.
A motion to approve the minutes from the October 8,
2007 meeting as written was made by Dr. Yeager,
seconded by Ms. Smorzaniuk, Vote: Yeager, Smorzaniuk,
Cratch,
Lazorisak, Niece,
Calabrese, Ischinger - Ayes, 0 - Nay, Accetturo -
Abstain, motion carried.
COMPLETENESS ITEMS:
1. John & Lucy Browne - Second Completeness review
for a variance application
for block 25 lots 18 and 19 located on Mountain
Avenue.
This application was deemed incomplete at the
October 8, 2007 meeting.
Eligible to Vote: Lazorisak, Niece, Yeager,
Smorzaniuk, Cratch, Calabrese,
Ischinger, Accetturo, Williams,
Accetturo Engineer M. Finelli briefly explained the
lot is lacking improved roadway frontage and
stormwater management improvements which are now
required. Chairman D. Niece asked if anyone was
present to represent John and Lucy Browne, there was
no response. A motion to deem the application
incomplete per the Engineer’s report dated November
9, 2007 was made by Mayor Lazorisak, seconded by Dr.
Yeager, Vote: Lazorisak, Yeager, Niece, Smorzaniuk,
Cratch, Calabrese, Ischinger, Accetturo - Ayes, 0 -
Nay, 0 - Abstain, motion carried.
2. Laraine May - Completeness review for a variance
application for block 33 lot 38.01
located at 39 Green Street. Engineer M. Finelli
stated he did not do a review for this
application, the application is fairly straight
forward. Mr. Finelli stated the applicant
is proposing a small addition to a single family
home. A motion to deem the application complete per
the was made by Ms. Smorzaniuk, seconded by Mayor
Lazorisak, Vote: Smorzaniuk, Lazorisak, Niece,
Yeager, Accetturo, Cratch, Calabrese, Ischinger -
Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain, motion carried.
The public hearing for this application is scheduled
for the December 10, 2007 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING & DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Oxtech Industries - Continuation of a public
hearing on the Oxtech Industries site
redevelopment investigation for block 45 lot 1 and
block 42 lot 13 located on
Wall Street. Eligible to Vote: Niece, Yeager,
Smorzaniuk, Ms. Accetturo, Calabrese,
Cratch, Ischinger, May.
Mayor Lazorisak and Mr. Accetturo stepped down for
the
application. The property owners were represented by
Attorney J. Delaney
and Planner P. Steck. Attorney J. Delaney reviewed
where they left off at the
last meeting. Mr. Delaney stated they were in the
middle of public comment and
left off with Mr. Bray, Mr. Bray declined further
comment. Mr. Delaney stated he had an objection to
the municipal attorney being present for the
application, Attorney M. Garofalo stated the
municipal Attorney would be participating.
Mr. Delaney voiced his concerns and stated Mr.
Decie’s participation
would be inappropriate. Chairman D. Niece asked if
anyone from the public wishes to question Mr.
Roberts before we move on, no one came forward.
Mr. Delaney introduced Planner P. Steck, Attorney M.
Garofalo swore in Mr. Steck.
Mr. Steck briefly reviewed his credentials for the
board, the board accepted him as an
expert. Mr. Steck submitted his report dated
November 3, 2007 marked as exhibit A-7.Mr. Steck
stated as part of his report he examined both of the
subject properties on two occasions, and walked the
lots. Mr. Steck stated he toured the building on the
site withthe owner. Mr. Steck stated his work is
summarized in his report, he explained.
Mr. Steck stated this assignment was presented to
him by the owner of Block 45 Lot 1.
Mr. Steck stated the board should be presented with
substantial creditable evidence
that the statutory criteria has been satisfied. Mr.
Steck listed on his report at the
bottom of page one the documents reviewed, Mr. Steck
went on to explain the process
before the board.
Mr. Steck reviewed the redevelopment area
designation criterion.
Mr. Steck reviewed the aerial photos showing the
location of the subject properties
Block 45 Lot 1, Block 42 Lot 13.
Mr. Steck reviewed the description of the
redevelopment investigation report and the
previous meeting description of the October 8, 2007
Land Use Board hearing.
Mr. Steck stated the structure did not need to be
knocked fully down, Mr. Steck stated
it was of some opinion the demolition of the
structure was done by an overly aggressive fire
department that went out of its way to make sure the
walls were knocked down.
Mr. Steck stated Mr. Roberts assumed that there was
inadequate security based on the number of summons
issued by the Township, no interior inspections were
conducted by Mr. Roberts. Mr. Steck addressed
security at the site and current conditions.
Mr. Steck stated there is someone who owns it,
someone who has secured permits
and has cleared some debri` and clearly the site
would not be considered abandoned.
Mr. Steck reviewed the current status of the
buildings at the site which he has visited.
Mr. Steck addressed the C-1 category stream and the
impact it may have on the site.
Mr. Steck addressed the Oxford Central Business
District Redevelopment Plan,
Master Plan considerations and Zoning
Considerations.
Mr. Steck addressed the sequence of events related
to blight declaration efforts.
Mr. Steck stated the property owners were not spoken
too regarding their plans for
the site.
Mr. Steck addressed the fines for the site and
stated there are no outstanding citations
on the building as it stands today.
Mr. Steck addressed Planning Conclusions and a
Summary of Planning Conclusions
and the criterion that would apply to the site.
Mr. Steck stated there was no evidence that he has
heard that there was any
detriment to any of the surrounding properties. Mr.
Steck stated prior to the amendments
there was a drop in assessed value from 2003 to 2004
which is not necessarily an
indication an area is in need of redevelopment. Mr.
Steck stated the property must be
found to have a blight condition.
Mr. Steck summarized on concluding points, Mr. Steck
stated there was a rush to
judgement, you can’t
expect someone after a major fire to be able to
place a property
on the market in a wise fashion especially when
there is confusion on public policy.
Mr. Steck stated this property owner has no
outstanding violations.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Steck, if the board could make
a pass on this for now, Mr. Steck
stated there was nothing in the statute that the
municipality couldn’t go into a holding
mode and watch the progress.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Steck, if he would recommend a
site visit to the board, Mr. Steck
stated he would leave it upto the board but it was
an important component of his
findings. Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Steck, based on your
professional experience do you
believe this site to be an area of redevelopment at
this point, Mr. Steck stated that there
is no substantial creditable evidence that would
allow this board to make that
recommendation and consequently there would not be a
basis for the governing body
to endorse that area in need of redevelopment
investigation at this time.
Questions from the Board:
Mr. Calabrese asked Mr. Steck the definition of
dilapidated and obsolescent,
Mr. Steck replied dilapidated would mean beyond
repair, the roof is caved in and
the whole thing has to be reconstructed.
Mr. Steck stated obsolescent would mean if the
configuration of a building is no
longer suited to a reasonable use it would have an
obsolete layout, he further explained.
Ms. May asked if a person of authority ever go to
the site and look at the site.
Mr. Steck read a letter dated March 24, 2007 from
Robert Toedter, RG Consulting
and Engineering Inc, Bethlehem, Pa. regarding the
fire.
Mr. Garofalo addressed the board regarding the
letter and suggested the Fire Chief
respond to the question. Mr. Ischinger asked what
Mr. Toedter qualifications were to
make that kind of a statement.
Fire Chief R. Calabrese stated, after eighteen
straight hours, 150 lbs of water pressure
pressure from about thirty five different hoses,
fifteen fire departments and over three
hundred fire fighters were there. Mr. Calabrese
stated after a week of rekindling we
discussed it with the County and decided to dowse it
with foam it was the only way to put
out the fire completely. Mr. Calabrese stated we did
not intentionally knock down
the building we did what we had to do.
Ms. May stated we had the fire in March and the
application to clean it up was filed
in September, we have had a rash of fires in the
area the last one happened two months
ago and is already cleaned up. I guess what I am
asking is why is it taking so long.
Mr. Steck explained the stages of clean up and now
that everything is co- mingled
it is much more expensive and involved. Mr. Steck
stated it took a month and a half
to secure a demolition permit. Mr. Steck stated the
zoning for the property wasn’t clear
and he further explained.
Public Questions:
Ms. Diane Hooper of 15 Cambridge East.
Ms. Hooper asked, if anyone spoke with the business
owners on Wall Street, Mr. Steck
replied no. Mr. Delaney objected at this time to the
township attorney’s participation.
Attorney M. Garofalo stated the applicant before the
board is the township committee
and it is appropriate that they appear with their
attorney.
Mr. Niece stated he didn’t feel it was fair to shut
out the township attorney or Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Niece stated therefore with caution he may
speak.
Attorney K. Decie for the township asked how much of
the debris from the fire has been inspected, Mr.
Steck replied he did not know but he saw one
proposal.
Mr. Decie asked what was that proposal dated , Mr.
Steck replied he did not know the
exact date.
Mr. Decie asked how much of the material has been
segregated since the fire, Mr. Steck replied I think
one dumpster has been removed, the permit has been
secured to remove now both the paint and remaining
buildings on the property.
Mr. Decie when was the property purchased by your
client, Mr. Steck replied I believe
2004.
Mr. Decie asked in the two and a half years prior
what did your client do with the
property, Mr. Steck replied I don’t think he made
any improvements.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck how he found the condition
of the buildings, were they
habitable or tenantable, Mr.Steck replied no.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck if he believed there was
adequate security at the site,
Mr. Steck replied as long as it has been fenced.
Mr. Steck, stated it would be unreasonable to post a
guard on the fence twenty
four hours a day.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck if he would consider the
property an attractive nuisance,
Mr. Steck replied no he would not.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck his definition of
abandonment, he explained.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck which items his client
addressed without being sited,
Mr. Steck replied in his opinion a reasonable person
would conclude the site is
not abandoned.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck if Mr. Kellner had been
contacted by the township
regarding the rehabilitation and regarding issues
with the property.
Mr. Steck replied that he was not aware of him being
contacted with these
current proceedings, Mr. Steck explained.
Mr. Decie and Chairman D. Niece had a brief
explanation regarding the
context of Mr. Decie’s questions.
Mr. Steck stated in his opinion there is a new set
of circumstances that
have occurred as a result of the fire.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck what is the owner doing in
preparation to prepare
the site for future sale, Mr. Steck replied the
owner is securing professionals
to continue the demolition process that he has
started, I have seen one proposal
to continue the demolition work. Mr. Steck did not
know the exact date of the
proposal.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck if he would agree the site
is an eyesore, Mr. Steck
replied yes. Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck if he would
agree that a hazardous
condition exists, Mr. Steck, replied no only if the
fence were down, I walked
the property and I felt secure in all of the
buildings I don’t see anything in
danger of collapse. Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck if he
found any of the buildings
to be substandard, Mr. Steck replied they are
untenantable in their current
conditions and no longer intended for occupancy.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck if he knew of a connection
of a piece of property
in Allentown, Mr. Delaney objected.
Chairman D. Niece where was the information obtained
from, Mr. Decie
replied anyone can go on the internet and obtain the
information.
Mr. Delaney objected to the information being
submitted, Mr. Garofalo
asked how would the board fairly ask the question,
Mr. Delaney stated it
was inappropriate.
Mr. Decie asked Mr. Steck since this property owner
has been sited
numerous times in Allentown, Pa. would this change
your opinion that
he is a responsible owner, Mr. Steck replied it
would not change his opinion
regarding the subject property.
Mr. Decie provided Mr. Steck with a copy of the
endictments from Allentown.
Mr. Steck stated every time the town asks him to do
something he has done it.
Chairman D. Niece commented that the building was
taken down due to a
roof collapse and had to be removed and the permits
were taken out on the
same day of the hearing.
Planner D. Roberts stated that nothing that Mr.
Steck has talked about
would change anything in his report, he explained.
Chairman D. Niece asked if there was anyone from the
public with questions
for Mr. Steck they would be addressed after a short
break.
BREAK:9:45 - 9:50 p.m.
Public Comment:
Mr. M. Rosenfeld, Executive Director of the
redevelopment authority of the
City of Allentown.
Mr. Delaney stated his objections to Mr. Rosenfeld’s
comments.
Chairman D. Niece stated he would be interested to
hear what he has to say.
Mr. Rosenfeld distributed a list of twenty steps to
be followed prior to actually
filing a declaration of taking, in July 2003 it was
determined that Mr. Kellner’s
property met the conditions of blight. Finally in
June of 2005 the council
approved to acquire the property by declaration of
taking so it can be
remediated, Mr. Rosenfeld explained.
Mr. Delaney asked Mr. Rosenfeld if he walked the
property in New Jersey,
Mr. Rosenfeld replied no.
No further public comment was made.
Ms. May asked Mr. Rosenfeld how many times the owner
was contacted,
Mr. Rosenfeld replied the owner was contacted for
every step.
Mr. Delaney asked, who from Oxford Township
contacted you, Mr. Rosenfeld
replied you would have to ask the Mayor of
Allentown.
Chairman D. Niece briefly reviewed the testimony
before the board.
Mr. Niece asked the board to consider what action
has been taken to this point,
Mr. Niece stated he felt AB&D apply to what sits
there now. Mr. Niece stated
the redevelopment would be of some advantage to the
property owner.
Mr. Niece stated from this point forward there
should be some discussion between
the owner and the township. Mr. Niece stated he
feels there should be a recommendation
made to the township that the property is in need of
redevelopment.
Chairman D. Niece suggested the board have a
resolution prepared to
recommend to the township committee that the
property is in need of rehabilitation
and redevelopment.
A motion to approve was made by Mr. Niece, seconded
by Ms. Smorzaniuk,
Vote: Niece, Smorzaniuk, Yeager, Cratch, Ischinger -
Ayes, 0 - Nay, Calabrese -
Abstain, motion carried. Mr. Accetturo and Mayor
Lazorisak returned to the board
at this time.
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. Mr. Accetturo stepped down
for the request.
A motion to grant an extension for a previously
approved preliminary major
subdivision application was made by Mr. Ischinger,
seconded by Ms. Smorzaniuk,
Vote: Ischinger, Smorzaniuk, Lazorisak, Cratch,
Yeager - Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain,
motion carried. Mr. Accetturo returned to the board
at this time.
3. Request for an extension by Attorney R. Skoog for
the Schmidt subdivision to
perfect the minor subdivision. A motion to grant an
extension to perfect a previously
approved minor subdivision application was made by
Mr. Niece, seconded by
Ms. Smorzaniuk, Vote: Niece, Smorzaniuk, Lazorisak,
Accetturo, Yeager, Cratch
- Ayes, 0 - Nay, 0 - Abstain, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No further public comment was
offered.
MAYOR’S REPORT: None at this time.
Chairman D. Niece stated the board accepted the
resignation of board member M. Accetturo with
regrets.
VOUCHERS: A motion to approve the vouchers submitted
for payment was made by
Mr. Ischinger, seconded by Mr. Calabrese, all ayes
motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:12 p.m.
With no further business before the board and no
public comment offered the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margaret Housman, Secretary
|
|
