April 11, 2006 (Special)
By Steve Walko, Acting Secretary
Apr 11, 2006, 19:30
MINUTES
April 11, 2006
Planning Board Meeting
Borough of Haddonfield
The April 11, 2006; meeting of the Haddonfield Planning Board was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Andrew Johnson at 7:32 p.m. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by way of the official newspaper of the municipality. It is being held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act and notice is also posted in the Municipal Building and the Haddonfield Public Library.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Harrison, Comm. Borden, Mr. Rauschenberger, Ms. Marini, Mr. Liebermann, Ms. Martin, Mr. Bucci
Ms. Rizzuto (Alt. 1) - Present
Mr. Sobel (Alt.2) – Absent
Ms. Kitchen - Absent
Mr. Alberto, Borough Planner – Absent
Mr. Walko, Community Development Officer - Present
Mr. Lundgren, Planning Board Solicitor – Present
Mr. Chelotti, Borough Engineer – Absent
HPC Representative – Absent
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
Mr. Johnson asked public to keep their comments and questions to 5 minutes each.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Public Hearing is to conduct preliminary investigation to determine if Block 14 Lot 2 and Block 13 Lot 25 is a “Area in Need of Redevelopment”
Mr. Lundgren remarked the purpose of the special meeting is to conduct a public hearing for the board to receive information to make a determination as to whether or not the Bancroft site qualifies as an area of redevelopment. The local redevelopment and housing law was enacted in 1992. It provides municipalities the authority to designate certain areas of the town as an area in need of redevelopment. He summarized the procedural process. The purpose of the public hearing is not to determine what the site should be used for, but whether it is an area of need of redevelopment. If the board determines that it is an area in need of redevelopment it would recommend that to the governing body, the commissioners would then make a decision to whether or not the redevelopment process should go forward and if they decided it should, after that a plan is prepared. He commented that is where the experts come in, to prepare a plan for the site. Mr. Lundgren stated that the hearing is to determine whether the site fits the statutory criteria for area in need of redevelopment. Mr. Johnson remarked what would happen if the board decided not to approve or recommend the area. Mr. Lundgren responded that the governing body, the Commissioners, can then decide whether or not to accept the board’s recommendation and make their own determination if the area is in need of redevelopment then go forward.
Mr. Lundgren introduced attorney, Ed McManimon of McManimon and Scotland expert in the area of redevelopment law. Susan Gruel and Fred Heyer of the firm of Heyer, Gruel and Associates are community planning consultants. The study and report of the Bancroft site prepared by Heyer and Gruel Associates will be the subject of the hearing. Mr. Lundgren remarked that after the testimony the public can comment. He advised that the meeting was being taped both for the purpose for minutes and by a professional stenographer.
Mr. McManimon remarked about his credentials and asked that Sharon McCullough be sworn in to testify. Ms. McCullough submits exhibit PB-1 Resolution# 2005-08-09-161, dated August 9, 2005.
She submitted exhibit PB-2A, a letter issued to Bancroft NeutroHealth with an enclosed copy of the public notice for the hearing for this evening, letter dated March 16, 2006. Ms. McCullough stated that all of the following also received a copy of the planning board notice, the Borough determined that notice should also be give to those indicated on the mortgages and that may have a financial interest in the property. Letters where issued to Executive Director of Historic New Jersey Trust(#PB-2B), Commerce Bank of Mercerville (#PB-2C), Commerce Bank of Cherry Hill (# PB-2D), Wachovia Bank (#PB-2E), New Jersey Economic Development Authority – Executive Director (PB-2F), Bank of New York (#PB-2G), and Anbac Insurance Corporation (#PB-2H).She testified that each of the above letters/exhibits were sent certified mail. Ms. McCullough stated the certified receipts were received and they are marked exhibits PB 3-(A-H). She submitted proof of publications from the Courier Post, notices published for the schedule meetings in both March 21st and March 28th issue. Publications marked exhibit PB-4. Ms. McCullough stated the notice of meeting was also published in the Retrospect. Proof of Publication submitted for March 24th marked exhibit PB 5-A and March 31st marked exhibit PB 5-B. She submitted a letter from New Jersey Historic Trust, dated October 25, 2005, authored by Barbara Irvine. Ms. McCullough read the letter into record. “The New Jersey Historic Trust is very concerned that inclusion of these parcels in a designated redevelopment area has the potential to negatively affect these significant historic resources. The New Jersey Historic Trust supports the continued preservation of Lullworth Hall and Carriage House and asked that the Borough of Haddonfield do what it can to ensure that the preservation of these buildings. If you should have questions regarding the historic easements, please contact the trust.”
Mr. McManimon stated that the evidence provided satisfies the criteria for the redevelopment and housing laws specifically NJSA 40A:12A-63.
He commented that it actually exceeded that statutorily. Mr. McManimon remarked about how this process started. He reaffirmed Mr. Lundgren’s remarks on the procedural process.
Susan Gruel and Fred Heyer sworn in and testified to their credentials. Ms. Gruel testified that she is a licensed Professional Planner as well as an instructor at Rutgers. She stated that the firm has prepared numerous redevelopment studies. Ms. Gruel stated that both she and Mr. Heyer have expertise in the area of redevelopment in the aspect of studies, plans, and implementation of the redevelopment plans. Mr. Lundgren requested a board motion to recognized and accept Susan Gruel and Fred Heyer as experts
In the field of community planning and redevelopment. Mr. Harrison made a motion to accept. Motion seconded by Ms. Marini. VOTE – all in favor.
Ms. Gruel remarked that this is the first step. Designating, determining whether or not an area is in need of redevelopment and meets the criteria. She stated that the first step has nothing to do with what the use will be. Ms. Gruel commented about the pubic meeting – general consensus that borough should have control over what should occur if in fact there will be or there is redevelopment. She stated that redevelopment is a tool that many municipalities use in order to have control over a process that in the future may occur or may not occur. Ms. Gruel commented that there are benefits to redevelopment. She added into record exhibit PB-7 – The Redevelopment Area Determination Report dated October 2005. Ms. Gruel commented that there are eight criteria listed in the statute that a study area must be evaluated against. She stated that while conducting the study; the land use, physical characteristics, history of the site, tax records and aerial photography were used. She noted that an enlarged aerial map is in the study. Mr. Lundgren stated aerial photograph was marked as exhibit PB-8 into the record. Ms. Gruel remarked based upon the analysis that the area meets “D” criteria of section 5 in the local redevelopment and housing law.
Ms. Gruel read into record the criteria. It states that area with building or improvements which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete lay-out or any combination of these or other factors are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. She spoke about the history of Bancroft and the evolution of the facility. Ms. Gruel stated the site does meet the D criteria, there is faulty arrangement and design on the site, the site is obsolete, the facility and the manner is which it is used is also obsolete. Mr. Heyer remarked about the expert report. He stated it is only one component of the process, the second component is the borough’s own personal knowledge of the site, and the third piece is the testimony and comments presented by others tonight. Opinions received tonight are only advisory. Mr. Heyer reemphasized the purpose of the meeting is to determine if the Bancroft site meets the criteria as a area in need of redevelopment under local redevelopment and housing law. He remarked that at least according to this report it meets criteria “D” in terms of obsolence and faulty arrangement.
Commissioner Borden questioned the report and the discussion on the parking. Ms. Gruel commented as part of the obsolesce and the faulty arrangement and design it is believed that the inadequencency of parking on site that it is a component of the analysis and is deficient and therefore meets the “D” criteria. She commented that it is supported by testimony and Bancroft’s own experts and engineer. Ms. Gruel remarked about Eric Kaller’s direct quote about the shortage of parking spaces on the site. Commissioner Borden questioned the observation of the shortage of parking, does it create a traffic and parking issue for the neighboring residents. Ms. Gruel responded that it does factor in with their observation. She commented about the parking spillover onto Hopkins Lane and Kings Highway. Ms. Marini questioned additional parking on the site behind the last building.
Mr. Johnson commented that the building referenced was Cooley Hall. Ms. Gruel remarked that she did not know. Mr. Bucci questioned the report and adverse impact. Ms. Gruel responded that there are more components. She commented that a parking and circulation issue goes to the detriment of the site. Mr. Bucci questioned page 15 of the report, first paragraph. He questioned if permitted to look ahead in the future to what the site may or may not be used for. Ms. Gruel responded that is Phase II and that is in the context of the plan. Mr. McManimon commented that the answer to the question is yes. He remarked to the functionality of the site to another as it is designed at this moment. Mr. Harrison commented about the under the criteria for “D” by reason of dilapidation. Ms. Gruel remarked that she did not rely on dilapidation solely; it was one or a combination that are detrimental too. Ms. Martin requested clarification. Ms. Gruel responded that it is technical determination as to whether or not it means one of the criteria to designate the site an area in need of redevelopment. Ms. Martin questioned if Bancroft decided to stay and knock down all the building and build a 4 story building is that part of this at all. Ms. Gruel responded no, that is step two, for that to even be considered. Mr. Johnson commented that the board is not considering any future use, considering only technical determination. Mr. Lieberman questioned does the redevelopment statute limit the uses that can be employed in a redevelopment plan in step 2? Ms. Gruel responded not at all, it can go anywhere the community chooses it to go, that is the public input. Mr. Rauschenberger remarked should the redevelopment be recommended, none of that forces Bancroft to do anything. Ms. Gruel commented about control. Mr. McManimon addressed the issue of control; the concept is to create a new Master Plan for this area. Mr. Rauschenberger questioned if it forced Bancroft to leave, like in eminent domain. Mr. McManimon clarified the difference between redevelopment and eminent domain.
Ms. Martin questioned if the borough decides to go through with this process and Bancroft decides to stay on site for another 10 years all we have is a plan in place if they should decide in the future. Ms. Gruel responded maybe. She commented that the process is to keep the options open and keeping control. Ms. Martin remarked having difficulty understanding what the control is. Mr. Johnson requested clarification. Mr. McManimon responded that Bancroft is the owner of the site. He stated under the New Jersey Constitution it specifically provides as a public use and public purpose redevelopment and provides in the constitution the right to exercise eminent domain for that. Mr. McManimon commented that right now the borough could acquire the site under eminent domain to use for a municipal building, a school expansion, or a park and redevelopment would not be part of that. He stated that if you want to maintain the ability in terms of control to deal with all the interactive/intergraded concerns COAH, Open Space, and development generally. The borough’s ability to deal with all the different interests is dramatically enhanced by the powers that would go to the borough under the redevelopment statutes. It enables them to interact with private developers, partners in transactions, make loans, donate money, to acquire rights or to negotiate with the owner/developer for certain benefits when that development were to occur or conveyance of land back to the Borough of Haddonfield you become a business entity in the exercise of what you are doing. He gave the example of Collingswood. Mr. McManimon remarked that he tried to state this to Bancroft that their interests are significantly enhanced if redevelopment occurs. Mr. Johnson questioned whether or not this precludes open space. Mr. McManimon responded that it precludes nothing; it is a land use activity. Mr. Johnson remarked about the adverse impact on the school and the park not mentioned in the report. Ms. Gruel responded that there could be, but did not note such in the report. She remarked about parking and safety on- site. Mr. Johnson remarked about phase two impacts, specifically the density and the parking.
Ms. Gruel responded that this is a very specific document that addresses the criterion and determines whether it meets one of the criterions. She commented about step/phase two. Mr. Johnson questions the criteria and other areas of town in terms of being obsolete. Ms. Gruel stated that they have not evaluated other areas. Mr. Harrison commented about worrying about control. Ms. Gruel commented from the planning perspective. She stated this is the first step to set the boundaries. Mr. McManimon remarked that section 13 of the law provides that all applications for development or redevelopment of designated redevelopment area or a portion of a redevelopment area shall be submitted to a municipal planning board for its review and approval in accordance with it requirements for review and approval of subdivisions and site plans as set forth by ordinance adopted pursuit to the municipal land use law. Mr. McManimon summarized the process.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Johnson remarked that representatives of Bancroft may speak first.
Ms. Melissa Wheatcroft, Esq. Corporate Counsel for Bancroft NeuroHealth appeared. Property located at 425 Kings Highway East. James W. Higgins, Licensed Professional Planner also appeared on behalf of Bancroft. Ms. Wheatcroft questioned Mr. Higgins on his qualification. Mr. Higgins stated his background and qualifications. Mr. Lundgren remarked to motion Mr. Higgins as a qualified expert. Mr. Harrison made a motion to accept Mr. Higgins as an expert. Ms. Marini seconded the motion to accept. Vote unanimously. Mr. Higgins testified to visiting the Bancroft site on several occasions and been inside some of the buildings and looked at the conditions of the buildings. Ms. Wheatcroft referenced exhibit PB-7. Mr. Higgins testified he reviewed the report. He does not agree with finding of the report. Mr. Higgins explains why he disagrees with the report. He commented that redevelopment is an extreme tool allowing a municipal a great deal of control.
Mr. Higgins commented about the site’s development. He stated that there are 8 conditions for the redevelopment plan. Mr. Higgins commented that the plan relied on only one of the eight conditions and a very narrow focus on that one condition. He agreed there was a degree of obsolesce on some of the buildings. Mr. Higgins testified that he did not see anything about the site that created the conditions where safety, healthy, morals or welfare of the community was affected detrimentally to the point that would justify the extreme step of designating the site as an area in need of redevelopment. He commented that the primary reason to set up an area in need of redevelopment is set up the possibility of acquisition of the site for eminent domain which would take the control of the site out of the hands of Bancroft. Mr. Higgins did remark that yes there are other areas in town that would qualify as areas in need of redevelopment. Ms. Wheatcroft commented about zoning applications in the past and concerns of safety on the site. Mr. Higgins testified that over the years at least 8 applications have been approved by the zoning and planning boards for the development of the site. He commented that each application had been approved with a finding that the development as proposed does not have a substantial detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare. The most recent application was in 1998. Mr. Higgins did comment that Bancroft is a state institution subject to state licensing. He stated that there are 70-80 licenses associated with the Bancroft facility by various agencies of the State of New Jersey. Mr. Higgins stated they are inspect on average 12 times a year by state agencies, in addition to visits two or three times a month by officials from state agencies. He remarked no issues have been raised. Ms. Wheatcroft asked if the Clinical Vice President’s desire to find a state of the art facility for Bancroft outside of Haddonfield proves the current site obsolesces. Mr. Higgins responded no that it does not.
He remarked that to say that the site can not be utilized for the what it is currently being utilized for therefore it is an area in need of redevelopment is an admission that the zoning is wrong.
Mr. Johnson remarked that public comments are being noted.
David Coggins, 845 Longwood Drive. He commented that Bancroft has been a bad neighbor for a while. He stated that Bancroft is the owner of the property, and as a lawyer since 1960 is very interested in the matter of control and how does one acquire control? Mr. Coggins remarked that use of land should be determined by land owners not planners as long as it is lawful. He discussed his experience with bad faith. Mr. Coggins remarked about acquiring the Bancroft site via eminent domain or by purchasing it. He suggested a new community center/library with a cost of 15-17 million dollars. Mr. Coggins is concerned with the control and questions whether the borough commissioners are exercising good faith in regards to Bancroft. He urged the board to disapprove the plan as criteria “D” is factious to the extreme.
Kirk Peterson, 214 Lakeview Avenue. Mr. Peterson started to comment about Lullworth Hall and Mr. Johnson remarked to keep comments on the topic. He commented about the school building could be shared with the Board of Education for class space and the Markeim Art Center. Mr. Peterson also suggested the property be used for over 55 housing whether low income or just over age 55 to achieve some COAH housing. He does not want single family. He stated he is very concerned with that and the impact on the school with children. Mr. Peterson would like to see as much of the site as open space as possible. Mr. Johnson remarked about keeping comments to the report. He does support the idea of redevelopment zone.
Betty Ann Young, 46 Grove Street. She remarked that she is in support of redevelopment and she does not trust Bancroft. Ms. Young commented that Bancroft has not been very good to the borough and she feels the borough needs to take control.
Herb Hess, 308 Redman Avenue. He asked if he could ask questions. Mr. Johnson remarked not tonight, public comments only. Mr. Hess thanked the board. He remarked about the level of taxation and historic location for Haddonfield. Mr. Johnson directed Mr. Hess to keep to the topic of redevelopment. He does not support the redevelopment zone, but does support the acquisition of the property by the borough. Mr. Hess does believe that residential housing will negatively impact the borough of Haddonfield and by approving the redevelopment zone the borough opens itself up to the possibility of that. He remarked that it will increase the population within the school system and increase congestion referring to the report. Mr. Hess commented about criteria “D” is not a cause or necessity for redevelopment.
Dave Appleby, 114 East Park Avenue. He commented about the borough seeking ultimate control of the site and suggested the site be deemed historically protected. Mr. Appleby additionally remarked about the historic zoning and rules.
Monica Hennessy, 31 Walnut Street. She is concerned with the inconsistencies of the experts both hired by the borough and by Bancroft in regards to the criteria. Ms. Hennessy commented that at November’s meeting the community was advised that there would be future meetings prior to an act like this. She remarked that if the board relies on the community’s input study to be the definitive study it will be deficient and that it will not really involve what is occurring in Haddonfield. Ms. Hennessy would like to hear a lot more than parking and traffic.
Ms. Hennessy does not feel that parking and traffic is enough to take the steps of redevelopment and potentially lose the control the borough currently has.
Bill Tourtellotte a Haddonfield resident. He made a comment about Bancroft existence in Haddonfield. Mr. Tourtellotte remarked that there has been no cooperation with Bancroft and surrounding neighbors. He does not trust Bancroft either. He remarked that they are opportunistic. Mr. Tourtellotte wants the board to make sure that the implementation of the redevelopment zone does not somehow create a situation where ultimately the borough does not end up with stiffer zoning and more burden that the tax payers are stuck paying.
Doreen Lacatena, 317 Westmont Avenue. She has a couple of concerns in regards to the site. Ms. Lacatena would like the borough to have control of the site, but thinks making it a redevelopment zone would open the door to the obligations Haddonfield has to COAH and other housing issues which she feels would impact the schools.
Joe Haro, 29 Evergreen Lane. Mr. Haro remarked that he has been following this process from the beginning. He commented that Bancroft is playing “hardball”. Mr. Haro stated that sometimes Bancroft comes in as good neighbors and other times they insist that they are going to do it their way because it is their property. He remarked that there are two things involved with this site one is big money and the other is big developers. Mr. Haro stated that the borough needs the redevelopment option.
John Nosek, 215 Redman Avenue. Mr. Nosek remarked that he confused with the definition of control. He did not understand why Bancroft opposed redevelopment when they want to sell the property.
Art Stone, Hillside Lane. Mr. Stone remarked that it seems that not every member of the planning board understood how this process worked. He also remarked about the confusion in regards to the control of the land. Mr. Stone feels that this should be tabled until the board has a better understanding.
Eric Lawrence, 111 Colonial Avenue. He has confusion about redevelopment. Mr. Lawrence stated that the public is against any development in regards to housing in this area. He also suggested that this matter be tabled and possibly have another forum. Mr. Lawrence suggested an application for Green Acres. He commented that the borough needs to preserve the little bit of ground that the borough does have. Mr. Lawrence requested more information.
Tom Kelly, 306 East Park Avenue. Mr. Kelly commented about the borough experts and Bancroft’s expert testimony. He remarked from the testimony that there seems to be a safety hazard at Bancroft due to parking. Mr. Kelly asked ‘has the fire department and police department done their own assessment of the situation?’. He questioned if Bancroft decides to stay is there going to continue to be a safety hazard that is going to addressed. Mr. Kelly agrees that the borough should control the site but disagrees with the reason of parking.
Eileen Stillwell, 47 Potter Street. Ms. Stillwell questions if Bancroft will be able to get the 20 million dollars for the site with the current zoning in place and COAH obligations? Mr. Harrison remarked that this meeting was not to answer questions but to allow the public an opportunity to comment. She questioned what the McManimon firm’s role in the process. Mr. McManimon responded to provide expert advice in the area of redevelopment law. Ms. Stillwell commented that her concern is that the firm is known as a very large firm for bond council for redevelopment projects. She feels that the firm could stand to benefit from redevelopment.
Glen Ceponis, New Jersey Historic Trust. Mr. Ceponis wanted to restate that they have a preservation easement on the site specifically Lullworth Hall and the Carriage House. Mr. Johnson commented that what Mr. Ceponis was read into the record in the beginning of the meeting.
Mindell Woehr, 424 Kings Highway. Ms. Woehr remarked that she does not trust Bancroft. She stated that every time the borough tries to get control of Bancroft they either say that they will sue you or they put a picture of a baby in the local paper. Ms. Woehr commented that she is not against the redevelopment but is worried about it.
Joe Glennon, Roberts Avenue. He agrees with Bancroft. Mr. Glennon remarked you can not do the plan before you get the rezoning. He questions if that is a legal reason or is it the way it has always been. Mr. Glennon comments about control and the fear of developers and COAH. He stated the parking impact will still be there as well as the potential negative impact on the population.
John DeAngelo, 406 Kings Highway East. He stated he lives directly across the street from the Bancroft site. Mr. DeAngelo remarked that he would like to see the school gain more property and use the Bancroft site. He has commented that he has not seen a decline in traffic since Bancroft has been there. Mr. DeAngelo made reference to Willits Court and because of Willits Court the borough has to make up to COAH. He wants the property seized for Haddonfield and for Haddonfield’s future.
Pat Edwards shop owner next to the ACME. Ms. Edwards commented about the lack of awareness about what is going on in Haddonfield.
Sherry Gallagher, 520 Chews Landing Road. Ms. Gallagher remarked that she had two concerns about the timing. First is the action of declaring the site and area in need of redevelopment effects the value of the property and how it will affect open space at Bancroft. She remarked that the meeting was taking place during spring break and many families are away and she would like the board to take that into consideration.
James Simmon, 30 and 32 Potter Street. He commented that hiring the expert to declare the site a redevelopment zone is wrong. Mr. Simmon suggested if the borough wants control they should just buy the property and give it the people of Haddonfield, the ones who pay the taxes, and let them do with it what they want.
Mr. Johnson announced to the public a second opportunity to comment but again requested the 5 minute rule.
Mr. Hess commented that several members of the public have asked that the borough just purchase Bancroft. He remarked about figures. He stated that the borough has over one billion dollars in ratables. Mr. Hess commented that all the properties are not assessed at true market value so the number is higher. He asked that the board consider the potential of making Bancroft a redevelopment zone.
Mr. Peterson requested if the Bancroft site it to be used for public uses and made a park to name the park after Harry G. Kaulfman, a former active person with Plays and Players. He further suggested that the Rotary Concerts could be held there and expansion of the business district. He commented in regards to the Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Task Force (TAPS) could suggest paving the walkways across Hopkins Lane to address the safety concerns.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED:
Mr. McManimon stated that the board’s decision whether the area is in need of redevelopment will have nothing to do with what other implications there are on this site. It is whether Bancroft decides to leave the site that will activate other conflicting interests that other people have in terms of what the borough has to do or have to consider. It is not the designation of redevelopment that implicates whatever COAH may do or Open Space. It is the fact that Bancroft may leave the site, making the site available and whatever the implications they are do not go away simply if the borough acquires the property. Mr. McManimon further stated that all the conflicting public interests are not increased in anyway by a land use concern. He stated the fact that it has a new zone that enables the uses to occur is not what creates the other interests. Mr. McManimon stated that by acquiring the site, the other outside conflicting interests do not go away. He stated that the designation does not give the borough control but the option to determine how to deal with all the outside interests.
Mr. Johnson commented that the board has two options. One is to have the discussion now and vote tonight or a little discussion and consider the question on the May 2nd meeting at the regularly scheduled meeting or not discuss at all tonight. He questioned if the consultant would be available on May 2nd. Mr. McManimon stated he would be available but Heyer and Gruel would not be. Comm. Borden asked if in the interim could questions be asked to Heyer and Gruel and the responses be given in writing. Mr. McManimon stated you have the ability to ask but suggested the answers be communicated publicly. Comm. Borden suggest that the board close the public hearing, defer decision to at least the next planning board meeting, and have Mr. McManimon return. He stated that members of the public should be made aware of the ability to submit comments to the planning board either in writing or via email and that if members of the board had questions or comments they may also email them to Mr. McManimon.
Comm. Borden stated any responses would be put on the record at the next planning board allowing for extra input. Mr. McManimon responded that the public is interested in hearing the other peoples’ comments. He suggested either to close the public meeting and deliberate to include whatever questions you may have and communicating them at the next meeting or otherwise vote and decide tonight. Comm. Borden suggested keeping the public meeting open or submitting comments in writing. Mr. Bucci respectfully disagrees and commented that if members of the public wanted to participate they could have been present or had their questions asked by members that were present. Mr. Lundgren commented that the notice advised the public that they were able to submit written comments. Mr. Bucci stated the board should vote. Mr. Lieberman agreed with Mr. Bucci that the board should vote. He stated that the public comments were directed at use issues and that would be addressed in phase two of the process. Ms. Marini stated the board should vote this evening. Mr. Harrison commented that the public had the opportunity to contact the board and suggested a vote. Mr. Johnson remarked that Mr. Lundgren pointed out the notice in the newspapers. Ms. Martin would like to stay and vote.
Mr. Johnson remarked 5 minute break, 10:07PM.
Meeting reconvened 10:16PM. Mr. Johnson officially closed the public portion of the meeting. He remarked if members wanted to raise any points. Ms. Martin remarked having difficulty figuring out if the public are for or against the proposed area in need of redevelopment. She commented that is was not clear who was for or against. Mr. Lundgren commented that the number of people for or against does not matter. He stated the question is whether or not the Bancroft site is an area in need of redevelopment. Ms. Martin questioned the importance of public comments and concerns. Mr. Lundgren stated public comments and concerns are taken into consideration when facts are presented.
He reiterated the focus of the meeting was whether or not the site is an area in need of redevelopment. Mr. Lundgren commented that most people that spoke tonight were more interested in speaking about the concept of redevelopment in the context of what is going to happen to the site if it gets redeveloped. He stated that issue is whether the property meets the statutory criteria of an area in need of redevelopment.
Mr. Rauschenberger remarked about suggestions to postpone the meeting. He stated he was glad the board had decided to move forward instead of postponing the matter. Mr. Rauschenberger commented about remarks from the public. He rejected the comments about Willits Court and the kind of development and remarked that there is not quid pro quo going on. Mr. Rauschenberger stated that every decision is made in an open public meeting and weigh the factors on each one and make decisions on that. He commented that there was a lot of concern years ago when the town was looking into rezoning and proposed that Bancroft be made a conditional use. He stated that there was a huge public outcry against that and they wanted it to be zoned residential. Mr. Rauschenberger as Borough Historian commented that Bancroft started in 1883 in Haddonfield, however, not first on that site until 1893. He commented that it was not Lullworth Hall that they bought but an earlier building on the other side of Hopkins. Mr. Rauschenberger stated that is was not until sometime in the 1930 that Bancroft acquired Lullworth Hall and that portion of the property on the west side. He commented that the west side property original went back to the park and sometime after 1947, what now is the ball fields was acquired from Bancroft either given to or bought by the borough. Mr. Johnson asked the term health, safety and welfare be defined. Mr. Heyer stated that health, safety, and welfare in general the public good, their quality of life issues, and it extends beyond simple safety issues it means the general well being of the municipality. He stated it has a fairly global impact in terms of it’s use.
Mr. Johnson questioned the reference to increased control of the property and what benefit there is in that.
Mr. McManimon responded the borough would have control of the site if acquired but the borough will not have control of the sites destiny if there are other competing interests. He remarked that the borough has a master plan and a zoning ordinance that defines the interaction the borough has with the owners of the site. Mr. McManimon stated if you have a redevelopment plan it broadens the borough role in interacting with what happens on the site. He stated that it is a land use determination similar to the master plan. Mr. McManimon stated the redevelopment designation is the first step in creating an opportunity for the borough to have significant broader opportunity to interact with the competing interests. Mr. Johnson asked if the redevelopment designation generally lead to an increase in property value. Mr. McManimon responded in regards to the eminent domain act as interpreted by the courts say that the property owner does not get the benefit of the process that the government undertakes after it determines to take the property. He stated if you have a redevelopment plan it increases the density and therefore the uses and value of the site. Mr. McManimon stated that the decision whether or not to make the site an area in need of redevelopment has nothing to do with whether COAH is going to mandate that housing be put on the site. He stated that COAH mandates that Haddonfield put more housing in town but is not required to do so until land becomes available. Mr. McManimon stated that it is a factor that the borough has to consider. He commented that there is an idea from the public that if the borough acquires the land and deems it open space it will evade the borough’s COAH requirements. He remarked that the borough hired the best attorney in the state, Jeff Surenian, but that there are no guarantees. Mr. Harrison questioned Bancroft’s testimony and prior applications to the Zoning Board. Mr. Heyer responded that Bancroft has made due with the site throughout the years. He stated that the last application to the Zoning Board was acknowledgement of obsolescence. Mr. Heyer stated the site is a single use, highly specialized that grew over a 100 years, it is only suited for the purpose for which it was designed.
He stated if the property comes onto the market, it is a 18 acre site in Haddonfield, which is a rare once in a lifetime opportunity with enormous value. Mr. Heyer remarked that the Bancroft site would have potential to create a lot of impact, a lot of development, and no tax ratable or open space. Mr. Johnson remarked about previous comments that making the site an area of redevelopment would not make the problems go away. Mr. Heyer remarked about public detriments or liabilities associated with the site they would be addressed and eliminated in the redevelopment process. Mr. Johnson questions the impact on property value? Mr. Heyer responded that declaring the site an area in need in redevelopment does not preclude the open space option. He commented that actual use of the site is phase two. Member questioned if the historic Lullworth Hall is protected no matter what? Mr. Heyer responded that there is a easement attached to it. Mr. Johnson commented about the NJ Historic Trust has an easement. Comm. Borden commented easements go to building and land. Mr. Rauschenberger remarked about the Princeton Case and the legal intereptation of the court ruling. Mr. Heyer remarked that the pubic generally associates dilapidation with decay and that is not the case. Mr. Rauschenberger commented that this is a unique opportunity and the intent of the law. Mr. Johnson questioned the focus of the parking in the report. Mr. Heyer responded and commented about the whole report. Mr. Johnson questioned the proposal of public meetings at the Middle School. Mr. Heyer commented about what would be part of the visioning process when designing a plan, which is a separate and distinct process. Member remarked about discussion of eminent domain. Mr. Heyer responded that eminent domain is a tool used for general public purposes and can be used in the context of redevelopment. Mr. Raushcenberger reference Betsy McKenzie’s 2002 report, specifically page 42, remarks about the obsolesces of the site.
Mr. Johnson asked if there were any additional points that members would like to put on the record not covered by the report or in discussions.
Mr. Lundgren remarked that an appropriate motion would be if Bancroft’s site an area in need of redevelopment. Mr. Johnson commented about the impact on the school, park and Hopkins Lanes.
Mr. McManimon suggested the board make a motion or adopt a resolution making a recommendation to the commissioners. He suggested a resolution.
Ms. Marini made a motion to approve/recommend to the commissioners a resolution designating the Bancroft site as an area in need of redevelopment. Ms. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. Johnson remarked about the history and zoning of the site and voted yes.
Mr. Bucci remarked about the report and criteria and voted yes.
Mr. Lieberman stated that he is convinced that there are various degrees of obsolesce and supports it.
Comm. Borden commented that the statutory requirements have been met and remarked about public policy.
He stated that designating the site gives the borough the greatest flexibility and broadest tools and votes yes.
Mr. Harrison commented that the borough has the opportunity to plan the future and votes yes.
Ms. Rizzuto remarked about public comments that Bancroft is playing hardball and votes yes.
Roll Call Vote. 9-0 APPROVED.
Mr. Johnson questioned when the commissioners will decide and will the board be involved in the planning process. Comm. Borden responded fairly soon, probably the next commissioner meeting and affirmed that the board would be involved in the planning process.
MEETING ADJOURNED 10:56 PM
Typed and Transcribed By:
Anne C. Frey,
Recording Secretary
Reviewed & Approved By:
Steven P. Walko,
Community Dev. Director
© Copyright 2005 Haddonfield, NJ [All Rights Reserved]
