Demolition Appeal Hearing to Commence in January

An appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission decision denying John Lazorchak permission to demolish a historic building on Amwell Road will begin in January, following a Wednesday night decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

The meeting will include full testimony from Lazorchak and from the Neshanic Coalition, the group opposing the demolition plan. The plan proposes demolishing the building to and building a 6,700 square-foot office building on the site.

The Wednesday meeting continued questions about whether the board’s attorney, Mark Anderson, had a conflict of interest from serving as the Historic Preservation Commission’s attorney. However, the board soon decided that no conflict existed, passing a motion to retain Anderson in a seven-to-one vote. Board Alternate Frank Herbert was the only dissenting vote.

“I see no reason whatsoever why Mr. Anderson cannot represent this board,” Walter Dietz, board vice chairman, said. “I see absolutely no basis for any conflict of interest. As far as I know, Mr. Anderson does not get a vote. Mr. Anderson does not give testimony. Mr. Anderson only gives us legal advice, nothing else.”

“I will also support that,” Leon Krals said. “In reading the letters and in listening to all of the materials that were there, it seems to me that we were trying to muddy the water and confuse the issue.”

In August 2010, Superior Court Judge Peter Buchsbaum, sitting in Somerville, reversed the township's planning board's 2008 approval of Lazorchak's proposal to construct a 6,700-square-foot office building on Amwell Road. The proposal called for a single-family home, dating back to 1897, to be demolished on the property.

The lawsuit challenging the planning board approval was filed by the Neshanic Coalition, Orlando Rivera and Lois Rivera.

Buchsbaum ruled that Lazorchak's application's notice to neighbors did not include that the property was located in a historic district.

The board discovered the property was in the historic zone during the July 31, 2008 meeting when the application's approval was memorialized.

"It is clear from the transcript ... that board members were concerned by the fact that they did not know of the property's location in the historic zone," the judge noted, adding that one board member said that input from the township's Historical Preservation Commission would have had "a great impact on the board."

"If board members were concerned, it is logical to conclude members of the public would also be concerned and would not have known because the notice failed to disclose that fact," Buchsbaum wrote.

Buchsbaum wrote "the most troubling omission" from the planning board's record is the lack of discussion on whatever negative impact the proposal would have. Under New Jersey law, a variance applicant must show that the proposal will not have a negative impact on the zone.

Buchsbaum wrote that the board did not discuss or hear any evidence about the impact of demolishing a historic building might have on "the public good."

The case then went before the Historic Preservation Commission, which denied permission to demolish the building.

The board also revisited a question posed by the Neshanic Coalition’s lawyer, Bruce Afron, during a July hearing that pertained to new testimony. During the July meeting, Afron noted that new evidence is not allowed to be introduced in appeals of court cases, stating that minutes from the Historic Preservation Commission meeting could be used in place of the testimony.

“If we do a full testimonial record all over again, we’re reproducing the entire job that we all went through the first time,” Afron said. “It’s expensive for the parties and time consuming.”

Financial burden for applicants or those challenging an application has never been a reason for the board to suspend its normal process, according to Dietz. In addition, he noted that the Historic Preservation Commission has no legal authority, and serves as an advisory board.

Dietz also expressed concern about using minutes rather than testimony.

“I actually personally want to hear a little bit of the testimony because I don’t think I can make a fair and honest judgment unless I do hear what each witness has to say,” Dietz said. “I would not be comfortable only making a decision on the minutes because everybody writes minutes different.  .  .Nobody quite understands things the same way.”

“The board has never considered the financial aspect,” he added. “We are not allowed to consider the financial aspect. I don’t feel comfortable reading minutes and just having somebody summarize what they think it is.”

At the time of the Historic Preservation Commission hearing, the town was unable to provide equipment to make a recording, despite requests for one by Anderson and by Lamar.

“It is advisable that the board take testimony, to start essentially from the beginning despite the burden that it places on all the parties,” Anderson said. “This is much closer to the sort of situation where there is an appeal and the record is lost.”

The motion to hold a hearing with testimony—meant to expand on the Historic Preservation Commission minutes—passed unanimously.

The hearing will occur after the Board of Adjustment’s January reorganization meeting.