Demolition Hearing for Historic Building Delayed to Fall

The long-running saga of John Lazorchak's plan to build a 6,700-square-foot office building on Amwell Road near Neshanic got even longer Wednesday evening when the Zoning Board of Adjustment adjourned the case until November over a question whether the board's attorney has a conflict of interest.

Wednesday's meeting was supposed to be a hearing on Lazorchak's appeal of the township Historic Preservation Commission's decision to deny permission to demolish a building on the site to allow construction of the office building.

But the meeting never addressed that issue because Michelle Lamar, Lazorchak's attorney, asked board members to determine whether their attorney, Mark Anderson, had a potential conflict of interest because he also serves as attorney for the Historic Preservation Commission.

Lamar said the issue should be resolved by the board to lessen the possibility it could be raised in an appeal of whatever decision the board made.

"I want any possible issue to be raised," Lamar said. "It's your issue to be resolved."

"My opinion is that there is a possibility of a conflict," she said, though she declined to answer board vice chairman Walter Dietz's question if she had any specific example of what that conflict may be.

But Bruce Afran, an attorney representing the Neshanic Coalition which is opposing Lazorchak's proposal, said there is "no basis" for Anderson to have a conflict.

The board split on the issue. Board member John Stamler said he didn't see a conflict, but fellow board member Frank Herbert said that while he did not see a conflict, he did not want the issue as a possible point in an appeal.

Board Chairwoman Helen Haines said getting a different attorney than Anderson to counsel the board on the case might be "cleaner."

Lamar explained the question may hinge on whatever advice Anderson may have given the Historic Preservation Commission in making its decision.

That led Dietz to allege that Lamar was "trying to sandbag this board."

"If I wanted to sandbag you," Lamar said. "I would have kept my mouth shut."

When the board split 3-3 on a motion to hire a new attorney for the case, it decided to reconsider the matter at its Nov. 2 meeting when an odd number of members may be present.

If the board at that time decides to hire a new attorney, then the appeal might not be heard until December so that the new attorney could be brought up to speed on the case.

Afran then raised the question whether Lazorchak would be allowed to present fresh testimony on the appeal. As precedent, Afran said that new evidence is not allowed to be introduced in appeals of court cases.

"Why should he be given a second bite of the apple?" Afran said.

Anderson said he had an opinion on the issue, but chose not to deliver it because his status on the case was still undecided.

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.