At the June 23rd Township meeting, I tried to remind the committee that the basic objective of having ordinances and code enforcement is to achieve total compliance and of their obligation to pursue that goal. This was in response to their decision to sell grossly undersized properties as buildable lots based on their misguided belief that they were still protected under a “non-conforming pre-existing use” status. There were two dissenting committee member votes based on the gross undersize of the properties. As you may know, I was unsuccessful in my attempt. That is why I am taking the time to show why these undersized lots are no longer considered “pre-existing uses”.
Again, these properties are grossly undersized for residential development (less than 5 acres in a 25 acre zone). They have been abandoned for about 10 years or more thereby losing all protection under a “pre-existing” status. Below is the section of our ordinance that addresses non-conforming uses:
Article 12, Section 144-123, Para 16 (page 132)
16. NON-CONFORMING USES
The otherwise lawful use of a building or land existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this Ordinance, provided:
A. No expansion of such building or use shall be permitted.
B. That the existence of a non-conforming use on a part of a lot or tract shall not be construed to establish a non-conforming use of the entire tract or lot.
C. That whenever a non-conforming use is discontinued or changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be change back to a non-conforming use.
D. That whenever a non-conforming structure has been abandoned or, damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of eighty percent (80%) of its market value, as determined by the Tax Assessor, it shall be rebuilt or repaired in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located or obtain the necessary approvals.
E. That if a non-conforming use of a structure ceases operations or remains vacant for more than one year, circumstances may be considered as evidence of the abandonment of said prior non-conforming use.
Because the above requirements are typical in most municipalities, they are well explained in a number of publications and case law. For example, see “New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration” by William M. Cox (chapter 11).
In summary, I totally agree that the Township should sell whatever it can, but what it sells must be in accordance with the rule of law. Any deviation may have unforeseen legal consequences and make code enforcement more difficult.
Anthony Gabris, former Zoning Official
Below are a few pictures of the structures that were demolished about 5 years ago. You be the judge as to whether the “pre-existing uses” were maintained as required by ordinance. All pictures can be viewed full size by clicking on them.











