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.
17 comments:
I can see now why Chasey and Forman got loud with Gabris and tried to stop him from speaking.
This Ordinance shows that the properties lost their non-conforming use after a year of being abandoned.
Something is strange is going on with the selling of these properties.
Many of us living in areas of Mullica that require acreage to build a new home had to purchase additional land elsewhere in the township to supplement our own residential lots. Land that we today cannot enjoy or use yet we pay municipal and school taxes on just the same. The new property owners of the undersized lots should at the minimum be required to buy another 20 acres of land in the township.Otherwise, its not fair to the many residents who played by the rules when building their homes and will be paying a larger portion of the town's property taxes for their land for the same services that the new undersized lot owners will enjoy, land that cost the these buyers a fraction of what we had to pay for ours in order to move into the township.
Selling undersized lots by this cabal is no surprise to me. After all, they're already on record as wanting to change the zoning to allow six homes per acre in the Elwood section of Mullica and to extend the village area for even more housing. And they will, if the residents let them do it.
I don't think that it is a surprise to most of us that Chasey and Foreman have chosen to ignore their own ordinance or that they have chosen to ignore the former zoning officer's advice. I have always suspected that the failure to reappoint Mr. Gabris to that position a few years ago was due to his failure to comply with the demands of certain committee members when they suggested that he overlook the law when it came to their friends, relatives, and politcal cronies. Larry Angel had a nickname for almost everyone he wrote about on this website and they all had a negative connotation except for one: It was Anthony "Profiles in Courage" Gabris. This nickname came from his respect for Mr. Gabris and the fact that he refused to violate the laws of our township despite pressure received from above.
I also heard stories that certain current and former township officials constantly and illegally tried to interfere with Gabris from doing his job properly when he was the town's zoning officer. What an honor for us it will be when the voters elect this honest, incorruptible man into office this November and such everyday corruption of government becomes a thing of the past in Mullica.
Mrs. Chasey was right about one thing in the meeting, Mr. Gabris took great pictures.
Chasey's dishonesty became apparent to me during no dump fight and I have not trusted her since.
7:33 am brought up an idea about the new owners being required to buy an extra 20 acres. If the town made a mistake with the sale of these properties then the town should be required to deed restrict 40 or more acres to make up for this blunder and they should not be allowed sell the last lot.
Or they could cancel the deal and give the people their money back.
Well, one thing that this proves is that Gabris kept really good records. Maybe Chasey and Forman will be smarter before they start lying about him again.
How do you find such ignorant sheep!
7:12 pm
I know a few of the ignorant sheep who used to follow Chasey and Forman. They found out about all the lies and became sheeple. Now they are fully thinking people aware of all the deception that has been perpetrated on the town in the last decade.
Soon Chasey will be holding her staff only over the ones that refuse to open their eyes to see and their ears to hear.
I'm glad her flock is dwindling and the newly enlightened people are coming here.
re 10:47 pm
I was one of those ignorant sheep until I got tired of being fleeced.
I wouldn't call any of the people posting ignorant, as they raised pretty good points. The Chasey/Forman regime is growing old now. Enough is enough and that is too much. It's time for a change. Forman isn't running, get Chasey out and although I am all for recycling, recycling Bruce Crowe as a candidate isn't palatable.
All the talk from Chasey had been about the properties falling within the Pineland regulations. Did she forget to mention that they did not qualify to be sold under the Twp. laws?
At the meeting,Cody would not say if she read this Article 12,just that she spoke to the planning board lawyer about the sale and nothing was said about that conversation.
Is it possible that she just believed Chasey and backed down from her? Chasey has overtalked the Solicitor before and Cody backed down and let Chasey explain the laws on other things.
There is no excuse for the township attorney NOT reading the pertinent codes before Mullica sold this property. The attorney is supposed to guard the council people from making errors. The attorney relied on the planning board attorney, who is supposed to make sure the planning board doesn't make errors. The planning board attorney is not looking after council, the township attorney IS. So, if a mistake was made, who does it fall on?
CHASEY & FORMAN GOT TOM SANDMAN THE JOB AND HIGHER WAGES, I GUESS HE CAN'T SEE TO WELL AS THE CODE OFFICAL AND DO THE RIGHT THING TO STOP ALL THIS BS. BUT HE CAN SCREW EVERYONE ELSE OVER. SAME HERE
After reading the section of our ordinance regarding non-conforming uses, it is hard to understand why Mary Maudsley, the Planning Board solicitor, would agree that these undersized properties were still considered pre-existing uses. She has always enjoyed the highest respect by many as being a knowledgeable land use attorney. My only guess is that Kathy Chasey in her typical fashion gave Mrs. Cody only partial information followed with her usual rhetoric about “doing this for 10 to 12 years and therefore I know better than all others”. Mrs. Cody, being new and wanting to please apparently believed the great One and passed it onto Mary Maudsley. I am sure that Mrs. Cody will be a little more cautious when accepting information from the Great One in the future.
Post a Comment