Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves demolition resolution and agrees to review demolition ordinance after multiple after-the-fact demolitions
Summary
The planning board approved Resolution PB25-07 for the demolition at 572 Cypress Street and spent an extended discussion on several recent retroactive demolitions. Members asked staff to draft proposed revisions to the township’s demolition ordinance, originally adopted in 2003, to clarify application requirements, notice and penalties.
The Township of Washington Planning Board approved Resolution PB25-07 on April 16, 2025, authorizing the demolition application for 572 Cypress Street (Lot 4301.01). The vote followed a short procedural review and a brief correction to a typographical error in the draft resolution.
After the vote the board held an extended discussion about a string of recent demolition applications, including at least one after-the-fact demolition where a property owner removed a substantial portion of a residence without prior planning-board approval. Planning staff and the board said the current demolition provision in the municipal code — a single paragraph adopted March 17, 2003 — lacks detail on definitions, required supporting materials, notice to neighbors and penalties for noncompliance.
Planner Jeremy (staff) told the board that one of the recent retroactive demolition applications arrived without a grading plan, drainage plan, tree removal information or landscaping plan; the building department had issued ministerial permits and a footing-and-foundation permit for what the construction official characterized as an unsafe open excavation. Town Engineer Paul Azzelina explained the construction official’s understanding that a footing-and-foundation permit is ministerial and could be issued to address unsafe conditions, and the work observed near the site appeared limited to excavation and removal of a partially suspended slab.
Board members raised concerns about neighbor notice and whether residents had the opportunity to comment at the building-department stage. Several members argued that if an applicant demolishes more than 50% of an existing residence, the planning board should see full supporting material (survey, grading plan, stormwater measures, landscaping and tree-permit information). The board discussed whether zoning-board jurisdiction could apply in some cases (for nonconforming uses) and noted inconsistency in practice across recent files.
The board directed staff to draft a proposed amendment to the demolition ordinance. Chairman Sabino said Paul Azzelina, Planner Jeremy and Joe Burgess (role: development review) will prepare recommended ordinance language and a scope of work, and the town administrator asked for a written proposal for the council to consider funding a formal review. The board also discussed enforcement options; municipal court citation or stop-work orders were mentioned as potential remedies if the council elects to add penalties.
Resolution PB25-07 passed on a roll-call vote. The board also approved minutes for prior meetings (March 5 and March 19, 2025) by separate motions during the session.
Board members scheduled no final adoption here of an ordinance change; the next step will be staff drafting proposed code language and, if the council funds the review, returning to the planning board and council for formal amendment.
