Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 210 222 Rochelle Park Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board says 210–222 Rochelle Park approvals have expired; developer must reapply, staff told to enforce
Summary
At the Dec. 11 meeting the Rochelle Park Land Use Board was told that site-plan approvals for a 30-unit project at 210–222 Rochelle Park — including five affordable units — have exhausted permitted extensions; the board agreed the developer must reapply and directed staff to notify the township administrator to issue a violation if construction begins.
The Rochelle Park Land Use Board concluded on Dec. 11 that previously granted extensions for the 2020 approval of 30 residential units at 210–222 Rochelle Park have lapsed and that the developer must return for a fresh application.
Board member and counsel (Mr. Mandela) summarized the history: the board approved preliminary major site plan and subdivision for 30 units, including five set aside for low- and moderate-income households, on Nov. 19, 2020. Statutory protections preserve approvals for a limited period, and New Jersey law allows the board to grant one-year extensions; Mr. Mandela said the board has granted multiple extensions and that, “those extensions have expired and we’re done.” He advised that variances and approvals associated with the original application have expired and a new application for preliminary and final major site-plan approval — and any necessary variances — must be filed.
The board discussed recent county-level filings and financing hurdles. Mr. Mandela said the developer had applied to the county (an administrative review/site-plan filing) but that county filing does not supplant local approvals or building permits. He said there had been no building permits issued and that the delays appear to be financing-related.
The board asked Mr. Mandela to send written direction to the township administrator (Mr. Di Maria) and agreed the administrator should issue a violation if unauthorized construction begins. The chair emphasized that, for the board’s purpose, the prior approvals are no longer in force and the expectation is that the project would need to be re-noticed and re-reviewed if the applicant seeks to proceed.
Public commenters raised broader concerns about nearby blighted parcels and whether the township could create tax or policy incentives to motivate redevelopment. Board members said tax assessments and financing dynamics often explain why landowners leave properties vacant and noted the municipality’s limited tools in some cases.
No formal extension was granted at the Dec. 11 meeting and the board did not adopt new approvals; the direction to staff and the requirement to reapply were recorded as the board’s position on the expired approvals.
