Borough commissioners adopted an ordinance on second reading to approve amendments to the Bancroft redevelopment plan at the Tuesday, Feb. 13, meeting.
Borough commissioners adopted an ordinance on second reading to approve amendments to the Bancroft redevelopment plan at the Tuesday, Feb. 13, meeting. Some residents expressed frustration with the plan, while others were grateful to get one step closer to moving forward.
The developer, 2 Hopkins Lane LLC, and the borough entered into an agreement in January 2016. The developer had already purchased the property and proposed to build a drug and alcohol treatment facility next to the high school, which was a concern for community members at the time. Under the agreement, the borough decided to purchase the Bancroft property leaving the developer with the right to develop the residential portion of the property.
In April 2016, at the recommendation of the Planning Board, the commissioners adopted a Redevelopment Plan to turn the Bancroft site into “age-targeted” living facilities; however, recent changes have been made for both the developer, 2 Hopkins Lane LLC, and the borough to move toward completion.
Keeping the recommendations from the planning board and public in mind, the commissioners and developer made changes to the redevelopment plan. The changes reflect lengthy and extensive meetings with the planning board.
A few of the significant changes include an increase from 70 units to 80 units, along with a “few design parameters” to facilitate 10 more units. Although the commissioners adopted the changes on second reading, the borough stressed it does not approve anything to be built. The next step consists of the developer generatating a plan that is compliant with the new redevelopment plan before it goes through the Historic Preservation Commission and then the planning board for approval, according to Commissioner John Moscatelli.
During public comment, former Mayor Jack Tarditi expressed his concerns about “giving in” to the developer’s requests to make adjustments to the original plan and asked about potentially finding a new developer.
“How many other developers have we talked to relative to this site?” Tarditi asked.
“We have a contract in place and there’s certain obligations that we have under that contract, and until we can determine what developer J. Brian O’Neill’s rights are, there’s no point in talking to anyone else,” Moscatelli said.
Moscatelli explained terminating the legal rights of the agreement is a long and costly process the residents of Haddonfield would inevitably eat the debt on. He believes the borough has gotten close enough to the original redevelopment plan that both the developer and borough can move forward.
“It’s clearly the most expeditious way to go for the borough,” Moscatelli said.
Others residents expressed concerns over the borough’s choice in picking the redeveloper. Long-time resident Dorothy Rivers shared her thoughts in an emotional statement to the commissioners.
“I thought I would have a beautiful retirement. I don’t sleep at night, worrying about paying my taxes. I’m a poor senior citizen,” Rivers said. “You guys never did your due diligence about him (O’Neill). I’m angry because I live across the street from where he is going to build these trashy places that you never really checked out.”
Other residents understood the efforts of the borough and supported the decision to adopt the new plan. Resident Dan Reisman explained the borough came into this situation from a position of “weakness” and understands they have gone through the proper checks and balances to come up with a new plan that works for both the developer and borough.
“I personally have no reason to doubt that the commissioners would come up with the best proposal that they can with O’Neill,” Reisman said.
In other news:
An ordinance amending Chapter 114 entitled Fire Prevention was adopted on second reading. It realigns fire inspections fees with the state requirements.
