Gloucester Township Council met on March 10 to discuss issues that included updates to local regulations, including the Blackwood West Redevelopment Plan; stormwater management; and salt storage control.
Several ordinances were addressed and approved at the session, even as public comments raised concerns about shared services, tax refunds and the environmental impacts of proposed construction.
The first ordinance amends the Blackwood West plan to allow tattoo and piercing retail services in a designated area of the township. Council unanimously approved the measure after a brief discussion.
A second ordinance was introduced to amend the township’s stormwater management code. The update aligns with new state requirements, ensuring compliance with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s regulations for municipalities with Tier A stormwater permits. The ordinance passed after a motion and roll call vote.
Also introduced at the meeting was an ordinance that addresses the control of privately owned salt storage. It requires municipalities with Tier A stormwater permits to adopt measures that prevent harmful environmental runoff and safeguard public health and safety. Council members voted in favor of the ordinance, and it will move to the second reading.
During the meeting’s public comment, several residents voiced concerns about items on the agenda, including Terry Frizz, who inquired about a shared services agreement between the township and local school districts and whether outside contractors could perform its services. Council clarified that the agreement pertains to township personnel, but that private contractors could be hired if necessary to perform services and reduce taxpayer costs.
Another resident raised concerns about the environmental impact of proposed commercial construction on certain township properties, which are designated as a natural heritage site by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He questioned whether council had fully considered the potential environmental risks of constructing large commercial buildings on these sensitive lands.
Council members acknowledged the concerns but assured attendees that environmental assessments would be conducted before any development progresses.
The meeting had a final public comment period, when residents raised concerns regarding the proposed construction of four 10,000-square-foot commercial buildings on a site identified as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Natural Heritage site. The project, which includes a contractor’s yard with distribution buildings, has sparked debate due to conflicting information about the site’s zoning and environmental protections.
Residents questioned why council would support the plan despite the environmental concerns, pointing to statements in the master plan that advocate for the protection of ecologically sensitive lands and streams. The following key questions were posed to the council:
- Why would the council approve the construction of four 10,000-square-foot buildings on a natural heritage site?
- Why support development when the master plan suggests rezoning the area for more appropriate use?
- How does the project align with the plan’s goal of protecting environmentally sensitive areas, especially along stream corridors?
- What is the intended use of the proposed buildings, and how much of the land will be covered by impervious surfaces such as roofs, parking lots, and storage areas?
The discussion also touched on concerns about council’s communication with the public. One resident expressed frustration with the new format of council meetings, stating that public comments are not being properly addressed, and that there is insufficient dialogue between council and the public that hinders transparency and accountability, including the redevelopment plan’s potential impact on local taxes and sewer rates.
There was also confusion expressed about a $300,000 allocation approved in December for a sewer project, which was followed by a $1-million allocation in February for what seemed to be the same project. Council replied that the increased budget was due to higher-than-expected costs from the project’s engineering vendor.
On another issue, resident Denise Quinn had concerns about an ordinance that updates regulations for film production in the township. It faced scrutiny over concerns about its impact on First Amendment rights and the rights of individuals being filmed and a vague definition of “news” that could potentially restrict citizen journalism in public spaces.
“I understand that this is an existing ordinance being amended, but I want to ensure there’s no confusion about how this change could impact everyday residents and community activists who wish to document and film on public property,” Quinn asserted.
“My main concern is that we need clear assurance that this ordinance will not interfere with our First Amendment rights,” she added. “Specifically, I’d like the council to publicly verify that this ordinance will not restrict citizens’ rights to film in public spaces, whether it’s for documenting local government meetings, sharing information or raising awareness about important issues in our town.”
The next township council meeting is scheduled for later this month, where additional updates and concerns regarding pending ordinances will be discussed and there will be a celebration of Women’s History Month.
For more information, or to view meeting agendas, visit the official township website.
