September 1, 2005
SPECIAL MEETING
This Special Meeting was
called pursuant to the provisions of the Open Public Meeting Law. Notices of
this meeting were emailed to the Cape May County Gazette, Atlantic City Press
and the Cape May County Herald on August 25, 2005. In addition, copies of
notices were posted on the bulletin board in the
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee of the
Dedicated Trust $ 16,182.01
Current Acct. $
839,349.25
WHEREAS,
it has been deemed necessary and desirable to solicit bids for framing repairs
towards the Whitesboro School in the Township of Middle, and
WHEREAS,
bids were received on August 23, at 3:00 PM
WHEREAS,
it appears that Statewide Fire Restoration has submitted the lowest responsible
bid.
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the
Statewide Fire Restoration $192,000.00
FURTHER
RESOLVED, that this award is conditioned upon certification of funds and
submission of appropriate affirmative action forms.
BE
IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee of the
BE
IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee of the Township of Middle, the governing
body thereof, that authorization to apply for the FY 2005 Enhanced 9-1-1 Grant
be and is hereby approved.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that Police Chief Joseph M.
Evangelista is named as the Contact Person and that the appropriate officials
are hereby authorized to sign said documents.
BE
IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee, the Governing Body of the Township of
Middle, County of Cape May and State of New Jersey that Clerk/ Administrator
James Alexis, Deputy Clerk Kimberly Tomkinson, Police Captain Scott Webster,
and Rita Kirk, representative from the Finance Office, be and hereby are appointed
to tabulate the bids to be taken on September 30, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. in the
Middle Township Municipal Building, 33 Mechanic Street, Cape May Court House,
NJ for the following:
FIXED MOUNTED SECURITY CAMERA EQUIPMENT AND
ACCESSORIES
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee of the
|
NAME |
TITLE |
SALARY |
EFF. DATE |
|
Marilyn Miller |
Recreation Attendant |
$18,720.00 |
|
WHEREAS,
the Township of Middle supports the Annual Wings and Water Festival held by the
Wetlands Institute, and
WHEREAS, the residents of the Township of Middle are permitted to hold
an Annual Yard Sale with no charge to the residents for that weekend only;
NOW,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Township Committee in the
BE
IT RESOLVED, by the Township Committee, the Governing Body of the Township of
Middle, County of Cape May and State of New Jersey that Clerk/ Administrator
James Alexis, Deputy Clerk Kimberly Tomkinson, Sewer Director Kathy Meers, and Rita Kirk, representative from the Finance
Office, be and hereby are appointed to tabulate the bids to be taken on
September 13, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in the Middle Township Municipal Building, 33
Mechanic Street, Cape May Court House, NJ for the following:
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Susan
COMMITTEEWOMAN
DELANZO: I do not have anything.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: On this…we had a resignation?
JIM
ALEXIS: There was no resignation on the
agenda.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: I know…not on the agenda.
JIM
ALEXIS: We did receive a letter of
resignation today.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Do you want to do that or do
you want to wait?
JIM
ALEXIS: No I want to wait,
I did not get that in until late this afternoon.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: OK, I just did not know if you
wanted to do that today while we were in a public meeting.
JIM
ALEXIS: We will have to hold up on that
until the meeting of the 19th.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Well let’s see, there’s a lot
going on, the roads are pretty cleared, Reeds Beach, Pierces Point; the lights
showed up out at the field, they were working feverously, they would not give
me a time frame as to when they would be up, but they are there and they were
working like beavers. They tell me there
have been roughly a 1000 people out there, so this is a good thing. We had the
COMMITTEEWOMAN
DELANZO: Yes.
JIM
ALEXIS: Mayor, a comment on the lights.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Yes
JIM
ALEXIS: About 4:30 to 4:45 this
afternoon the contractor called and they anticipate having the physical
structures up by Tuesday afternoon.
There will be 10 to 12 employees here Tuesday and hopefully within a
week the lights will all be operational.
He apologizes for one of his crew giving you a screwdriver and telling
you not to stand there to please help them.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: That’s good….everything is
moving along good.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: On the waterline memo that Jim
sent us today, given the fact that there have been several people who have said
to me that they would like to have city water, could we not send letters to the
people on Winding Way, Shadow, Heritage, Timberlea,
Olin, Cynwyd and the new streets in Sand Castle
Estates to ask their opinions as to whether they want city water or not.
JIM
ALEXIS: Before I would do that, I would
like to do an analysis of the number of dwelling units and get a preliminary
number from New Jersey American Water as to what they think the total
consumption is for there and if there is enough water allocation available.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: You know, it’s probably a good
thing, but I would certainly base my decision on the fact of the wishes of the
people.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: I would say it would be
overwhelmingly, yes, because they have run the laterals to both sides as I
understand. I think that we got a notice
from DEP that we were not at that point and time allowed to pursue this. Jim, how did that read out.
JIM
ALEXIS: There was not enough water
allocation. I have had conversations
with Wildwood Water Utility and New Jersey American Water trying to get them to
loosen up.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: In other words, the letter read
something like this, do not pursue further.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: You know, we do have a
situation where people like me and Walt Turnier, who
have been there for 30 to 35 years, the wells do wear
out like everything else. Some people
are asking me should I get a new well drilled.
I would hate to see somebody go to the expense of spending $3,000 to
$4,000, if in fact, we had some kind of indication
that we are going to pursue this.
JIM
ALEXIS: That is what prompted bringing
this discussion up again. We have had a
resident from the area call where their well is marginal.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: That is great. I had Dennis Lillemon
over to my house the other day because I had a problem with mine….he did a
great job of fixing it, but you know I have been warned that I may not have
many more years left on that well.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: I think they have hooked up to
people on the east side, is that correct?
I think the east side because the main is on the west side. They ran the laterals across so that when
they redo that,
JIM
ALEXIS: They may have run the laterals
under the pavement, but they may not have allowed the residents to hook up to
the system.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: The simple reason is, I would
presume, in the next year that there will be a major road improvement due to
the college such as with the James way
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: And the water does go to the
college now, correct?
JIM
ALEXIS: Yes.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Public portion. Mr. Kelly.
SAM
KELLY: On the 25th of August,
several member of the Taxpayers Association attended the regular Planning Board
meeting. There were 2 major subdivisions
that left concern at that time…those members reported them to me. I did some investigation on those and then
notified the DEP. Today I had contact
with several people from the DEP, who have returned, number 1, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Charlie Welsh from the office of Land Use Regulations
with the Department of Environmental Protection. He asked that I advise Vince that CAFRA
jurisdiction of determination have to be applied for with regards to those
major subdivisions, Block 475, Lot 33.06; Block 475, Lot. Later this afternoon Kevin Broderick called
me, of the same office, I am not sure, but I somehow got the impression that he
was the superior to Mr. Welsh, but I wasn’t positive. He did some investigation to make certain
that no such applications had been filed and said that based on the information
provided that CAFRA review is required and he also asked that I notify
Vince. I questioned that,
why would I notify Vince of that, but I tell you this is what they said to me
when I spoke with these individuals.
Both gave different phone numbers for Vince to contact them. I have those numbers in my file. Those 2 lots, so that you might understand,
are the development that would constitute 24 properties and one constitutes 12,
that are in fact intended to be joined, do in fact join and are probably, there
is at least one common owner between both developers and anyone of those issues
would be required CAFRA review, according to what I am told. Our full intention here is to try to curtail
this development. I see in that
particular area there are 2 pending options, both have 110 acres in one fell
swoop, but much of the other property in the Auction on the 15th
falls in that area. It appears to me,
that when I go through that area, and this is without doing a whole lot
homework, that there are a number of subdivisions already underway so that you
know, looks to me that somewhere from about the Whitesboro heading on up to
Mayville… fill in the dots…. so we are concerned about that, very much that
without any type of impact study being done to come in from all these
directions at one time, so anything that we can do that would impede this, we
intend to do.
COMMITTEEWOMAN
DELANZO: I have a question. Could you tell me exactly what the general
location…I’m not familiar with…
SAM
KELLY: OK, if you were at Home Depot,
and you traveled west towards Rt 47, about ½ mile to
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: They are both the same
developers?
SAM
KELLY: There is common ownership between
the 2, it’s Jerry Licata, one is his brother and he on
one, and one is he and someone else on the other, so there is common ownership
between the 2. We have an LLC.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Are they separate corporations?
SAM
KELLY: Sure they are. Ones an LLC. Ya know, I
understand what you are saying, I am not going to get
into the legal technicalities. I know what looked obvious to us and we reported
it and accordingly this is what has been said to me by the DEP from both of
these individuals today. As well, I
reported it to another group within the DEP and I am waiting to hear from them.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Well, the thing is Sam, you can talk to 6 different people at the DEP and get 6
different interpretations of …
SAM
KELLY: Well that is on most subjects, I
understand that
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: They are not very reliable
SAM
KELLY: This was 2, I am only saying to
you that it is obvious to me that it is the same developer, that it is the same
set of attorneys set there, as one was finished in his review, then the next
came up. It is an obvious circumvention
of the law.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: But in your mind it is, but in
the eyes of the law, suppose the law or the Superior Court Judge determines
them to be separate entities.
SAM
KELLY: I have had that happen to me many
times, you are right, but it won’t change the fact that it is an obvious
violation of the spirit of the law, but that some, OJ would be found guilty, I
mean are you saying that some Superior Court Judge may find that its not a
violation, I agree with you 100%.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Well, let me give you a case
and point, this is a good example. The
Township was against an airport being built in Green Creek, the Zoning Board
was against it, in fact everybody voted against it, the person who owned the
proposed airport went to Superior Court and judge overturned both Township
Committee’s appeal and the Zoning Board’s decision and while we did not get
sued, we could have been left really in tremendous financial liability by the
person, but she was just happy to get her application, so
SAM
KELLY: I understand what you are saying
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: So, we want to make sure that
we don’t get sued and put the tax payers at risk by doing
SAM
KELLY: On the other hand, that in fact,
Vince really had an obligation, because on the form that he signs within this states
that all other applications applicable have been considered. To me it looks like it should have at least
had a jurisdiction discussion, then certainly it should have appeared the same
way within our own Planning Board that it should have had at least a
jurisdictional discussion, well is it or is it not within that jurisdiction?
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: I do not understand what you
mean by jurisdictional discussion.
SAM
KELLY: Well, but Vince does. They have, it’s a fairly common term, I mean
I heard them referring to as a J bid.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: But I don’t understand what it
is.
SAM
KELLY: OK, they decide when you have
some common factors, when you have some obvious factors such as the properties
adjoin, such as common owners between the 2, such as the LLC, which is a red
light to all, well here is the information that is on the agenda and it makes
it apparent to me that Jerry Licata is an owner in both, that there is at least
one common owner, I’m not saying to you, but there is at least one common owner
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Did you ask them at the meeting
if they were common owners?
SAM
KELLY: I wasn’t there. I don’t think that we should then ignore the
possibility that this was subject to CAFRA review, this should have been sent
to CAFRA and CAFRA says that they have a process to determine if it is within
their jurisdiction. There is an
application for that that should be done, and that is all I am saying. Again, I am not sure that, in the end I have
no doubt that there is a damn good possibility that some judge will
find….because these guys are walking in, Chuck, with mirages of attorneys who
have come here to rape the land and they are going to get it done, but I will
tell you this, we are going to make it damn hard on them.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Well, do you want us to stop
it?
SAM
KELLY: I, I believe that the DEP intends
to stop it. What they are saying to me
is to tell him that nothing should go forward, they are telling me to say this,
and they want Vince to contact them, both of these individuals have asked that
because they said that if any work goes forward.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: If we stop it, do you think we
have any liability that we are putting on the taxpayers?
SAM
KELLY: I don’t know. I’m not telling you
to stop it, I am telling you that this is my instruction from Vince, and I am
not
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: From Vince?
SAM
KELLY: For Mr. Orlando.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Oh, for Vince.
SAM
KELLY: This is what was said to me of
both of these individuals, ok. And I
questioned that. I said gee that seems a
bit informal that you would advise me on the phone, a man I tell you is a lay
person, I have absolutely no experience in this field whatsoever, the little
bit of investigation that I have done makes me believe that this thing should
be subject to CAFRA review. Both of
these individuals told me the same thing and again this Mr. Broderick called me
within the hour of coming here and advised me the same thing. He said that he had gone to both lot and
block numbers to make sure that neither had had such application and that on
the surface that what he has been told, it certainly should be subject to CAFRA
review.
JIM
ALEXIS: I would think the Memorializing
Resolution is liable to send the applicant to CAFRA.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: I would like to say this. I know the location, I know where you are
talking about, I know all of this, I don’t have the
wherewithal to move forward on this. Maybe Jim you would
like to talk to John, I mean this is out of our…
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Well Vince should certainly
contact the DEP, I mean I think that is the very least
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Well, I think the right way to
handle this
SAM: That’s what I am saying.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: We have to get ahold of Vince, where is he by the way?
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Don’t even worry about Vince,
go to John Ludlam, he is the attorney.
JIM
PICKERING: I will contact John Ludlam. This is a
Planning Board application?
SAM
KELLY: Yes
JIM
PICKERING: John is the planning board
attorney, knows what he is talking about, I will raise the issue with him, he
might tell me, let me make something clear to you, to get in front of the
municipal planning board you don’t have to have your CAFRA review done. It is not a prerequisite to get in front of
the planning board to have your CAFRA approvals, so just because they were in
front of the planning board doesn’t mean that they are still not going to have
to go to the DEP and get their CAFRA approvals.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Oh, really?
JIM
ALEXIS: That is where the language of
the Memorializing Resolution comes in.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Oh, so that wasn’t a condition
of the approval?
JIM
ALEXIS: It will be in the Memorializing
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: I know, but it wasn’t at the
time because the planning board could……
JIM
PICKERING: It is not a prerequisite, for
instance in the Pinelands before you get jurisdiction
for local planning or zoning boards, you have to have a certificate of filing
first, a requisite to jurisdiction before those boards. CAFRA approval is not a prerequisite to
jurisdiction before a local zoning or planning board. In fact, frequently developers try to get
local approval before they go to CAFRA because they can say, look we have all
of our other approvals, the municipality has approved
this, now it is our turn to come upon you for your approvals. So, it might be that the developer intends to
go get a jurisdictional determination or letter or interpretation, it might be
even that they are going to go get their CAFRA approval. I will tell you that my impression is,
because of the way this is done and the number of units in each development,
that they feel that they don’t have to go for CAFRA review, but, I will talk to
Mr. Ludlam and we will determine whether or not it
will be a requirement for them to get some sort of CAFRA review.
SAM: OK, from my education, you say that that is
not a prerequisite?
JIM
PICKERING: It is a prerequisite to get
your….anytime the planning board or zoning board approve something, there is
always a paragraph that says “this is conditioned upon any and all other
government approvals.” Sometimes those
government approvals include DEP approvals and that might be the case here.
SAM
KELLY: Lets say…..lets just go to the
sky on this one and lets pretend that some developer might be unscrupulous….god
forbid I can’t believe that there would be but it could happen, and he would
get this preliminary….he would get this subdivision finalized at the planning
board…
JIM
PICKERING: It wouldn’t be finalized, it
would be approved.
SAM
KELLY: He would get it approved at the
planning board. No one on the planning
board perceives any other jurisdiction…
JIM
PICKERING: But the planning board, once
they review it, they are pretty much done with it. Then it is up to the zoning officer and the
administrator down there to determine whether or not
SAM
KELLY: The administrator where?
JIM
PICKERING: John Ludlam,
the planning board administrator of the zoning office.
SAM
KELLY: It would be the same person at
all places, that’s what I am saying.
Don’t you think though that on the surface that when you see 24 units
that that is usually a sign that someone is trying to avoid CAFRA.
JIM
PICKERING: There are probably 3 or 400
24-unit subdivisions…
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Let me play devils advocate..suppose the DEP and
CAFRA say you have 24 units and we are determining you have to go through CAFRA
approval. Suppose he revises his
application and comes back and says, OK, we will do 23 units.
JIM
PICKERING: No, 23, it doesn’t
matter. CAFRA jurisdiction, as it
currently written kicks in that on the 25th single family unit, or
in commercial properties, the 50th parking space, so if you have a
commercial property, that is why you always see 49 parking spaces in commercial
and 24 units in subdivisions.
SAM
KELLY: But it could also kick in with
just the fact that these are with common owners on adjoining lots. Then the count would exceed 25.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: I don’t know if the law
recognizes them as common owners though.
JIM
PICKERING: I frankly don’t know the
answer.
SAM
KELLY: I am not asking for legal advice.
LINDA
KELLY(SAM’S DAUGHTER) How about the fact
that they want a road to run to both developments, in which Vince did say in
the planning meeting, he said he intended for a road to run from the 12 to the
24, so that adjoined them himself.
JIM
PICKERING: I don’t know,
I am not a CAFRA expert; I have never pretended to be. When I have CAFRA projects, I get other
peoples advice. I am not going to offer
an opinion as to whether that trips CAFRA review or not. What I will do, is tell you that albeit for the people who
do know whether it trips CAFRA or not and they will determine whether or not it
does.
SAM
KELLY: That is all we are asking. Thank you, this was supposed to be a fast
meeting, so lets make it that.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: In the eyes of the law, are
they 2 separate entities, even though there is a common owner of the same
person in 2 separate corporations, does the law recognize them as 2 separate
owners? That is interesting.
JIM
PICKERING: Were the 2 parcels owned
separately before, did they come with the ownership at a separate time or were
they all part of the same purchase or not, I am sure there are a number of
factors……
SAM
KELLY: That is what the determination is
all about. You have to file for this
determination when you have this much surface, it would appear to me, and they
make that determination as to whether it is or is not.
COMMITTEEMAN
LEUSNER: Who are the
attorney’s for applicant?
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Vince Lamanna.
SAM
KELLY: I don’t have that. I thought that I did here on the agenda, but
I don’t. And again, I am just posing
this. I am not trying to pretend that I
have any legal expertise here. I am
saying what it looks like on the surface and then with our notification here
they agreed its what it looked like on the surface and at the very least a
determination needs to be made.
JIM
PICKERING: We will look into this and
our experts in the Township will decide whether or not a determination has to
be made.
LINDA
KELLY: Can I ask a question? If 2 different developers, can 2 different
developers join the area and that would avoid CAFRA law, because that just
seems like why would
SAM
KELLY: You are asking for a legal
interpretation again that no one is ready to give.
JIM
ALEXIS: If they join and they go over
the 25th unit or more, then they go to CAFRA.
LINDA
KELLY: So it wouldn’t matter if they
were 2 different people?
JIM
ALEXIS: No, it does not.
LINDA
KELLY: OK, that was my question.
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: There are 2 things that Mr.
Pickering said. Two
things that Mr. Pickering said, 49 parking spaces on a commercial, 25 on a
residential. There are only 2
numbers that you have to remember.
JIM
PICKERING: Those are 2 things that
trigger CAFRA.
SAM
KELLY: Thank You
MAYOR
DOUGHTY: Meeting adjourned.
There being no other
business, the meeting was adjourned at5:35
__________________________________
James
Alexis, Clerk