26

editorial A Bad Place The idea of having a public boat ramp on the Cape May Canal is'a proposal grounded in great intentions but realistically unsound. The suggestion was first advanced by a member of the Lower Township Mayor's Advisory Board and subsequently embraced by the mayor The idea is that the township — with the county largest population and situated so close to the Delaware bay, Atlantic Ocean. Cold Spring Harbor and Cape May Canal would be an ideal place for a public accessway to several recreational waterways. Suggested launching sites are near the Cape May-Lewes Ferry Terminal - oh at the harbor end of the canal at the foot of Wissahickon Ave TO ALLOW A BOAT RAMP in either location would be to court disaster. To launch boats directly into the canal would be tantamount to backing your car onto a superhighway in the midsts of rush hour traffic The Canal is probably the busiest stretch of Inland Waterway in New Jersey. Hundreds of boats of every description daily ply its water during the season. What is more, its switt current is treacherous. It is no place for the weekend sailor to launch his craft. ■ The Wissahickon Ave. site also has the added hazards of being adjacent to the Rt. 109 canal bridge and' directly opposite Spicer Creek. In short| a boat ramp Would be like having a driveway on a blind but very busy intersection The only way a public boat ramp on the canal would be safe as if it were in a cove.so that boats could be properly maneuvered before taking on the current and traffic in the canal proper. To place a ramp directly on the canal would be suicide. reader's forum

Opinion

^Herald fc Lantern 17 February '82

The Ollie Colie up on the marine railway for refurbishing, Schellenger’s Landing. The State We’re In 1 '. The Courts to the Rescue

Even the best-intentioned laws can get bent out of shape • by pyramiding of one policy upon another by its enforcers. Recently we’ve been treated to a pair of New Jersey cases I one involving Cape May] in which the courts came to the rescue of the laws, much to the satisfaction of state environmAtal interests. In the first and more publicized of these cases, a threejudge state Appellate Court panel ruled thabthe Dept, of Environmental Protection (DEP) had failed to require i proper environmental assessment for a project which is mow well under way. This is the Historic Smithville Development Company’s project aimed at building a 700-room hotel, 6.R50 housinR units and commercial space in the vicinity of the Great Bay-Mullica River estuary, upstream from the sertsitive Brigantine National Wil^Jife Refuge. This area had been designated for low growth by DEP under the’Coastal Areas Facility Review Act (CAFRA). Yet DEP’s Division of Coastal^Resources, the agency responsible for CAFRA, gave “conceptual approval" for the plan.

Put Committee On the Road

/ by Charles M. I.ctisnrr As a resident of Middle Toyvnship, I would like to see our Township Committee consider the concept of holding occasional Committee meetings m Goshen, Del Hdven, Rio Grande, and Green Creek Becuase our township i$ 72 square miles in size, it is often difficult for some of our citizens to attend meetings and voice their concerns or make comments about the operation of their local government . While some will say this idea i»r no! practical. I would like to offer two examples of this idea which are currently being practited in South Jersey. Congressmen William .1 Hughes operates a mobile office which makes .visits to such remote communities as West Wildwood. Del Haven, Tuckahoe, and eyen Cape May ■. '*'•. ' •• -

Point. His idea of taking government to the people has been highly successful and he is to be commanded for this concept. Also, the City of Sea Isle holds occasional City Commission meetings in Townsend’s Inlet so that citizens in the southern part of the Island are given the opportunity lo be a part of government, discuss problem^ with thier commisssioner and voice their concerns about the operation of their city. Because Middle Township is so large geographically and diverse in the makeup of <ts community, I call upon our local officials to consider holding an occasional meeting in other communities within the Township. I feel that it is an idea worth exploring. Charles M. Leusner is a.Court House resident.

CAFRA IS AN OUTSTANDING PIECE of environmental legwlation which, incidentally, was originally sponsored by our ne\y governor, Thomas Kean, when he served in tht Assembly r ^ ‘ ‘ Since it went into effect in 1973, as a blueprint for future treatment of New Jersey’s coastline, CAFRA's intent has been changed by rulemaking and' planning activities. When first conceived, coastal zone management was meant to provide a plan for making choices among competing public and private uses, for land along the salt water’s edge — oceans, bays, rivers and wetlands. The coastal policies eventually adopted do not always^ send clear signals to developers or preservationists. In the Smithville case, shellfisherraen and envirdnmen- - tal groups took DEP and the builders tp court, arguing that the development proposal was cleSrly outside the limitations DEP had set under CAFRA, and was in fact objected to by people within DEP. Administrative interpretations of the law, however, had convinced DEP’s division that it acted correctly. But the court said: "IN OUR VIEW. THE FRAGILITY of the environment is so extreme, the consequences of miscalculation so great, and the legislative intent to preserve the environment so clearly stated, that we discern a strong statutory and regulatory presumption disfavoring a.permit application for construction in regions with such sensitive characteristics without carefully documented findings as to the nonacceptability of all reasonable alternatives." The Division of Coastal Resources failed to live by its own rules, and so was reversed. And so it should be. After .all, public servants are supposed to provide for the public interest. Having clear direction and a good set of rules to live by would be much cheaper for everyone. Since many residential units have already been built in the development, its ultimate scope may hinge on further interpretation of the law and on future litigation. In the second case, the developers of Cape Mdy Greene in Cape May City sued/he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it had refused to approve federal sewerage grant money for houses slated for construction (Page 27 Please)

Giving Variances The, Rule Rather Than Exception

by Joseph J. Link The growth of a community js based on the administrative bodies that fijustijifhe cdVnmunity. These administrative entities Rave been created as a byproduct of the age of specialization, The theory is that a Jew elected officials cannot have thk> expertise in all

CAPF. MAY COUWTV

Hrralfc

John II. Andrus II K illiam J. Adams mnie Rrina Darrell Kopp

l«*l Co.p All r,gMt ) o# rtiit puMmoiio* tlaN b« p»o •*1 K*>w>l b* r«f>«odu4*tfV».IHou! poo.

DEADLINES

New* & Photos Advertising. Classified Advertising

f >17-3312 Eor News ftr AdvetlT li

NeMber panirlpallnn »d* rrUmrr* nor I hr AMI t.ANTKRS olll br rr»pofi«lhlr or

rahprintt. irpoftraphlral error*. Hr . *hr rtshl <• hIR aor iHIrr or art

Editor vertising Director General Manager Publisher

Thursday Friday - 3 p.m. . Friday • 3 p.m. ing Information] Mtahrr* of Un-IIKRAI.I. We (or mi*Information.

governmental endeavors. In our township the committee people, who are duly elected by the voters, are responsible to promote and protect the public welfare in present and future matters. These boards are not autonomous, but rather an extension of our governing body. It is not the purpose of these boards to crefite laws, but to recommend change and protect that which exists. Good government dictates that the law is^paramount, yet.flexibility should be maintained in extreme cases to allow relief in hardship situations # Let usMook at a recent decision of the zoning board. I attended’^ zoning board meeting on Tuesday, Februai7 2. In this case an individual desired d variance from the existing law. He wanted'to build on a 40 x 100 lot where the existing ordinance dictates 75 x 100. This individual purchased this lot in September, 1979, and he admitted by his own testimony that the lot which he purchased was not a legal building lot under existing township law. IN THIS INSTANCE protection should hot be extended. Per the Lower Towrtship Land Ordinance Law “any isolated vacant lot existing as a conforming residential lot immediately prior to the effective date of adoption or amendment of the ordinance." This 40 x 100 parcel was not buildablc under the old ordinance. There were five people who received certified letters and who were present at this meeting to voice their Opinions These letters are mandated by state law to protect the interest of the property owners affected by any decisions made by the zoning hoard. There were atyo three certified letters that were forwarded to the board against the variance. All eight people vehemently protested the granting of relief from local law. The nents that were presented were:

knowledge that it was not a building lot; •A party who owned a 40 x 100 parcel had purchased an adjacent lot in March of 1979 to create a lot that woiild comply with the local land ordinance; •This undersized lot is half the average size of existing lots in this area; •One owner adjacent lo this lot spent thousands on a second floor addition. He was unaware that this lot could be buildable. The deck and picture winddws will face a structure, rather,than a scenic view; •The lot fronts on a unpaved, dead-end street which would create congestion and fire safety 4tazard. ' WITH THESE facts presented and nobody supporting the variance the zoning board decided: •The action would beJabled until March 2. •Although several people received the certified letters only the two adjacent owners can be heard at the future meeting; •The lot must be purchased by the adjacent owners; •The price offered must be based on market value, as if it ware a legally buildable lot, rather than its presen* status as an undersized, unbuildable lot under the existing ordinance; •The burden of responsibility is on the adjacent lot owners whom the law is supposed to protect, rather than on the person seeking relief; '•A variance is likely if a price cannot he reached. Why are variances the rule rather than the exception at the Lower Township Zoning Board meetings? Why do we have a land ordmMce law that is supported by the taxpayers? Did the towhafrp give itself variances on undersized lots in conflict vMth its own ordinance? Do the decisions justify the facts?