22 * Herald & Lantern 31 October '84

Sewerage District No. 1: A Presentment

'From Page 20) entered into an agreement of sale of a portion of the land to developers who intended to construct and operate a nursing home. The agreement of sale was contingent upon the approval of various applications, one being the ability to obtain sewerage service. Magnolia Associates consisted of a partnership consisting of William Tozour. David Kerr. John Vinci. Fred Schmidt and Thomas Repici. Romney Associates purchased several lots in a proposed development known as Romney East on August 5. 1983. The previous owners of most of the lots became partners in Romney Associates. The partnership consists of William Tozour, David Kerr. Thomas Repici and Roger Soens and Mario Consenza, the previous owners. There was a sewer main on the adjoining street. Somehow. Thomas Repici appeared on September 1. 1983 before the Sewerage Commission to obtain approval to extend the sewer main into the proposed Romney East development. The approval of the sewer allocation in the amount of 12.000 gallons per day for the proposed nursing home was also granted at the meeting on September 1, 1983. Fred Schmidt and Thomas Repici were present apparently as representatives of Magnolia Associates. Thomas Repici was also present apparently as a representative of Romney Associates Although Michael Vistenzo first raised the issue of the nursing home seeking sewer service prior to March 30. 1983. he asserts that he did 'not determine that there was capacity until mid-summer 1983. Yet, no formal or informal application is filed by anyone on behalf of the nursing home. No application for the sewer extension for Romney East is filed. Nor is there any communications in the Sewerage Commissioners' possession in any way indicating an intention of the Romney Association to seek sewer service. As noted previously, Michael Vistenzo made a determination that there was capacity for additional sewerage based on two grounds: (1) the K & E plant closing relieved the plant of a substantial load, and (2) the operators' reports since September 1982 indicated that the plant was operating at only half-capacity. The Grand Jury finds that the Commissioners' reliance on those one or two grounds was an exercise of poor judgment They chose to ignore or were unfamiliar with the engineering studies that found the plant ten years earlier to be operating at 24 times over capacity. Even accepting Michael Vistenzo's theory that the K & E plant was using 60.000 gallons per day; the sewer treatment plant's design capacity of 100.000 gallons per day would still be exceeded. They also chose to ignore or were unfamiliar with the operator's reports for the five years before 1982 that showed that the plant was operating at 24 to 5 times over capacity. The Grand Jury finds that a special unpublicized meeting of the Sewerage Commission occurred ^on September 1. 1983. The Grand Jury finds that although talks were in progress with the Jameswav representatives regarding their obtaining sewer service, no notice was given to them regarding this crucial meeting. Nor do the Minutes or records reflect that any consideration was given to the Jameswav health hazards when approving the other two applications. The Grand Jury finds that Co mm is . sioner Ludlam and Wescott acted prematurely and Without sufficient knowledge of the status of the sewerage system in voting to approve the two applications on September 1. 1983. Those applications were the first major additions permitted in twelve years. They accepted and relied on representations made by the applicants as to their anticipated sewerage flow, type of sewerage and other matters that would need to be considered in granting an approval The Grand Juryfinds no evidence that the applicants made any misrepresentations or gave misleading information. However, to properly do their duty, forseeing the serious consequences of their actions, it is incomprehensible to the Grand Jury how the Commissioners passed the resolutions that very night. The approval of the sewer extension to service the proposed 19 home development on Romney East is even more disturbing to the Grand Jury. First, the project was so new that even Michael VistenztBes the Construction Official only heard of the project a few weeks before. How that applicant came to even be considered on

September l, 1983 is troublesome. If the Commissioners believed that there was d capacity to connect 19 single-family homes ►. to the sewerage system, why was not conit sideration given to the numerous homes already constructed and occupied that djd— e not have sewers? Homeowners in the past if had sought hookups, but were refused n because the system was filled. Effort and i thought should have been given to provide those homeowners an opportunity to 1 receive a valuable service, s Once the construction of the sewer exe tension was approved by the Department e of Environmental Protection, based on facts and figures supplied by Michael 1 Vistenzo, the Grand Jury finds that the 1 contractor, F. W. Shawl and Sons, negligently assisted in an unauthorized » connection to the sewerage system. Thomas Repici knowingly and intentional- ? ly instructed the contractor to include the I Hy-Land Motor Inn in the sewer expan1 sion. The contractor, knowledgeable from being in the trade for years, should have i been suspicious of any such instructions. The contractor received plans and I specifications from the consulting I engineer that did not include the major lateral requested by Thomas Repici. The Grand Jury recommends that copies of any and all permits should be provided to the contractors. This would eliminate the contractor being put in a position wherein he must assume that the owner has obtained tiie necessary permits. The Grand Jury' recommends that it would be prudent for all contractors to demand to inspect all permits allegedly obtained by the owners before they commence construction. Such a procedure would have eliminated the event that occurred here. The contractor should have been further alerted to the impropriety whereas the additional work was done after the final air test of the system and after the inspectors were off the job. The Grand Jury finds it disturbing that no public official was aware of the illegal hookup of the Hy-Land Motor Inn until four months later. The evidence indicates that it was clearly visible and obvious that a pipe was laid from the permitted new sewer main to the motel. Michael Vistenzo lives only 3-4 blocks away. Yet, not until a concerned citizen contacted a Township Committeeman was the matter looked into. The Committeeman, James Alexis, who has no responsibility for the Sewerage District, took prompt and appropriate action to investigate the allegation. Michael Vistenzo, either as a Sewerage Commissioner or as the Building Inspector, never inspected the project, leaving that to the consulting engineer. The Grand Jury criticizes Michael Vistenzo for failing to take any responsible action when informed of the incident by James Alexis and for attempting to denyany knowledge of the incident until he read about it in the newspapers. James Alexis raised the incident with Michael Vistenzo a month before it was published in the papers on April 4. 1984. Such behavior and attitude may nurture an unnecessary belief by the public that a public official has something to hide or that he does not take his duties and responsibilities seriously. The public's confidence in public officials and employees needs to be strengthened. The actions and behavior of the

Sewerage Commission during the past year can easily^be misunderstood to be acts in rolluiinrrjilih favored individuals. . The public body must act openly. They must realize U* public must understand — ^why certaww-ents occur. The Sewerage oomm^sioners were in a position, according to their reasoning, to enlarge the availability of a valuable, public service. But, they cast aside anything they don't like or that is contrary to what they want to hear. Michael Vistenzo pays little attentionfd the County Health Department tests of the effluent because he doesn't think they do their job correctly. Michael Vistenzo pays no attention to the Sewerage District's own operators' reports because those reports show p problem with the plant. But, such an ostrich-like attitude does no one good. The public does not expect the Commissioners to magically enlarge the capacity of the sewer service in order to make everyone happy. For twelve years the residents accepted the fact that the plant could not handle the additional sewerage. Even if the public was dissatisfied then, there was no criticism of the Commissioners. The Grand Jury recommends that the public be kept informed of the status of the Sewerage District by the conduction of business in regular open meetings. Efforts must be made to inform the public when actions may be taken that can affect all concerned. This is one way to avoid tjie appearance of favored treatment towards select individuals who may receive inside information and thereby receive an unfair benefit at the expense of the public. The adoption of the Grand Jury's recommendation set forth in the previous section relating to the manner of granting approvals for sewerage service would have prevented the developments and problems that arose during the past year. t C FINAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury presents tne following observations and recommendations with the idea that efforts must he made to prevent the problems that have arisen in the past from occurring in the future The Grand Jury- is disturbed by the number of official positions held byMichael Vistenzo. He is employed fulltime by the Township of Middle as the Construction Official, the Zoning Officer and the Flood Hazard Officer. He sits on the Township Planning Board. He advises the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He is also a Commissioner of Sewerage District No. 1. Sitting in so many positions. Michael Vistenzo is the one and only official a person needs to see in order to obtain permis-' sion to build in the Township. This can lead to obvious potential conflicts. Michael Vistenzo voted on September l, 1983 to approve an allocation for sewerage for the nursing home pro jectr-Oh~September 8, 1983 he attended the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting at which time Magnolia Associates received a variance permitting the use of only 2.5 acres instead of 5 acres for the nursing home. Then on February ' 23, 1964, Michael Vistenzo voted as a member of the Planning Board to approve a minor subdivision and set back variances for the nursing home. He would ultimately be the person who would issue

SEWERAGE COMMISSION - Middle Township Sewerage Commission dormg iuS" meeting of the year in April. In the foreground are secretary Helen B. Westcott. left, and consulting engineer A1 Herman. In the background are, from left, commission member I*roy Westcott. president John M. Ludlan. solicitor John L. Ludlam and member Michael Vistenzo.

the building permit. Two of those meetings were open public meetings. However, apparent conflicts can arise when Michael Vistenzo grants approval in his positions as Zoning Official, Construction Official and Sewerage Commissioner. He individually determines whether a variance or subdivision is necessary. If be decides neither is required, he decides whether a seWer connection will be granted. Once the permits are issued, he oversees the inspectors of the actual construction. Thus, one man can prevent or permit building in the Township. The Grand Jury is of the opinion that this concentrates too much control in one individual and can lead to the appearance of, if not actual, conflicts. The Grand Jury recommends that the Township officials review the various positions presently held by Michael Vistenzo and distribute the various functions and responsibilities to other individuals. f The Grand Jury- concludes that Michael Vistenzo determines and institutes the policies of the Sewerage District. His presence 6n the Commission overpowers or overshadows the other Commissioners They rely upon Michael Vistenzo for their information about the operation and status of the plant and sewerage system. They further re ly upon Michael Vistenzo for guidance and instruction. Hie Grand Jury is of the opinion that Michael Vistenzo maintains too much control and power in the operation of the Sewerage District. Although Michael Vistenzo and the other Commissioners are to be commended for their public service and their desire to perform in the public's best interest, the extended duration of their terms has resulted in them being ineffective in actually serving the public's best interest The Grand Jury is further disturbed with Michael Vistenzo's personal dealings with individuals who have substantial interests in matters pending before Michael Vistenzo The appearance of serious conflict arose when Michael Vistenzo retained the services of realtor Thomas Repici to sell a lot owned by Michael Vistenzo. In December 1981 Micheal Vistenzo was given a lot by developer John Wright. On April 4, 1983 Michael Vistenzo listed the property with Thomas Repici of Aval on Real Estate Agency. On October 26, 1963 an agreement of sale with a purchase price of 521,000.00 is entered into between a buyer and Michael Vistenzo. Settlement is held on January 5. 1984. The appearance of the conflict arises when it is considered that it was in the early Spring that Michael Vistenzo first becomes aware of the nursing home's interest in obtaining sewerage service and that approval is granted on September l, 1963. Furthermore, on October 20, 1983 Thomas Repici receives approval for a sewerage hookup for another home near the Rpmney East development. It is in early January 1984 that Repiei's HyLand Motor Inn is hooked into the sewers. Furthermore, Thomas Repici reduces his commission from 52,100 to 52,000. In addition, on May 1, 1984. Michael Vistenzo lists his home with Thomas Repici and another realtor. The home, assessed at 548.500 is listed for sale at 5128,500. Although there is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing or of any impropriety, such dealings give the appearance of a conflict and will create suspicion in the public's mind. It is understood by the Grand Jury that even public officials have private lives and needs, however, discretion must be utilized. The personal dealings with Thomas Repici during the same time that be has two major projects pending was an unwise arrangements. These persona] dealings raised further suspicion when Thomas Repici visited Michael Vistenzo at his home in the earlyevening of April 24, 1984. On April 25. 19W the Sewerage Commission was to consider Repici 's Hy-Land Motor Inn sewerage application and the nursing home application Although there is nothing to indicate thdse; matters were discussed on April 24th ill* Michael Vistenzo's home, it was inappropriate to meet in such a manner. The actions of the Sewerage Commission directly affects the residents of Cape May Court House. Those actions can affect the development of this area. Therefore, it is essential that the Tbwnship Committee be kept abreast of the status of the Sewerage District. The Tbwnship Committee, as well as other Tbwnship and County Boards, have an interest in the restrictions, expansions or any other changes in the status of the Sewerage District. There must be greater * and more effective communications between the two agencies. The Tbwnship Committee has a duty and obligation to keep the public informed and in order to accomplish 'Page 25 Please)