A 52 Herald - Lantern - Dispatch 14 May '86

Undersized Lot Issue: It Lives

By E.J. DUFFY -J I VILLAS — What ever became of the pro- c posed ordinance that would eliminate the r need for hardship variances to build on isolated, undersized lots in R-3 (residen- i tial) zones with sanitary sewers? \ "It's been permanently tabled I i believe.'' Township Manager James R. t Stump told Edward J. DeWitt of Cold Spr- 1 ing who asked that question at Council's I regular meeting last week. 'No it hasn't." said Councilman Joseph I Lonergan. ! "I asked Harry to bring it up again," « said Councilman Robert F. Conroy Jr., 1 referring to township planning director Harry W. McVey and proposed Ordinance 1 85-36. * 1 "That should be coming up at the next | meeting." Conroy said of Council's May 19 '• session. , ' "I think, by not taking action, it just > avoids the problem," DeWitt said of the 1 measure that's been tabled several times since drafted by McVey in October. Unanimously recommended by Lower's zoning and planning boards. Ordinance 85-36 was approved 3-2 by Council on first reading Feb. 3. Mayor Robert Fothergill. Conroy and Councilman David F Brand Jr were in favor, Lonergan and Deputy Mayor Peggie Bieberbach opposed. SLATED FOR FINAL Council action after a March 3 public hearing, the measure was tabled for the fifth time than at Conroy "s request. "The reason that it was tabled was because Mr. Conroy wds in conflict and that had to be explained." DeWitt said last week. "For the record. Mr. Conroy was not in conflict," he replied, adding that the question of conflict has been answered and he's clear. 1 "Mr. Conroy owns two lots involved," McVey told Council before the councilman's request to table Ordinance 85-36 on March 3. The planning director said Conroy owns two 60- by 100-foot lots with his father. Those size lots would be exempt from hardship variance requirements for all lots under the minimum buildable size (75by 100-foot) in R-3 zones. McVey proposed to waive the need for variances on 50- by 100-foot, isolated and sewered lots. "But. what page is this on?" Bieberbach asked McVey on March 3. referring to his list of undersized lots (originally 67) proposed for variance exemptions through Ordinance 85-36. The lots he said were Conroy's didn't appear on that list and, Bieberbach said, she "couldn't understand why it's (85-36) being tabled." "THAT'S NOT MY REQUEST." McVey replied, "that's Mr. Conroy's." Conroy, Brand and Lonergan voted to table it March 3 with Bieberbach and Fotherfill opposed. Rescheduled for final Council action April 7, the measure was shelved beforehand. When Ordinance 85-36 was debated during Council's Feb. 3 meeting. Rocco | Romano of Cape May Beach wanted to " know why it wouldn't also exempt 40- by 100-foot lots. ^ Planning board vice chairman Frank Blasi replied that "40- by 100 doesn't apply in this case." "How are they building on them then?" asked Romano, seconded by Frank Krebs of Villas. "That question "needs addressing." Township Solicitor Bruce Gorman told Paul W. Dare, zoning board solicitor. Dare echoed Blasi: "The ordinance is clear ... it only applies to 50- by 100 lots." "But the question is..., if you're doing it for the SQs. why not the 40s?" Gorman persisted. "I CAN'T ANSWER THAT question. Dare replied, citing zoning and planning board decisions (see zoners in Lower Township News Notes). Zoners want to "retain jurisdiction" over 40-foot lots which have been occasionally handled differently in court appeals of variance denials, Robert J. Smeltzer. zoning board chairman, told Gorman. Would applicants, who were denied hardship variances to build on 40-foot lots, stand as good a chance appealing those decisions in court as chances predicted for 50-foot lot applicants? Gorman asked earlier. "No." McVey replied. "If we turn down a variance, it's been proven in court... that the township can be made to buy this property," Blasi had said. "They'll beat us in court every time, he

predicted, agreeing with fellow planner Alex A. Koch that hardship variances on certain undersized lots are "darn near rubber stamped." Carl R. DeMusz, planning board chairman, cited a Scotch Plains court case where a judge ruled that municipalities may have to compensate landowners if they can't use their properties. But the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide that question in July. "IF I HAD MY WAY. everybody would an acre," DeMusz, a local Realtor, said Feb. 3 of minimum lot sizes. "I own absolutely no lots that would fall under this (85-36)." Recalling that remark in her March 9 Letter to the Editor. Mary Baxter, vice president of the Lower Township Taxpayers' Association, criticized DeMusz for seeking a hardship variance, as C. MeMCo. Inc., to build a single-family home on an undersized (50-foot) Baywyn Road lot, Cape May Beach, Town Bank. Zoners approved that variance March 6. "In his summation of this transaction, the zoning solicitor stated in part 'that the relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.' " Baxter wrote. "The presence of salt intrusion in Villas wells, the newly-discovered presence of nitrates in wells located in other parts of the township, and the knowledge of toxic waste disposal in landfills throughout the state vehemently disputes this determination," she complained. DESPITE HIS VOTE TO approve it. Smeltzer on Feb. 3 cited zoning board denial of a hardship variance Jan. 7 for an undersized (40-foot) Adelphia Road lot. North Cape May, as an indication of zoners' stand on those size properties. •

But they granted the variance applicant, RPB Inc., an April 3 hearing when they reversed their Jan. 7 decision and approved the application. Cass Clark, president of the Taxpayers' Association, later told Council that zoners took that action after midnight when most t opponents had left. She said she wanted Council to do something about it or the association's "going to go to the Attorney General." As chairman of the township health | board, Clark was one of four members who | recommended a building moratorium in March to stop overdevelopment in water problem areas. Council, however, decided i April 7 to study municipal water and sewer j problems only. THE FOLLOWING NIGHT. DeMusz, treasurer of the Greater Wildwood-Cape May County Board of Realtors (BOR) "gaye' a report on the current political sittfation in Lower Township" at its board of directors' meeting. "Certain candidates in the May 13 election are proposing a building moratorium," April 8 BOR meeting minutes record." "Carl (DeMusz) made a motion, asking the BOR officers to apply to the state and national associations for RPAC (Realtor Political Action Committee) money in this crucial election on May 13. The motion was approved unanimously." Only one of the candidates, township health board vice chairman Earl "Joe" Klinger, had proposed a moratorium, however. But. BOR president Joseph R. Pierce told a general membership meeting April 21. "the candidates are anti-builder and (anti-> Realtor. We need to work to support

Trash-to-Energy— (From page 1) After that date, he said, the landfill would take only unprocessable material (bulky appliances, demolition waste and rubble), processed residue (ash) from the resource recovery plant, and trash for those brief periods when the plant Is closed for service or inspections. The STV study took no account of recycling. The GBB study points out that the state requires that each county achieve a 25 percent recycling rate by 1986. a goal generally conceded to be impossible Cumberland County recycles 24 percent. Cape May 2 percent, according to the GBB study. This county has about 95.000 people. Cumberland about 135.000 But because of the summer tourists in this county, the two counties have about the same annual waste flow: 140,000 tons in this county. 139.000 tons in Cumberland The difference is that this county's peaks at 19.100 tons in August and bottoms out at 6.138 tons in January "he Cumberland flow is even and would reduce the monthly fluctuation at a combined plant ^^BB estimated it would cost the counties PR29.94-a-ton -tipping fee at the resource recovery plant, compared to a $29.80 currently at this county's landfill. O'Neill said he felt that number was high because the study used an 8.5 percent interest rate which is 1.5 percent higher than current. Also, he said, it was expected "a larger equity contribution can be obtained." bringing down the cost of financing. At any rate, from the tipping fee would be subtracted the counties' share of revenue from sale of steam and electricity. O'Neill said that would be negotiated with the private owner "It can be 50-50," he said. "Some places go as high as 90-10." This presumably would be a key part of the bidding procedure to select a firm to build and operate the plant. Cumberland would have an addition' transportation cost that GBB estimated at $12.43 a ton. GBB suggested some way to "equalize" the cost for Cumberland, possibly with "an energy revenue sharing formula." Cumberland also would have to build a trash transfer station, which this county already has in Burleigh. Including both of them in the resource recovery project could be another way to "eqtiajjztT costs.. GBB said. I Private ownership and operation of the facility is likely to receive a favorable nod from this county's freeholders. Last fall , they asked a STV official if there wasn't some way to get Atlantic Electric to do it. I The utility was seen as a potential customer for RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) from the plant.

GBB ruled out any participation by Atlantic Electric, reporting that the utility had " three positions which did not appear negotiable and which would prohibit financing by revenue bonds due to the long-term energy market uncertainty." Those positions. GBB said, included Atlantic Electric's demand for "indem nification. .for all damage to its facilities due to burning RDF," the right to unilaterally withdraw from the project at any time, and exemption from all costs and risks. GBB said a private owner/operator could do resource recovery for $8-a-ton less than the county primarily because the private firm would have to put up at least 20 percenVof the capital cost, borrow less and hav^ reduced debt service It also would get some depreciation and tax benefits. "This (private ownership) would limit the liability of the county substantially," said O'Neill. "They would agree to design and build and operate a plant for 20 years at. an agreed-upon user fee. We'd be obligated to deliver the waste and pay that fee. "If anything goes wrong." he added, "and they can't accept our waste or deliver the energy, it's the owneroperator's responsibility, not ours." O'Neill said most resource recovery projects in the county are done in this way. The GBB study pointed out that "no large resource recovery facility (greater than 500 tons a day ) has broken ground" in the state so far The preferred method for this project. GBB said, would be for this county to be the lead agency with Cumberland "involved as a partner.'1 That was because, it said. Cape May County "has the more immediate disposal crisis" and "is knowledgeable about resource recovery and participated in sophisticated financing for other projects." GBB warned: "In regional projects, little, meaningless events and the wrong attitude can break a regional relationship apart very quickly. Care must be exercised by the leadership, staff and advisors of both counties " O'Neill described it as a "senior partner junior partner" relationship. Mark Everett, c^cutive director of the Cumberland Colnty Improvement Authority, said Monday he could not comment on his view of the proposal until his > board reviews it "over the next month or I so." I The GBB timetable calls for a "regional agreement" between the two counties by May 31, award of a contract by next I February, groundbreaking in December • 1987 and the start of commercial operations by July 1990.

our cause in this area," be added, according to minutes of that meeting. "He also stated," minutes record, "that there is RPAC money coming from (the) state to support this cause." m

'Nightmare ' (From page 1) Ironically, a proposed resource recovery facility would force the MUA to buy out the anyway, according to ah MUA source. THE NEIGHBORS fought the MUA through the courts, winning the right to payment for "diminished value" of their properties, but are still in court over the specifics. Long was accompanied by neighbor Louis Gudlow who said nothing. "Why is the MUA giving us the runaround?" asked Long. "They promised they'd buy us out. Then they decided to give us 10 percent of nothing." "Have you had a formal offer?" asked Freeholder-Director William E. Sturm Jr. "No," said Long. "Let us go already They put their dump on our drinking water. We spent $5,000 to tell them that, but they didn't want to hear us." SHE COMPLAINED of a "nightmare" that included an "80-foot mountain" of trash, a smell that forces the property owners to keep their windows closed, and seagulls. An MUA spokesman told this newspaper Friday that the mound can't be seen from the homes, the trash is covered by dirt daily, and there are no odors, but conceded a seagull problem "What she says is true," said Freeholder Ralph W Evans, liaison to the MUA. "They have been almost harrassed from 6 in the morning to 6 at night. She called me almost every day. I told her to bring it out publicly. We ought to do something to bring this out of the bag It's a real shame " "As the liaison to the M"A..." began Sturm. "They (the MUA) took the market value of the property when the landfill was first started and offered them 10 percent of market value." said evans. "I don't think it's quite right. " "HAVE YOU TALKED to the MUA commissioners''" asked Freeholder Gerald M Thornton. "I have," said Evans. "You have a lawyer''" Sturm asked Long "Yes." said Long, "at $100 an hour and $50 a phone call. He tells me I can't afford to have him come out every time..." "Since this is under litigation." said Sturm, "since you do have counsel, it is rather inappropriate for this board to go in any deeper right now until we know the status of negotiations I'll call the MUA tomorrow and ask the current status." "This has all been done," said Evans "I've called the MUA and said get back to these people and give them a civil answer She wanted to voice her opinion and 1 don't blame her." "CAN I HAVE a motion to ask the MUA to come in?" asked Sturm. Freeholders Thornton and Herbert Frederick seemed to simultaneously offer the motion "Are we a party to this litigation?" asked Thornton. "No," said County Counsel Harry A. Delventhal Jr. "I don't think we have any authority." "All we are doing," said Sturm, "is asking for an update, to do all we can within reason to assist them. As members of the MUA's appointing body, we want to make a sensible decision if they are making a sensible decision. " •THAT'S WHAT I'm afraid of," said Delventhal. "We don't have any authority. Before we stick our nose in, we should not get involved in litigation affecting only the MUA and not the county. Even inviting the MUA would be inappropriate. I recommend the board not get into it. I recommend Mrs. Long bite the bullet and get her attorney." "My position has not changed since my telephone call," said- Thornton. He later explained that he felt that "the residents in that area should have been bought out at fair market value from the very beginning." "I understand your frustration," Sturm told Long. "This has hit me in the last 10 minutes. We have no answer for you. We will make inquiries as to the status of it." "You have two newspapers here," Delventhal said to Long, apparently indicating publicity might help. "They won't write anything," said Long.