Minutes of the regular meeting of mayor and council of the borough of stone harbor held in the municipal building, April 15, 2014

The meeting was called to order by Mayor Walters at 4:30 p.m.

Councilmembers

Suzanne M. Walters, Mayor Judith Davies-Dunhour, ABSENT

Suzanne C. Stanford, Borough Clerk Joselyn Rich

Michael Donohue, Esquire Karen Lane

Joan Kramar

PRESENTATION – Shivers Request to Open Street Adjourned from April 1, 2014

Borough Engineer Marc DeBlasio gave the following report at the Council’s request:

After researching this matter and speaking with the Sue Stanford, Atlantic City Electric and South Jersey Gas, here are our findings:

1.  This roadway has been paved twice over the last 8 years with the second instance being completed last year.  In my conversations with the Sue, the Borough has evidence that this property owner has received official notification of the repaving via certified mailings on both occasions.

2.  I spoke to Robert Wolcott and Veronica Town from Atlantic City Electric (ACE) regarding this matter.  I was informed by ACE that the applicant has been required to install this electric service underground as required by Borough ordinance.  ACE is proposing to utilize Kline Construction to directionally drill this service from the north side utility pole to the house location on the south side of 97th Street.

3.  ACE has indicated that Kline Construction wants to dig a test pit to determine the depth of the gas main only to avoid hitting the gas main during the directional drilling process.

4.  If allowable, I suggested that ACE consider other techniques to determine the depth of the gas main such as using SJ Gas Company's as-built information, echo testing, radar penetration testing, etc.  After reviewing our suggestion, ACE relayed to our office that Kline Construction will not move forward with the directional drilling without a test pit and that there may be some regulation that requires the gas main to be exposed via a test pit.  ACE has requested a letter from Kline Construction referencing the applicable regulation or law that necessitates a test pit for crossing a gas main.  As of this email, we have not received any proof of the cited regulation or law from ACE.

5.  In reviewing the alternatives with ACE, ACE indicated that they discussed installing an aerial service with the property owner and they did not want to proceed due to aesthetic purposes.  As a follow up to this part of the phone call, I asked if there were any safety concerns installing an aerial service to this house.  In response, ACE stated that the aerial service would be installed in a safe manner, in accordance with the National Electric Code (NEC) and ACE standards.

6.  In regards to SJ Gas Company, they have indicated that they are willing to assist in any manner by providing estimated gas main depths and possibly drilling holes over the main in lieu of a test pit if acceptable to ACE.

7.  Based on my recollection, I believe that the Borough has historically allowed an aerial service to be installed for new construction along a "moratorium roadway" by posting a bond for the duration of the moratorium with the requirement of converting to underground service after the moratorium expires.

       
   

121 97th Street Michael Donohue   to: Marc.DeBlasio@rve.com DeBlasio 04/07/2014 09:46 AM Cc: Jill Gougher

Engineer also added that the project titled “2014 Utility and Road Program which has not started construction has the provision in it for the underground utilities so that in the event that this happens moving forward that there would be a mechanism to snake or pull a line through conduit that the Borough would put in to avoid this but we have five year moratoriums to get through.

Councilmember Kramar asked about options for the Shivers. Engineer said the Atlantic City Electric is the agency responsible, the role the Engineer took was to try to give facts but also get answers to try to help the homeowner comply with the Ordinance and take in all the variables and make it work.

Mastrangelo, what would be wrong to get permission to drop a pole and they could go under the house to the house so that when they have to redo this a few years from now, they don’t have to touch the house. Engineer said that was something ACE mentioned on the phone , but that would be up to the property owner but it would address the ascetics and the safety issues. Mastrangelo looking for a compromise that keeps the street intact. When the open the street they can remove the pole.

Donohue, we can indicate that we wouldn’t object to that as a temporary arrangement , what is actually before you tonight would be a Resolution to approve the street opening, we don’t have anything before us to install a temp pole or anything like that before us tonight. They will have to go to the Construction office for any plan they come up with.

Mr. Shiver said they would be particularly upset if it did not go through as is. The amount of materials we are talking about and the only thing that I have heard in a negative sense is the fact that ascetically would perhaps not be as appeasing on the roadway itself. We have guaranteed through my contractor and myself that we would in fact rehabilitate the roadway back to the point with bonding and it is within a distance of 2 ½ feet from my curb that I am replacing anyhow which includes a food portion of the apron and the driveway itself. As far as putting a pole in, is it feasible, probably, but it would have to go between the curb and the sidewalk it still means it would have to be snaked around the outside of the house, is it possibility, perhaps. But it will not a attractive, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that we are willing to wait on three years to simply put a whole in the ground that is eventually going to go in there anyhow.

After much discussion about what lines were in the street, how deep they were, where the outfall pipes were located . Solicitor asked Mr. Shivers if he had anything to add. He said not they he know of, would prefer not to compromise but if there is an addendum to your motion that includes running a line across the street, I would consider it, not so sure I will do it, just have to leave it the way it is.

Mayor opened to the pubic again for anyone for or against the application. No one spoke.

Solicitor, as indicted in the first part of the hearing the standard under your ordinance is that the applicant needs to come and demonstrate a particular hardship for that property and monetary expense specifically in the ordinances is taken out of that hardship analysis. That is the threshold question, is there a hardship that is not monetary. The issues about placing a temporary pole are important but not part the application that is in front of you, not part of the resolution you will be asked to vote on. You can recap what was reported by the Engineer in terms of the facilities that are in the roadway and the Engineer’s observation that in order to get under that roadway with electric utility you are going to have to go under the deepest utility that is there already , which is the storm sewer. Above it is the gas main, water, sanitary sewer as well. Solicitor indicated also in the event Council doesn’t approve the street opening it doesn’t end the inquiry for the homeowner because perhaps what the Engineer suggested can be done and also Solicitor has done some research and if the Gas Company comes up with a something saying says before you can mole you have to open up the street he would be glad to take a look at it. The question before Council is has the homeowner come and demonstrated a particular hardship in regard to the property, a non monetary hardship that requires you to set aside you moratorium on this street.

Solicitor induced that the Clerk does have documentation of certified mail on 2011 moratorium on that street, with the green card returned to the Clerk, for the record, since that was a question from the last part of the hearing.

Mayor stated the Resolution is front of Council establishes that a hardship exception is granted. Resolution is in the affirmative, so a yes is to grant the permission and no would be to deny it.

RESOLUTION 2014-S-73– Grant Hardship Exception
Upon motion of Councilmember Barry D. Mastrangelo

Seconded by Councilmember Joan Kramar

Rich ABSTAIN

Mr. Shivers thanked the Board for their consideration and would appreciate help as well because we have gotten nowhere with ACE.

Seconded by Councilmember Joan Kramar