AVALON – Business Administrator Scott Wahl refuted complaints about the borough’s handling of the relocation and replacement of an outfall pipe on Seventh Street at a work session of the Borough Council Aug. 14.
What in many instances would be just a matter of infrastructure repair became controversial when some residents of Seventh Street accused the borough of a lack of transparency and hinted that the relocation of the pipe was a response to individual interests rather than the public good.
Wahl gave a detailed presentation, including video evidence, that was designed to settle several questions concerning the pipe’s failed status and the borough’s response.
He began with the history of the existing easement, which is a product of borough action in 1980 to vacate portions of Sixth Street. The resulting 70-foot easement, with 35 feet to each of the adjacent properties, allowed borough use for utility infrastructure. It also limited the homeowners’ use to side-yard purposes only.
Wahl quoted from the formal action taken to vacate the street, pointing to language that does not allow any development on the easement.
By doing so he sought to dismiss concerns raised by some residents that the borough’s action to relocate the pipe was preparatory to allowing an increase in density through development of either a third structure or a much larger structure that made use of the easement area.
Addressing comments from some Seventh Street residents that there was no evidence of a catastrophic failure of the pipe, a claim the borough has made on several occasions, the business administrator next presented video evidence of existing standing water in the pipe. He was backed by Ken Koches of Middlesex Water, the private company that operates Avalon’s water, wastewater and stormwater systems.
Koches supported the borough’s contention that the pipe has failed and needs to be replaced. He also said it was industry practice to allow 12 feet on either side of a pipe of this sort to support future maintenance.
Wahl also explained the recusal of Councilmember Jamie McDermott, whose action had sparked some public comments about a lack of transparency concerning the reasons for the pipe’s relocation. Wahl said McDermott became involved when the previous owner of 576 Seventh St. asked for information about the pipe as part of planning for a bulkhead repair.
Having been involved in those discussions concerning the bulkhead the pipe traverses, McDermott was recused from the present discussions, Wahl said.
The business administrator said he felt he had explained each of the areas of concern that had fueled the public comments from Seventh Street property owners.
The relocation of the pipe more to the west does require what borough engineer Thomas Thorton termed a minor modification to a DEP permit. It also will disturb some mature trees and vegetation that have grown in the easement over the years. The relocation will involve a larger outfall pipe, with a fourth catch basin making for better drainage.
Wahl ended by saying the borough was acting in the interest of flood relief for the neighborhood and not in the interest of any specific homeowner.
When the public comment period allowed some of the neighbors who had been the most vocal about the borough’s plans for the relocation of the pipe to speak, there was a reluctance to accept the borough case as outlined by Wahl, but there were no specific areas of attack on the evidence as he had outlined it.
Martha Wright defended previous meeting comments that focused on fears of a subdivision by referencing failed attempts to gain subdivision approval years prior. She also argued that the borough’s relocation plans should not allow for disturbance of mature trees that neighbors enjoy looking at. Elaine Scattergood also spoke of “beautiful cedars that cannot be replaced.”
One individual who continued to oppose the planned relocation of the pipe was the owner of one of the two adjacent properties. Dan Hopkins, owner of 606 Seventh St., complained that he had not been kept informed of the borough’s plans. He argued that the borough has had a permit for 11 months that it could have acted on, but instead has elected to seek a permit modification to relocate the pipe farther west.
Hopkins has retained an attorney who used an earlier council meeting to object to the plans for the pipe, saying Hopkins would oppose those plans through litigation.
Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.
