Borough Liable for Trash Collection Bill

COURT HOUSE – The Appellate Court of New Jersey affirmed a trial court decision May 26 on appeal by the Borough of Woodbine related to its provision of solid waste collection services to its residents.
Sprawling Complex… Far From “Curbside”
Plaintiff in this case, identified as the Kiejdan Family, LLC and referred to in the pleadings as the Woodbine Manor Apartments, owns a multifamily apartment complex in the borough. The eight buildings in Woodbine Manor contain 20 one-bedroom, 72 two-bedroom and 10 three-bedroom affordable housing units.
The complex is set a block away from Webster Street, is three blocks long and there is only one entrance to the complex. Woodbine Manor uses dumpsters for residents to dispose of solid waste. According to lengthy expert and other witness testimony during the trial, it would take 286 30-gallon individual containers (maximum size prescribed as required by borough ordinance) “scattered all over the property” to equal the volume of the dumpsters. These individual containers also would need to be hauled to the street “curbside” per the borough’s trash collection ordinance, a distance of one block along a driveway itself one block long, two times a week.
Borough Refuses to Reimburse
Per the court record, the borough denied Woodbine Manor statutory reimbursement for the cost of providing waste collection through a private company, Waste Management. The borough denied Woodbine Manor the reimbursement asserting that it would pick up solid waste at the plaintiff’s apartment complex provided residents placed their trash “curbside” on Webster Street, and that the curbside collection system was “strictly a matter in its discretion.”
Woodbine Manor claimed curbside collection was impractical and contrary to public health, unsanitary, unsightly, inefficient and potentially dangerous because so many individual receptacles would impede traffic flow.
The borough also invoked the doctrine at equity of “latches” stating “the complaint was untimely filed and thus barred.” This argument was rejected by the court, holding that there was no statute of limitations or other time limits for filing in this fact situation.
Trial Court Holds for Plaintiff
The trial court, after two days of testimony and argument, held for Woodbine Manor in the amount of $55,709. The amount represents the costs Woodbine would have paid to collect at curbside Woodbine Manor solid waste for the years 2008 to 2012, with the court adding “tipping fees” (i.e. the cost per ton to dump trash in the Cape May County MUA landfill) and then entering that amount as judgment against the borough.
Requires “Curbside” Collection
Woodbine Borough based its defense on its ordinance concerning collection of solid waste that requires residents to “set out” refuse for collection on the day scheduled or the prior evening. The borough’s argument detailed provisions of its relevant code noting that the borough is a “curbside collection community and makes no distinctions concerning the nature of the residential parties” and that this provision was a “legitimate exercise of municipal prerogative and did not constitute a denial of due process or equal protection to owners of garden apartment complexes.”
Based on the parties’ various evidentiary proofs, the trial court concluded that requiring Woodbine Manor to place solid waste curbside along Webster Street was not a reasonable alternative to reimbursing the manor for solid waste collection of its dumpsters. The court, thus, held that plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed by the borough for disposal of its solid waste.
Woodbine based its appeal on its assertion that it was the borough’s decision to choose that the private company, Waste Management, pick up Woodbine Manor’s solid waste and could term and consider that service as “curbside” pick up.
“Curbside” Collection is Arbitrary
The trial court however determined that the borough had not offered Woodbine Manor a “reasonable alternative to statutory reimbursement” and that forcing Woodbine Manor to haul its trash “curbside” was arbitrary and so supported by ample credible evidence.
In reviewing the borough’s appeal, the Appellate Court, cited the legal doctrine that when evaluating such an appeal it will defer to the trial court’s factual findings particularly those resulting from the lower court’s opportunity to assess witness testimony firsthand.
The trial court held that that the plaintiff had shown that the borough’s curbside system, as applied to Woodbine Manor, failed to present a viable option to reimbursement under that statute.
The appellate decision noted that “that the trial court did, however, state explicitly that if the borough offers to collect solid waste from within the (Woodbine Manor) complex, then Woodbine Manor will not be entitled to reimbursement.”
In sum, the Appellate Court decision affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff held that “the trial court’s opinion that the borough had not offered Woodbine Manor a reasonable alternative to statutory reimbursement and that curbside collection on Webster Street was arbitrary is supported by ample credible evidence in the record and based on a correct interpretation of our Supreme Court’s pronouncements.”
Plaintiff’s attorney, David Spitalnick of Northfield, said, “We presented cases on point with our fact situation and so it was a fair decision by Judge (Christopher) Gibson to award my client the amount that Woodbine would have paid for collection. This amount pretty much makes my client whole for the money it put out since 2008 when it had to pay to have its dumpsters emptied through a private company.”
Solicitor for Woodbine Borough and counsel for the borough in these proceedings, Richard Tonetta, did not provide a comment per the Herald’s request.
To contact Camille Sailer, email csailer@cmcherald.com.