Electric Pole Placed in Driveway Sparks Litigation

STONE HARBOR – A 70-foot steel electric pole placed in front of a driveway has resulted in litigation. 
The first phase of the Atlantic City Electric (ACE) project, completed in July 2016, brought with it controversy over the use of 70-foot-tall galvanized steel poles to carry transmission lines to the substation at 60th Street in Avalon.
One of those poles has been singled out in a lawsuit.
A property owner of one part of a duplex condominium on Second Avenue filed suit in March against ACE and the borough over the placement of a steel pole that blocks access to a driveway and parking area at the property. The matter has ended up in the courts.
Eva and Michael Restuccia filed their complaint in Superior Court in early March after what their filing claims was a period in which they could convince no one at the utility that the pole was inappropriately placed and needed relocation.
Blocks Access
Court documents assert that the pole at the base of the driveway blocks “any access to the driveway and thus renders the driveway unusable.”
The owner of the other condominium in the duplex, Paul Davis, called the situation “outrageous” and cited it as an example of what “We have to go through in Stone Harbor with these poles.”
According to the complaint, the master deed on file with the county makes clear that the property has parking spaces on each side of the condominium structure. 
Survey Identified Spot
It also states that ACE was in possession of a survey that identified “the precise location of the driveway.”
Finally, the complaint states that “despite this knowledge” the utility went ahead with construction of a “substantial obstruction,” and did so “with the consent and approval of Stone Harbor.”
The complaint argues that the property owners “discovered the existence of the partially constructed and installed steel pole blocking access to their driveway” and promptly notified both the utility and the borough. ACE continued and completed the construction.
Utility’s Response
On April 11, ACE filed a response to the complaint, leaving most issues to be sorted out at trial.
At the end of the ACE reply, the utility entered a counter claim against the borough. The argument here is: If the court finds that ACE is liable for any damages; the company asserts claims against the co-defendant, the borough.
In effect, if the utility is found to be liable, borough taxpayers would share the cost of the damages.
Borough Files Reply
Borough Solicitor Marcus Karavan filed a reply to the original complaint March 20, amended that filing on March 21, and filed a reply to ACE’s cross claim April 27.
The essence of the borough’s filing is that it denies the borough “had notice of the precise location of the driveway.”
It also denies that the borough “provided consent and approval” for the construction of the obstruction.
The filings by the borough list some reasons why it cannot be held liable in the case including its immunity from such actions.
In its filing of April 27, the borough denied all claims against it by ACE, concluding with the argument that the borough at no time acted “in an arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and/or unjustified manner.”
Progress on Settlement
When reached for comment, Karavan said that progress was being made on a settlement, and he could not make a further public comment.
An attempt to reach Eva and Michael Restuccia did not receive a reply.
Working to Resolve
Comment by ACE made it clear that the pole will be moved.
“We do feel that this pole was placed in an appropriate location,” said Francis Tedesco, an ACE senior communications specialist.
Tedesco said, “At no time during our planning, review, or approval of this project, was it determined that the location where this pole was to be placed was, in fact, a driveway.”
Tedesco added, “We are working closely with this customer and others in the area, to find another suitable location for this pole.”
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.