Borough Redesigns Noise Law; Winery Owner Feels Squeezed

WEST CAPE MAY – The Borough of West Cape May has been designing a new noise ordinance for months. During that same time it has been engaged in a legal struggle with a local winery that happens to be located across the street from Mayor Pam Kaithern’s home.
Earlier this year, the borough brought suit against Willow Creek Winery, recipient of state funds putting most of the winery in the category of “preserved farmland.”
The borough argued that the status created a prohibition on weddings and special events frequently held at the winery. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the borough was not the government body that has jurisdiction.
The borough has introduced and passed its new noise ordinance. The winery owner is on record viewing it as a law aimed directly at them. The mayor denies that allegation and presents the new ordinance as a normal piece of municipal business, a noise ordinance like that in most of the shore communities.
The charges and countercharges that have gone back and forth between the borough and the winery date to the opening of new facilities at the winery in 2012. The winery owner says that Kaithern has a personal vendetta against them. In a legal action against the borough and its mayor for harassment, the winery claimed that Kaithern should have disqualified herself from land use decisions involving the winery because she owns a property within 200 feet of the winery’s land.
They also alleged that Kaithern performs wedding ceremonies throughout the area and that she is attempting to hamper the winery’s position as a competitor.
The borough has claimed throughout that it is merely reacting to the concerns of residents and what it saw as a disregard by the winery for local and state restrictions on what it can and cannot do in the area of special events.
The suit filed by the borough alleged that the winery ignored many of the conditions that came with its designation as preserved farmland. Frank Corrado, borough attorney, even went on record accusing the winery of “running a commercial event venue disguised as a winery.”
It was in the context of that level of conflict that the borough passed its noise ordinance, a step the winery saw as just another move directed against it.
In adopting the ordinance unanimously, the borough claims that it did so because its old ordinance did not meet Department of Environmental Protection standards. Needing “an enforceable ordinance,” the borough modeled its new law on one from the DEP. This was, in the borough’s presentation, just a natural piece of municipal business.
Since it was a noise complaint filed against the winery that failed to stand up in court and exposed the weakness in the old ordinance, it is not surprising that the vineyard sees the move as directed at its special events business. The borough denies any such intent.
With the new ordinance approved, the borough will undertake to identify and train an existing borough staff member to be a state-certified “noise control officer.” That step brings specific complaints from the vineyard and its owner Barbara Bray Wilde.
The borough’s decision to not use staff from the county, as many small municipalities do, and instead to train its own noise control officer, appears to the winery to be an omen of future harassment.
For the borough it is a practical step in the implementation of its new ordinance, a law that is not specific to farms, but rather addresses everything from construction projects to barking dogs.
As the borough readies its ordinance, a number of legal actions are pending including a state ethics complaint filed by the vineyard against the mayor.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.