Major Sub-Division Plan Depends Upon Status of Street Dedication

CAPE MAY – Harbor Village and Yacht Club is a community of 26 single-family homes, common areas and a marina at the entry point of the City of Cape May.
The community abuts a parcel of land owned by the U.S. Navy; lands which all the homeowners mistakenly thought could not and would not be a site for a major subdivision development.
The Harbor Village community is maintained by its homeowner’s association and felt secure in its assumption the association controlled any development or alteration potentials for the area.
On Sept. 19, Marmora attorney Norman Briggs, representing the association, went before Cape May City Council with a plea for assistance in the association’s struggle with a proposed development project on the Navy parcel.
A sale of that parcel by the Navy is conditional on approval for the development.
While Briggs did his best to make the request to the city a simple one of fairness to the residents, City Solicitor Frank Corrado advised council members to appreciate the complexity of the issues involved. “This is not a situation that lends itself to a quick solution,” he said.
The issues revolve around a 2011 decision by the association to dedicate Harbor Village’s main thoroughfare, Harbor Cove, to the city. Up until that time the street was private and maintained entirely by the association.
As plans moved forward with the formal dedication, property owners in Harbor Village became aware of the development plans for the Navy parcel adjacent to their community. The developer, Thomas DiDonato, brought his plan for the adjacent land to the city’s Planning Board.
In 2013, the association tried to end the dedication of Harbor Cove realizing that the street in the city’s hands might make it easier for the developer to gain access to an eight-foot strip of land adjacent to the curb on the association side.
That strip of land was necessary to accommodate the proposed driveways for the new subdivision.
Without a rehash of all of the details, Brigg’s presentation, along with one by resident Sal Perillo, also an attorney, argued that it was never the intention of the association or the city to expand the city’s interest in the street to include the extra eight feet of association property.
They asked the council to rescind the street dedication and return the street to the private ownership and care of the association.
The case has already been in the courts, and the association lost its case with a judge ruling that the city has “an equity interest” in the extra eight feet of land. That case is on appeal.
Residents claimed that the new subdivision would “force four additional homes” into their community without any regard for the association’s rules and by-laws.
Perillo said that the past administration, especially former mayor Edward Mahaney, had “a special animus for me.”
What the minutes and records of the Planning Board show was an intense discussion between the association representatives and city officials, including Mahaney, at several meetings of the planning board.
DiDonato’s representatives claimed as far back as 2013 that the association was attempting to use “cancellation of the dedication as leverage” to stop his development.
At that same meeting, Mahaney told Perillo that his actions had moved “this project to a federal investigation.”
The minutes state that the then mayor “shared with all present that there are multiple agencies looking into this application.”
The discussions were apparently heated and the issue ended up in court where it remains.
Planning and zoning concerns, street dedications, and major subdivision proposals are the types of things that are complex and use special language to address land-use statues.
What city council experienced was something different. 
One by one, property owners went to the podium asking their representatives to save the character of their community.
They spoke of their love for Cape May and their respect for how the city handles its planning and development.
Whether the council will take any action is unclear. 
Much may depend on the advice members get from the solicitor after he has had the time he requested. “There are lots of issues that have to be looked at,” Corrado said.
Talking to some of the residents as they left the meeting, showed couples, not at all sophisticated in the land use law.
Unlike Perillo, they were not experienced in the issues being debated.
For some, the association’s legal challenge and even the presentation by their attorney were beyond their understanding.
For them, there is a potential threat to their community’s character, and they went before their elected representatives to seek help.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.