Preservation of Sewell Tract Sought

CAPE MAY – Cape May City Council fired another volley in a war that has been sporadically fought for decades with various court hearings, decisions, and appeals. What is at stake is a 100-acre tract of land in east Cape May known as the Sewell Tract.
Citizen groups and environmental advocates want to keep the tract from development, preserving it as a critical wetlands area which the city’s master plan also identifies as a critical aspect of its flood mitigation efforts.
One could trace the history of development and litigation back before 1990, but a useful place to begin is with a proposal for the parcel set forth in 1991.
East Cape May Associates (ECM), a Florida limited partnership, applied for a Coastal Area Facilities Review Act permit to develop 366 single-family residential units on the eastern 100-acre parcel. On Jan. 24, 1991, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) denied the permit. ECM filed suit and the litigation has survived to the present. 
The city has had various roles in the proposed use of the Sewell Tract. As far back as the 1960s, the city encouraged large-scale development, entering into an agreement to provide water and sewer mains, an agreement that itself became a subject of litigation over the years.
At issue with DEP is the ECM claim that the proposed developers are due just compensation for the tract, claiming that DEP would never grant permission to develop the property, making it, in essence, a regulatory taking due compensation.
A local organization of residents, The Concerned Citizens for Sewell Tract Preservation entered the picture early in the dispute. The organization intervened in the litigation, using its funds to advocate for preservation of the tract. Part of the city’s concern arises from the potential expense to the municipality for services and infrastructure should the tract be developed.
Most recently in 2018, a council resolution formally placed the city in opposition to development of the tract, “except for preservation and conservation purposes,” expressing as well the city’s support for the position of the Concerned Citizens.
At the May 7 meeting, the city declared itself “perplexed” at the most recent position being taken by the DEP. DEP, faced with the possibility that it may have to pay EMC for a regulatory taking of the land, has taken the position that it would allow a portion of the land, as much as 25 acres, to be developed.
In 2014, DEP made what is termed an “amelioration offer,” for the development of part of the site. For ECM the offer was not sufficient for development plans. For Concerned Citizens, it was critical that the amelioration offer be deemed invalid so that there were no options for development of the site.
Charles Hendricks, president of Concerned Citizens, said that a trial date has been set for this summer after five years of discovery.
For those arguing that the entire tract must be preserved, the DEP position appears as nothing more than a sacrifice of environmental principles in an attempt to avoid a potential large payment to ECM.
The purpose of the May 7 resolution was to authorize an appeal to DEP Commissioner Catherine McCabe “to reverse DEP current position on the Sewell Tract and to encourage and support efforts to maintain the Sewell Tract for preservation and conservation purposes.”
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.