BRIDGE

(Continued from Page 5) was the transportation supervisor, with the assistant transportation supervisor and district administration not copied.

It was unclear, as of press time, whether any corresponding phone calls were made directly to the parties to give them more urgent notification of the actions being taken, or to better coordinate the local response.

Dave Levinsky, a spokesman for Burlington County, when asked this week if there had been phone calls or even meetings to more quickly deploy resources and coordinate efforts on the local level, replied, “signs were posted notifying motorists and Medford Township and all other pertinent agencies were also contacted.”

Burger, in answering this newspaper’s OPRA request, wrote that a search for emails pertaining to Jackson Road found some 6,000 emails and that a “special service charge” may have to be assessed to this publication if it didn’t narrow its requested search parameters. This newspaper agreed to narrow its search to avoid any special service charge.

No further emails from 2021 were found in the provided documents, with the next one from the county to the township having been sent in mid-January of 2022, giving township officials a heads-up on an exchange the county had with a resident.

In that particular correspondence, Brickley advised the resident that the “bridge was closed due to significant wood rot and damage above the water line” and that the “county attempted to ‘post’ the bridge at a reduced load and keep the bridge open to passenger vehicles, but the posting was largely disregarded, and the situation became unsafe.”

While the emails obtained by this newspaper reveal the observations of a county engineer, Levinsky, when queried about what kind of vehicles were seen disregarding the weight restriction, would only say that “county staff observed several vehicles exceeding the weight limit use for

Feb. 1

To promote your March event on this page contact Jayne Cabrilla at 609-801-2392 or email news@pinebarrenstribune.com

Train Rides Through the Woods of New Gretna

Location: Bass River Township

Feb. 21

Trip to Casino Resorts

Document Events and special promotions happening locally this month!

Provided Some the bridge.”

“In the interest of public safety, the decision was made to close the bridge until it could be replaced,” he added.

As the emails detail, from late winter 2022 into spring of last year, both local homeowners’ associations and township officials, corresponded back-and-forth about receiving “lots of questions” and “daily inquiries about the bridge work on Jackson Road.”

Those apparent questions continued to come in, with Burger on June 27, 2022, in recognizing that “this project has not been started” (meaning at least seven months went by in which the bridge could have possibly been still opened to some through traffic), having informed Brickley that one resident “wants me to pressure the county for information on the work to be completed,” in addition to wanting her to “withhold tax payments until the work is complete.”

Levinsky, in a Jan. 24 email to this newspaper, confirmed that “construction on the bridge replacement” started in August 2022. He added that “continued non-compliance prompted the county engineer to close the bridge to all vehicles in the interest of public safety” prior to that time that the work commenced, and while he acknowledged “that decision extended the closure period,” he maintained (and also emphasized in a phone call before sending the emailed responses) “the span would have closed eventually regardless once replacement work commenced, and the county expects it will be finished in early spring.”

Still, more than eight months ultimately went by prior to the replacement work having commenced.

In a Nov. 29, 2022, email from a local resident, sent to both the county Roads and Bridges Department, and copied to Burger and Medford Township Mayor Charles “Chuck” Watson, a resident of a “nearby development” describes having “seen the impact on local traffic and businesses.”

“The traffic increase on the streets through many of the housing developments, especially

Location: Lumberton/Tabernacle (pick-up locations)

Details: The Pinelands Young at Heart Senior Club is sponsoring monthly casino trips to Atlantic City Resorts on the third Tuesday of each month. The price is $30, with $20 back to play at the casinos. The first pick-up is at 8:30 a.m., at the Lumberton Plaza, TD Bank parking lot. The second pick-up is at 9 a.m., at the Old Squad Building on Hawkins Rd. in Tabernacle. Enjoy drawings and Bingo games on the trip. Snacks and water are included. For more information, call John at 609-268-8951.

Find Us On Facebook

(Continued from Page 1) reportedly paid for the four-acre property.

Up to that point, however, the transaction was mired in a series of convoluted legal arguments, reflected during the course of an initial hearing in Dow’s courtroom in November (of which a recording was made available to the Pine Barrens Tribune) when an attorney arguing the case for the school board, Stephen J. Edelstein, of the Weiner Law Group, could be heard characterizing the plaintiff’s argument as “what seems to me to be a bit of the bizarro world,” while Christopher DiFrancia, the Tuckerton-based lawyer representing Blech, acknowledged to the judge that, “It’s hard to understand exactly what is happening in this case.”

The uncertainty over the status of the sale was also evident in a discussion that took place at the Jan. 9 meeting of the Bass River Township Board of Commissioners, whose members, while not being directly involved, complained about the township taxpayers having to be responsible for maintaining the building “so mold doesn’t get in there” and that it was “paying a lot of money for something that’s not being used.”

“We’re out of it as far as the legality but are in it as far as paying out of our pocket,” noted Commissioner Nicholas Capriglione. “We were hoping to give these folks their money back – we were looking at a large decrease in taxes from the sale. But they’ve just been dragging this out and the taxpayer is having to pay all this extra money for no reason.”

Those concerns were aired just two days before Dow issued her order denying the plaintiff the relief he sought.

“This has been a long time in coming,” noted Bass River School Board President Thomas D. “Tommy” Williams, Jr., when contacted by this newspaper about the reported resolution. “With the impending closing, the Board of Education will now be able to build a 2023-24 budget that will not include utilities, maintenance or insurance for a building that is now closed, which will result in a significant savings to the taxpayer.”

The budget that will be created once the sale is completed, he added, will now depend on the cost-per-pupil contract that the Bass River School District arrives at with the Little Egg Harbor district for both regular and special ed students.

The legal dispute over the elementary school sale ostensibly centered mainly around accusations that the defendant had failed to allow for an inspection to be conducted for a certificate of occupancy, or CO, to be issued on a timely basis, and to maintain the property in its original “as seen” condition, with new “environmental” issues having allegedly arisen in the time between the March 11, 2022, when the auction of the building concluded, and Aug. 25, the date when the title transfer was to have taken place.

Responding to those charges, Edelstein, in summing up the school board’s position, maintained that “the entire structure of this transaction from day one is that it should be an as-is where-it-is sale” involving no conditions such as a requirement for a CO.

To counter that argument, the complaint cited a letter from a paralegal in DiFrancia’s office asking Little Egg Harbor Township Housing and Bulkhead Inspector Rodney Tozer whether a CO is required for a commercial sale in Bass River Township (for which Little Egg Harbor is also responsible) to which Tozer replies, “Yes.” However, Little Egg Harbor Township Administrator Rodney R. Haines, who was said to be the official overseeing such procedures, told this newspaper that while the matter was still being reviewed, “it appears an inspection is not required under our shared services agreement as a condition of sale.”

But questions as to whether the school board had violated terms of the sale weren’t the only issues raised by the plaintiff. There were also allegations made in Blech’s complaint that the board was reluctant to sell the property to him once it found out he was an Orthodox Jew from Lakewood, which is a largely ethnic enclave with a distinctly different culture than that of the community surrounding the property at issue, out of concern over what he intended to do with it.

According to the legal brief filed by Blech’s counsel, it was alleged “the defendant’s actions follow a pattern of stonewalling and attempts … to stop plaintiff from proceeding with the sale that started immediately after plaintiff was announced as the winning bidder,” when “township officials and community members began raising the prospect of (his) intention for the use of the premises by Jewish people.”

Initially it maintained, “the defendant canceled the motion to approve the sale to plaintiff and only once (after) plaintiff’s attorney notified them that it would be a civil rights violation to not approve the sale to plaintiff because he is an Orthodox Jew and from Lakewood did the Defendant schedule the motion.”

When asked whether he wished to comment on that allegation, Williams said it should be referred to the board’s legal firm, which declined to offer a response.

But according to the minutes of the April 25, 2022, special board meeting at which the sale was formally approved, when a local resident asked a question regarding sale of the building, the board attorney at the time was quick to point out “that it is not appropriate for questions to be asked of Mr. Blech in public session, and it is not a question for the board as to what will be done with the school,” inasmuch as “the use of the building is of no concern to the board,” which had “no right to ask Mr. Blech what his plans for it are.” When asked why the sale of the building had not been put to a referendum to the townspeople to see what they wanted done with it, the attorney explained that public buildings are not sold by referendum, they are sold by auction.

Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, however, Blech, during a telephone interview with this newspaper (whose subsequent calls he has not returned), responded to a query about what his plans were for the facility by noting that “it‘s set up to be a school” and that “from a real-estate standpoint … the natural use of the property is educational.” But he added that “we have our ears open for other opportunities,” and that he had bought other properties from municipalities and utilized them “for commercial purposes that were not necessarily religious.”

Blech’s sentiments on that occasion regarding his relations with the Bass River community were also considerably more conciliatory than the claims of bias made in his subsequent brief.

“From my conversations with locals, I found people to be reasonable to work with and I reach out to everyone,” he declared. “I would point to all the precedents throughout the state of New Jersey that we all do well and work together toward the common good. We’re a tolerant society and we typically don’t differentiate between one’s religious creed or race.”

Blech further maintained that “We’re looking to work in a very amenable and friendly fashion,” and that he was “looking to do something nice with it.”

Some of the emails that were provided to this newspaper

Bridge

(Continued from Page 6)

Birchwood, has become significant,” the resident advised the officials. “Since many Medford residents walk, jog and run these narrow streets, it has also become a safety issue. As for the local businesses, many like the Medford Bagel Shop have been impacted due to change in residents’ commutes.”

A call and message sent to the Medford Bagel Shop was not returned by press time, but another area businessman, who wished to remain anonymous, told this newspaper that “we are seeing, on average, about a 35 percent decrease from last year’s sales.

That decrease in sales, the anonymous business owner added, has led the proprietor to decrease hours of availability, and hold off on the hiring of seasonal employees.

He also called the situation “very confusing for a lot of people on Jackson Road” due to a sign having been posted (at the intersection of Stokes and Jackson roads) that says, “road

Pinelands

(Continued from Page 2) not ballpark round numbers of what might be spent.”

Two other members of the township committee – Ronald Heston and former Mayor Jim Young – also offered their own takes on both the equity and the effects of such hikes.

Calling the requests “out of line with reality,” Heston maintained that while they might be considered reasonable if the utility was losing money, the company does make a profit, “so this proposed large increase is indeed not warranted.”

“I hope the BPU looks very close at their financial report,” he asserted. “If they were doing major water line replacements, I could understand an increase, but they are not.”

Heston also characterized the requested hike for fire hydrant maintenance of more than $300 per hydrant as an attempted “money grab by the water company,” since in his opinion “flushing out the water lines twice a year” should be considered part of its service to the community they serve, since the hydrants are used perhaps no more than three times a year.

Young was one of several residents who called for the current requests for an increase to simply be rejected.

“People can’t afford this, and I wish you closed,” causing a lot of traffic to not realize the road is “only partially closed,” having the adverse impact where “they (the motorists) don’t normally come down this road.”

Another business contacted for this story, however, claimed there hadn’t been an impact to his business, but believed it was because he offers “specialty goods” that people will strive to seek out.

But that being said, James B. Jefferson, the proprietor of two Jackson Road-based businesses, Medford Core Personal Training and Life Essential Massage, told this newspaper that the bridge closure “has cost us more than 30 percent of our gross revenue.” Between his two businesses, Jefferson added, he has lost “at least $100,000.”

“Number one, the roadblocks at the end of each portion of Jackson Road, at both (access points of) County Route 541 and Tuckerton Road,” he said of the reason for the drop in business. “There are signs that say, ‘seek an alternate route,’ and there is no drive-by traffic here. Usually, we have thousands of cars go by, but no cars are going would just say ‘no’ this time to the Pinelands Water Company,” he told the judge, alluding to previous raises in rates that it has been granted. “I have a small business. I can’t go to my customers and say I’m raising your rates.”

Rather than doing so because it has a monopoly, he contended, the company should be looking for ways to cut costs instead.

Others who spoke concurred that the requests were unwarranted and merited no consideration, some implying that they were really intended as a subterfuge to ensure that less draconian increases would be approved without any debate.

One such commentator, Daniel Lacy, who called the requests “absolutely insane,” maintained that the companies (which are a subsidiaries of Middlesex Water Company) should not be granted “an increase of any kind,” which is “exactly what they’re looking for now.”

“We shouldn’t give them anything – they don’t deserve it and don’t need it,” Lacy contended.

Sharing in that sentiment was Carol Urmson, a 25-year LeisureTowne resident who described herself as widowed, retired and living on Social Security, and not a big water user.

“I hope you will have a heart and not give them a raise at all,” she told the state officials presiding over the hearing.

Urmson said if the rate hikes were to be by right now.”

Jefferson explained the county’s taking nearly two-years to fix a 10-foot bridge span, which he contended was really a dam as far as he is concerned that passes water through a pipe for two lakes, “is unacceptable and unprofessional.”

“And they just don’t care,” he said repeatedly in an interview with this newspaper, faulting the county for the debacle, more than anyone else (in fact, Jefferson was of the belief that if the township was in charge of the project, it would have been done by now).

Brickley, on March 22, 2022, confirmed in an email that the “repair design” had been completed to allow for the ordering of materials, but noted “work will require the relocation of several public utilities.”

“Utility notifications have been made and (we are) waiting for response to coordinate the relocation work,” he wrote.

While as late as May 2022 Brickley stated in an email that the county was making “good progress” with the utilities, and expressed his optimism the project would be completed by late summer 2022, in a Nov. 29, 2022 follow-up email, a county assistant engineer responded to a resident that Verizon still had to “move their lines so that the foundation installation can be completed.”

“From there, the county crews will install concrete caps on the new foundation, followed by the installation of a glue-laminated timber deck,” the assistant engineer added. “The remaining work will be roadway items, such as paving the new bridge/approaches and guide rail installation.”

Levinsky, this past week, told this newspaper that Verizon “completed their relocation” in the first week of January of this year. PSE&G and Comcast, he confirmed, completed their portion of the relocation work in the fall.

The High Voltage Proximity Act, Levinsky, explained, prevents work from occurring within certain clearances around electric transmission lines.

“County construction crews were able to complete about 55 percent of the sheet and timber pile installation on the new bridge before they were required to demobilize to wait for the utility companies to relocate their transmission lines,” he added. “… Now that all utility lines have been safely granted, “I don’t know what I’ll do and most of my neighbors don’t know what they’re going to do,” adding that the last increase given to the company was supposedly “going to take care of the infrastructure,” but she hadn’t since observed any such changes.

Deborah Massey, currently the acting president of the LeisureTowne Board of Trustees, said she thought that, based on past history, the request seemed like a “bait and switch” proposition in which an “astronomical increase is initially proposed, the community becomes alarmed,” and the amount eventually approved is considerably smaller, resulting in people being “relieved that it’s less than what was proposed – but it’s still an increase.”

Another retiree, Kathy Henson, the current treasurer of the LeisureTowne board who recalled how “we had this big dream that we were going to be able to live on what we retired with,” ventured that the decision on whether to approve the rate hikes would set a precedent.

“If this goes through, what’s next?” she asked.

She then predicted that “we’ll be sitting in this room going after the electric company, the cable company and every other company will be coming down the pike after it.”

“So, like they say, the buck has to stop here,” Henson declared.

Concurring with those views was LeisureTowne resident Steven Supernak, who said he is 67 years old and didn’t think relocated, work on the bridge piles and deck has resumed. Once that work is completed, the bridge will be repaved, and a new guardrail will be installed.”

But Jefferson claimed he had observed that construction had paused “in late summer,” and when he spoke to the head county engineer, he was told “when they (the workers) were driving steel supports in the ground, the machine was getting too close to the wires, and it would be illegal to continue to operate.”

“So, obviously they didn’t know where their machine can work,” Jefferson contended. “Obviously, they ceased, and then contacted Verizon to have them move the wires because they are not allowed to touch them.”

While Jefferson said he learned PSE&G moved their wires “right away,” Verizon, he contended, “dragged their feet” until “two weeks ago when my wife and I saw Verizon trucks moving the wires.”

The version of events Jefferson provided to this newspaper about the utilities is the same one he posted online, noting he had even gone as far as to contact 3rd District Rep. Andy Kim’s office for assistance (though Jefferson recognized the bridge is the responsibility of the county and Jackson Road is a county road).

As for the circumstances surrounding Verizon, Levinsky, when queried, maintained that “Verizon started relocation work at the bridge on Nov. 16 and completed its work by the first week in January.” He did not, however, address why it took the utility so long to complete the process.

A message left with a handful Verizon spokespeople was not returned as of this newspaper’s press time.

“If weather conditions remain favorable, the county anticipates the bridge work will be finished by early spring,” Levinsky added. “However, the utility companies will need to return the utility lines back to their original locations before the bridge reopens.”

Jefferson also questioned in the interview why the bridge, “rebuilt” after a 2004 flood, only lasted some “15 years” and asked, “Who built it wrong?” and “Why aren’t they being held responsible?”, maintained that fellow

See BRIDGE/ Page 9 he had ever seen a rate increase even a tenth that size.

“It’s ridiculous, it’s a slap in the face,” he declared. “I would ask your honor to just deny this motion.”

Some of those who spoke chose to focus on the quality of the water being supplied by Pinelands and what they described as a less-then-engaged response to service complaints, such as meters that hadn’t be read or connected, resulting in unexpectedly high bills, even without the proposed increases.

Citing an example of such “gross mismanagement and poor customer service,” LeisureTowne resident Susan Stinson told of her attempts to help out her neighbor, who’s 98 years old and blind, after the latter received a quarterly bill of $958, as opposed to the bills of $200-$250 she was accustomed to receiving. Stinson said that after numerous attempts to contact the company, she finally got a representative whose advice was to “call a plumber, since she evidently has a leak somewhere.”

After further attempts to deal with the company, Stinson said, she was told by a representative that the high bill was the result of a new meter having been installed after two years of estimated readings for water and sewer use, and that the matter could be resolved by having the neighbor pay $80 in additional monthly installments for